User talk:Cbl62/Archive 2023

Happy New Year, Cbl62! As a fellow content creator I just wanted to thank you for your 314+ article creations this year, including the significantly important Rock Road massacre and Richard Frederick Dixon. Also, congrats on hitting your 10,000th in late June! I hope that Wikipedia will continue to see more of your fantastic work this forthcoming year.

Yours truly, 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 00:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC) (It is now New Year's Day in UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Cbl62,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lance Parrish you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Lance Parrish for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Muboshgu -- Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for this comment. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to apologize Beanie. While we disagreed about an AfD, I respect your passion and understand your frustration. Hope we can catch up on recent events at ANI when I return from my honeymoon later this week. 22:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

February songs

my daily stories

Congratulations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

today's story: the regional festival - DYK of 13 years ago ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel (TFA by Amitchell235), and I made a suggestion for more peace, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate you taking the time to write articles for several of the coaches in that WT:CFB post. I've currently got to write Harry Bolick and perhaps Dan Basaembombo (when I see a great name, and the person is notable, I just have to write about them) but after that I can help you out. Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @BeanieFan11: Happy to help. This is a useful project you have initiated. I'll leave Bolick and Basaembombo to you. Cbl62 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've finished those two, so now I can get to the coaches. I plan on knocking out soon Oliver C. Dawson, Lonnie McMillan, Madeo Molinari, C. A. Clingenpeel, and perhaps Charles Lappenbusch, so I'd appreciate if you could reserve those for me. Keep up your excellent work! BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For all the great work you do saving articles at AfD. I very much appreciate your work in finding sources and helping to save articles that end up on the chopping block. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wjemather has been unnecessarily undoing good edits from editors (myself and others ) for three years now. Editors have tried reasoning with that person over time, but that person does not want to listen. Several people in private chats have expressed their frustration with that person, simply because they don't know where else to turn to talk of their frustration.

That person's behaviour has not only been unproked, unneeded undoings of valid edits that no one else has ever had a problem with, but hypocritical also; the list is long of the times that that person would spitefully undo the very same type of edits that they themself have done before, throwing logic out the window. In other words, it's okay for themself, but not for others.

One other behaviour that makes that person unreasonable is making things up on the spot: An editor will do a good edit in the traditional way, but then this person in question will undo the edit with the excuse (paraphrasing), "Just because this is the traditional way is not an excuse to keep doing it that way.".

Trying to reason with that person has failed for years with many who have tried.

I've been editing on Wikipedia since 2007 and had never had any real problems from an editor until that one. I've been doing the same type of edits in the same way since the beginning, and in early 2020 that person came along and decided to be the first to take their own personal feelings and force feed them onto the Wikipedia community with uncalled for retractions that no one else had ever had a problem with. Nitpicking at every single turn, unJusifiably.

Most of that person's edits are undoings,, not additions, meaning the main purpose that person has had over the last three years has been to unneededly undo other people's edits, even when having to make up a reason to do so.

Simply to spite me, that person went and undid a good edit of mine on a page concerning a topic that they no absolutely nothing about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_State_of_the_Union_Address&type=revision&diff=1063538815&oldid=1063093800

Also last year, that person went back on a previously agreed upon standard for preparing the WGC MATCH Play page, one in which that person had willingly agreed to the year before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_WGC-Dell_Technologies_Match_Play&diff=1079435859&oldid=1079434098

It gets worse, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't; If you do an edit one particular way, that person undoes it and criticizes you, but then if you do the edit the opposite way, that person still undoes it and criticizes you.

I would have to go and do weeks' worth of finding and citing all the examples of that person's gross, uncalled for undoings. For now, I will show a few recent examples of the kinds of edits that no one else ever had a a problem with, but this person is hell bent on interfering with anyway:

Undoing a perfectly good preparation that is done each week on the PGA Tour, for no reason ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masters_Tournament&type=revision&diff=1141795948&oldid=1141795855

Undoing more preparation that is done as a normal thing in Wikipedia, for no reason ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AThe_Masters_champions&type=revision&diff=1141796145&oldid=1141796054

And those are only two examples of a half a dozen interference type of undoings in the last 24 hours. It takes time and trouble to go and post these here, so I'll stop there for now.

Other times, that person will try to get a page deleted, because in their OPINION the page was made "too early", something of which no one else has ever been known to complain about in recent years. There are links to show proof of this.

After three years of constant interference of spiteful, uncalled for undoings, we will not tolerate it any longer. I have been on here for sixteen years without serious trouble for 13 of them. Over the last three years, this constant hypocritical and unneeded interference won't be tolerated. Even the simple act of letting that person know, they lash back as if you are wronging them in some way, playing the victim.

Since no one has been able to get through to them because of their unreasonableness, we hope maybe you could have a chat with them to see if you can get through. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dominique Brown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Kelly.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cbl. I'd like to know your opinion on this. Do you think this was an acceptable removal from the list? That participant was given an entry in his country's national biographical dictionary and should have automatic notability under ANYBIO. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, do you think removing the two in this edit was acceptable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that items on that list should only be removed when the criteria for removal is meet, which is plausible GNG compliance; I don't see any reason to apply different criteria while the discussion is ongoing. However, in deference to your position, I am not objecting to the removal of articles where only one source has been added but it contains extensive coverage.

More relevantly, per WP:TPO you may not edit others comments without their permission; the article you removed I had already reverted, so my permission does not exist for its removal unless its sourcing status change. Please undo your edit. BilledMammal (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @BilledMammal: I am not following your citation ofWP:TPO. This is a list of athletes falling within the scope of your proposal. You previously stated that others were free to amend the list. Are you now declaring yourself to be the sole emperor of the list? Cbl62 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  TPO applies because it is my proposal, but others are free to amend the list within limitations. Because the inclusion criteria is so conservative if we rely on that to determine which articles are removed from the list then it is liable to being gamed; in particular, some of BeanieFan11's removals have been objectionable, such as when they removed an article after making an edit larger than 200 bytes but not adding any sources. BilledMammal (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in particular, some of BeanieFan11's removals have been objectionable, such as when they removed an article after making an edit larger than 200 bytes but not adding any sources. – I only did that once and afterwards realized why it could be viewed as an issue – since then I've only been removing ones that I've added additional coverage to. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples include Defkalion Rediadis, where you used machine translation (I assume, based on your user page, that you do not speak Greek) to copy content from the Greek article, apparently without checking the sources, as one is an obscure offline resource and the other is a deadlink. BilledMammal (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

others are free to amend the list within limitations What are your proposed limitations? And if "others are free to amend", how can there be a violation of TPO? Also, based on my review both Roland Spitzer and Edward Greene (sport shooter) now have at least one example of SIGCOV and are out of scope for your proposal. They should plainly be removed. Don't let stubbornness get in the way of what is otherwise a reasonable proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I described above; either plausible GNG compliance, or the addition of a single but extensive source. The violations come from stepping outside the limitations.

The easiest and least disruptive way to resolve this is as JoelleJay suggested. BilledMammal (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. The easiest and least disruptive way to resolve this is to non-controversially remove entries that no longer fit the premise of the proposal. Articles with SIGCOV and not based exclusively on databases don't fit the premise. If the pool of articles within scope drops from 1,000 to 950, that is a good thing, as (i) the remaining 950 get removed from main space, and (ii) the 50 that have been improved remain subject to normal AfD processes if someone thinks they don't meet the GNG bar. But we should only be applying the drastic mass-draftification process to articles which are clearly within scope. Cbl62 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: You have been referenced here so I am pinging you if you care to add anything. 19:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the proposal is that articles that started in scope move out of scope when they plausibly comply with GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Read your own proposal. The proposal was to draftify articles that lacked SIGCOV and were based solely on databases. If articles have been improved and no longer fit that scope, they should be removed. Why must you be so stubborn? Cbl62 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal was a good one based on that scope. If some articles have been improved to take them out of scope, you should take a bow as your proposal has resulted in these improvements. Don't be stubborn. Cbl62 (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:James Brooker.png, 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. Thank you. Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your proposal, I was wondering if you were going to notify the boxing WikiProject about the discussion? isaacl (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Isaacl: Done. Cbl62 (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 April 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gene Derricotte, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 03:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on your many edits adding the various math rating systems to CFB team season articles.

Have you considered adding Litkenhous Ratings, Williamson System etc., to the season football ranking pages?

• 1948 NCAA football rankings

I added the Houlgate System for 1938:

• 1938 NCAA football rankings

Those pages have been focused on the AP and Coaches Poll, but there's no reason the notable math rankings shouldn't be listed. Perhaps just the top X teams from the final poll, with a link to the full rankings.

Those pages also aren't created prior to 1936... the math systems would allow creation back to at least 1924 NCAA football rankings.

PK-WIKI (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @PK-WIKI: Thank you. And yes, I agree it would be useful to add other significant raters (e.g., Litkenhous, Wiliamson) to the annual ranking articles. Let's add that to our "to do" lists. Cbl62 (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing I like most about Litkenhous is the depth of the rankings, including as many as 600 teams in a given year. The deep rankings provide another measure of which teams are sufficiently important to warrant stand-alone articles. Cbl62 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to suggest the same thing that PK-WIKI just did, expanding the yearly ranks articles to include the Litkenhous Ratings. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @PK-WIKI: @Jweiss11: See 1939 NCAA football rankings which now include Boand, Dickinson, Litkenhous, Williamson. Cbl62 (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good. If you find good contemporary citations for any math system's final rankings, please also consider adding that citation to source the table year at that math system's page.

  I've completed that for Williamson System already, but Litkenhous Ratings is missing many. Boand System is sourced almost entirely to the NCAA book, which has been proven to be wrong in many cases.

  PK-WIKI (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have chose you randomly to ask you to have a look at my ANI request made days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Arkenstrone: baseless accusations. Veverve (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you just built standing templates for a couple more pre-1956 Ivy League seasons. Seems that before 1956 the Ivy League was not an official conference, but more of a convention used by journalists. This appears to be similar to the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference (PSAC) from 1936 to 1950. I just built out the PSAC standing templates for those years. Many of the cited sources refer to a "mythical championship" for those yeas, although the champs for those years are listed in the PSAC record book: pages 36 and 37 here. The Ivy League record book doesn't list anything before 1956. Should we do anything to note in the templates and articles that pre-1956 Ivy League and pre-1951 PSAC were not real conferences? Also, should we recognize champs for the Ivy League before 1956 or just simply list the standings with no champ? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jweiss11: I started the process of creating Ivy League standings templates last year with Template:1941 Ivy League football standings and Template:1946 Ivy League football standings. (I think we had a discussion about it then.) It is true that the Ivy League didn't become "official" as an organized entity until 1956, but it was nevertheless a real thing for years prior to that. There is lots of support for it being real prior to 1956:

The annual NCAA guides for prior years recognized the "Ivy League" as a real thing. This lends considerable legitimacy.

Contemporary newspapers also recognized the Ivy League as a real thing, including regular reporting on Ivy League standings, Ivy League champions, Ivy League statistics, etc.

The schools themselves recognized the cohesiveness of the group, scheduling games against each other as a cohesive unit for decades prior to 1956.

As an aside, the separate Ivy League standings also serves to alleviate the serious overcrowding we have with pre-1956 Eastern independents templates.

I think the proper place to discuss the commencement of the "official" status of the Ivy League is in the article on the Ivy League. I suppose some mention could also be made in individual team-season articles if someone cared to do that, though it seems like a lot of effort for little benefit. As for a notation in the standings templates themselves, what did you have in mind?

I don't have the energy to prepare and fully implement all of the standings, so I welcome any help you may wish to offer. Cbl62 (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that a note in the footer of these standing templates could be added in cases where the conference was unofficial or informal. But may that's not necessary. However, the lead of articles like 1955 Brown Bears football team definitely need to be edited as it's at odds with the infobox. Non-conference indicators should also be added to the schedule table. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, when you creat categories like Category:Alfred Saxons football seasons, don't forget that Category:College football seasons by team should also be a parent category. And the main program category should get a sort key so that Category:Alfred Saxons football seasons sorts under S in Category:Alfred Saxons football. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K. Will try to remember. Cbl62 (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any information you can find regarding this team during WWII? Thanks- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: has been doing a great job on WWII teams recently. Pinging him as well. Cbl62 (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, thanks for the ping. UCO2009bluejay, I just created 1942 Will Rogers Air Base Eagles football team and updated Draft:1942 Central State Bronchos football team accordingly. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1943 North Texas Aggies football team, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1943 North Texas Aggies went from "kitchen maid" to "queen of the ball" when the Marine Corps sent players from major universities "tumbling onto" the campus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1943 North Texas Aggies football team. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1943 North Texas Aggies football team), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article named Little Three. Should we move it to Little Three Conference? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I was not aware. I'm not sure which is more common. I'll try to look into it. Cbl62 (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For helping me expand Norma Hunt out of AfD, I award you the Rescue Barnstar!! Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:BeanieFan11 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Cbl62 to be Editor of the Week for his immense contributions to the encyclopedia. I recently looked at the list of recipients and was stunned to not see him; Cbl62 has written over 10,000 articles over a span of over a decade, with many being of high quality. He has numerous good articles and has over 1,000 DYKs, placing him sixth all-time in the latter category. He has hugely improved Wikipedia's coverage of American football, and in my opinion may be the greatest editor in that topic area ever; if I had to select members to a Football Editor Hall of Fame, Cbl62 would be my first choice. He has saved countless articles from AFD and has done immeasurable work relating to the Michigan Wolverines. Cbl62 100% deserves this award. This nomination was seconded by theleekycauldron.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

A Fan

Cbl62

Editor of the Week for the week beginning June 18, 2023

16 year veteran that makes immense contributions to the encyclopedia. Has written over 10,000 articles over a the last decade, many of the highest quality and has over 1000 good articles placing him sixth all-time. Has hugely improved Wikipedia's coverage of American football, and may be the greatest editor in that topic area ever. Has saved countless articles from AFD.

Recognized for

DYKs

Notable work

Michigan Wolverines

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Buster7, much appreciated. Cbl62 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, I noticed a few of your edits removing the stadium capacity from Michigan season articles. The infobox at Michigan Stadium lists 107,601 as the current capacity and also shows a series of historical capacities. When Michigan counts attendance, they count every person who walks into the stadium on gameday, not just ticketed spectators, so the attendance is going to exceed the "capacity", which is the number of seats for sale. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I removed for two reasons. First, it's not sourced. Second, it's plainly inaccurate to say that the "capacity" is 107,601 when the stadium regularly seats in excess of 111,000 for football games. Finally, "capacity" and "number of seats for sale" are completely different concepts. See Seating capacity ("Seating capacity is the number of people who can be seated in a specific space"). Cbl62 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the second point, what you think about these sources:

• https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2018-07-30/25-biggest-college-football-stadiums-country
• https://www.si.com/college/michigan/football/michigan-wolverines-football-stadium-ann-arbor-ohio-state-penn-state-big-ten-attendance ("Although the official seating capacity is listed at 107,601, the Big House routinely hosts crowds in excess of 110,000 fans")
• https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/wolverines/2015/08/07/michigan-football-stadium-capacity/31279983/ "The University of Michigan announced today that the iconic stadium's capacity will be reduced this season to 107,601, a loss of 2,300 seats due to re-configuring for non-football events and compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The capacity was previously 109,901."

Jweiss11 (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is just not accurate or factual to say that the "capacity" is 107,601 when we know as a matter of verifiable fact that the stadium seats well in excess of that figure for each and every game. Such usage is completely inconsistent with accepted definitions of both "capacity" and "seating capacity". For example:

• Wikipedia defines "seating capacity" as "the number of people who can be seated in a specific space"
• Cambridge Dictionary defines "capacity" as "the total amount that can be contained or produced ... The game was watched by a capacity crowd/audience of 50,000 (= the place was completely full)."
• Oxford defines "capacity" as "the number of things or people that a container or space can hold... They played to a capacity crowd (= one that filled all the space or seats)."

Cbl62 (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Stadium has a "seating capacity" of 107,601—it can seat 107,601 customers in seats that are sold to fans. The reported attendance of 111,083 on October 29, 2022 included 107,601 (or close to it) fans plus Blake Corum, who walked through the gates that day, as did the rest of players and personnel for both Michigan and Michigan State, plus Sean McDonough, Todd Blackledge, Molly McGrath, and hundreds of other media personnel, plus hundreds of facility personnel, police officers, etc. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Not following that at all. And do you have a source for that? Cbl62 (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see: https://www.michigandaily.com/uncategorized/explained-how-big-houses-attendance-calculated/. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a 15-year-old piece written by a student based on a conversation with an unnamed staff member. Even if it said what you think it says (and I don't think it does), the seats filled by, for example, large marching bands and journalists, are part of the stadium's seating capacity, as described in the definitions I cited above. You overlook the clear fact that a stadium's "seating capacity" (i.e. "the number of people who can be seated") includes seats used by band members and journalists and is not the same as "tickets available for sale to the public". Cbl62 (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly missing the point that the authoritative sources state Michigan Stadium's "capacity" as 107,601 (as of the 2022 season), while the official attendance, as stated by authoritative sources, routinely exceeds that figure. Do you want Wikipedia to not report Michigan Stadium's capacity as 107,601? Michigan Stadium appears not to be unique here. Ohio Stadium has an official capacity of 102,780, but home attendance in 2022 exceeded that figure several times, topped by 106,787 for the Michigan game. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to your own "authoritative" sources, the 107,601 figure is "at best" a "paid" capacity figure, but it does not include unpaid seats filled by band members, journalists, and other dignitaries. Saying that the "capacity" of the stadium is 107,601, without any explanatory context, and when the attendance well exceeds that number every week, is misleading at best and wholly inconsistent with Wikipedia's own definition of seating capacity. If you insist that the 107,601 figure is to be included, there must be sourcing and also an explanatory note. Cbl62 (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're putting "authoritative" in scare quotes here when the sources in question are the NCAA, Sports Illustrated, and the Detroit Free Press. ESPN also reports, for example, for last year's Michigan vs. Michigan State game attendance of 111,083 and stadium capacity of 107,601; see: https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401405125. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you object to including sourcing and an explanatory note? Cbl62 (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously don't object to sourcing in general, although sourcing is generally not appropriate in an infobox. Sourcing should be placed in the body of the article. As for an explanatory note, no, I don't think that's necessary in this case. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information needs to be sourced. If it were in the body of the article, it could be source there. If it is to be re-insertedd only into the infobox (which is questionable since the infobox isn't supposed to be the repository of facts not laid out in the body), then it needs to be sourced there. Also, given the bizarre circumstance where the stated "capacity" is significantly lower than the week-to-week regular attendance, an explanatory note is needed to avoid misleading readers. On what basis to you object to these points? Cbl62 (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the resident "one-game in the NFL" editor, what are your thoughts on Don King (defensive back)? I rescued it from prod, but haven't found a ton on Newspapers.com. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• User:BeanieFan11 is a more effective "one-game in the NFL" editor, so I've pinged him. As King played in the modern era, at a high-profile position (DB), and for a decent program (SMU), I'd expect to find some SIGCOV, particularly of his college career in the Dallas-Fort Worth papers. Cbl62 (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take I look. I highly expect to find SIGCOV, as he was a starting QB for SMU and this mentions him as "the most dangerous player in the SWC," although there seems to have been several other famous Don Kings at the time so that complicates things. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full-page feature from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good one. Better than this which was the best I found. Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • He was the first-team All-SWC QB in 1984 FWIW. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Busy currently so I can't look for any more, but at least we've got one in-depth SIGCOV piece so far. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cbl62 and BeanieFan11, I felt like there should be something there! Thanks for looking into it. I add both sources filled out in the citation template to the talk page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pug Lund, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that College Football Hall of Fame inductee Pug Lund received his college degree 62 years after enrolling at the University of Minnesota? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pug Lund. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pug Lund), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion that Polly Wallace might be a conflation of two people with the same name. 1) "Leigh" Polly Wallace, 1920 All American, who played at Iowa State for three years. (1917, 1920, 1921) (Cornell IA, 1924 coach) and later became a wrestling coach at OU and Pollock Wallace [1]page 195[2] who also played football at OU from (1924-26). Do you have any thoughts on this? Six years of eligibility in the MVIAA seems like a lot.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @UCO2009bluejay: I think you may be right. The most persuasive point is that the first one has the given name "Leigh" while the second one has the given name "Pollock". My Ancestry.com subscription expired but it does show a lot of records for Pollock August Wallace in Oklahoma that may be the second person. This probably should be split out. Cbl62 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The logical next question is, how do we know which parts and accomplishments subsequently to 1926 belong to whom? Any advice on how to split this?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I still had Ancestry as that would be a helpful resource. Obituaries from Newspapers.com might help as well. I will take a look. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one for Leigh Wallace this. Cbl62 (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And some more: this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the two were brothers and that Pollock A. Wallace was the older, and that Leigh was sometimes referred to as "Little Polly". See here. This article goes a long way to clearing up which was which. I've deleted a bit from the "Polly Wallace" article that now clearly seems to relate to the older brother, Pollock. Cbl62 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Conclusion: I have doubts as to whether Pollock passes WP:GNG. Probably best to just clean up the existing article to eliminate parts that were wrong -- which I think I've now accomplished. If you have further thoughts, let me know. I will then move this discussion to the Polly Wallace talk page in order to preserve the discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought one was an All American at ISU in 1920 and the other an All-American at OU in 1926? Don't all All-Americans achieve notability?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pollock was a third team All-American pick by the AP. We'd have to see some SIGCOV to warrant a stand-alone article on him. Cbl62 (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		I honestly was thinking about presenting this yesterday after your help with Polly Wallace. You have always been helpful when I asked for information about articles. Thanks. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and you're welcome. Cbl62 (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles you created, 1939 Slippery Rock Rockets football team and 1936 Baldwin–Wallace Yellow Jackets football team, have a citation from College Football Data Warehouse. However, in both these references, the URL is for Special:Watchlist. What happened? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward-Woodrow: Since my watchlist is not CFDW, it sounds like I made an oopsie. Cbl62 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 July 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mel Wakabayashi, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 19:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dick Wildung, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Minnesota's Dick Wildung played for back-to-back national championship teams and was twice selected as a consensus All-American? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dick Wildung. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dick Wildung), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Poppy Garden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that none of the actors in Poppy Garden, a film depicting a father and son's struggle for survival during the Colombian conflict, had previously acted in a film? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Poppy Garden. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Poppy Garden), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cbl62!

Just wanted to let you know that I think the Football biography cleanup is a fantastic idea. Its parameters are clearly defined and everything is set up very neatly. I think it's a great way to encourage the salvaging of these articles. Please let me know if you ever do anything like this again in the future. Also, are there any awards or milestones that you had in mind? Maybe you could put a percentage bar at the top of the page to show a complete picture of the projct's completion. Just a cuppla ideas... Cheers! JTtheOG (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think some sort of award system could help encourage the effort. Maybe one for improving X or Y number of articles? Cbl62 (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's an interesting idea to explore. I was also wondering if you could help me figure out the background color situation for the Canadian football section. I see that it uses slightly different code than the previous sections and I'm not sure how to apply the color to the fourth row. JTtheOG (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hey man im josh: I'm not sure why the color coding doesn't work in the Canadian section. So I'm pinging Hey man im josh, as he added the dynamic numbering to the Canadian chart. Cbl62 (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      In hindsight, I don't think adding the dynamic row numbering was the best choice given how much the table was going to be modified. One of the pains of adding those is that, when you do so, you're unable to use the equal sign without putting the squiggly brackets around it. That means that every instance of "=" becomes "=".

      The first row of the American football (pre-1950) is:

      |1||bgcolor=#FFE5B4|<s>[[Joe Abbey]]</s>||1185||2006 (Phbasketball6)||Bears/Bulldogs E (1948)||Cbl62
      

      To get the same to display on the Canadian football table, you'd use:

      |_row_count||bgcolor{{=}}#FFE5B4|<s>[[Joe Abbey]]</s>||1186||2006 (Phbasketball6)||Bears/Bulldogs E (1948)||Cbl62
      

      I think it makes sense for me to undo these changes, as users wouldn't normally expert the squiggly lines around an equal sign to be necessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      After giving it some thought throughout the day I went ahead and removed it. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused but I'm sure you both understand what I was trying to do. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. I liked it. Cbl62 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too, but for the down and dirty purposes of the list I thought it might be best to have people not second guess why their background colour isn't applying. By all means, feel free to revert. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it intact for now. I went ahead and reverted and added the color to the one line that's complete. Cbl62 (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your edits on Herbert Sturhahn. However, it would be helpful to coordinate editing of CFHOF biographies via the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/CFHOF article improvement campaign as referenced at WT:College football. There are quite a number that need attention. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dmoore5556: Agreed. I had alreaady done some research on Sturhahn and, so, added it to what you had done. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thank you. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article George Munday, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that George Munday became known as "Sunday" Munday while playing in the National Football League? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George Munday. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, George Munday), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lorenzo White, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lorenzo White was the first player to rush for 2,000 yards in a season without winning the Heisman Trophy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lorenzo White. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lorenzo White), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Martha Holliday, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 1940s pin-up photograph (shown) of dancer and actress Martha Holliday reportedly "created a near-panic in the United States Senate"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Martha Holliday. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Martha Holliday), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 19,852 views (1,654.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charlie Gray, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Major League Baseball pitcher Charlie Gray was billed as his team's pitcher "of six fingers and six toed fame" and called "a freak" by the Sporting Life? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charlie Gray. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Charlie Gray), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cbl62. I'm thinking about taking C. O. Brocato, an article I recently got to good article status, to WP:FAC in the near future. I want to get the opinions of several experienced editors first, and your one of the first on my list - would you be willing to take a look and tell me what you think about its chances or anything you think should be changed? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Beanie, the article looks quite good to me. That said, I've never involved myself with the "featured article" process, and so I'm probably not a good one to give input on that. Good luck with it. Cbl62 (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)\[reply]

On 12 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Frances Vorne, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a photograph of Frances "The Shape" Vorne wearing a swimsuit made from remnants of a captured Nazi parachute (pictured) was one of the most sought-after pin-ups of World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frances Vorne. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Frances Vorne), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

—Kusma (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Miracle of the Bells (book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the best-selling novel of 1947 was described by Time magazine as "one of the worst ever published"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Miracle of the Bells (book). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Miracle of the Bells (book)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scott Reppert, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that College Football Hall of Fame inductee Scott Reppert was a three-time Little All-American at running back and an Academic All-American in the classroom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scott Reppert. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Scott Reppert), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over the next few days, I'll be uploading photographs that have to do with Big Ten football in 1923. I've uploaded c:File:The Aggies Tackle Hard vs. Maroons.jpg and c:File:Jimmy Pyott, University of Chicago football captain, 1923.jpg. I've added James Middleton "Jimmy" Pyott to Wikidata d:Q122818879. One thing that I was unable to find out is who Law was in the Aggies Tackle Hard photograph, he appears to have been a quarterback but maybe not a starting one? Abzeronow (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzernow: My best suggestion would be to check the M.A.C. yearbook for 1924; it is likely to include full name and position for each of the letter winners on the football team. Alternatively, a newspapers.com search might reveal something. Cbl62 (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have said that Law was a member of the University of Chicago team, not M.A.C. (which would later become known as Michigan State University). I guess I could try to find him via yearbooks or newspapers.com. Also just uploaded c:File:Michigan Wolverines captain Harry Kipke.jpg and added a Harry Kipke category to Commons. (He had a brother who played end for M.A.C. named Ray) Abzeronow (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An update, I found out that Law is named Fred Law in a few newspaper articles from 1923. Abzeronow (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Selene Mahri, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Finnish-American model Selene Mahri (pictured) married three millionaires and is credited with inventing the saying "Marriage is a question of give and take. You give. I take"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Selene Mahri. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Selene Mahri), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 35,260 views (1,469.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cbl62, would you be willing to clip a few Newspapers.com articles for me? Currently for all users through the Wikipedia Library the website is unavailable, see here. If I remember correctly, you said once that you pay for access and thus do not have to go through the Wikipedia Library - do you still have access to the website, and if so, could you clip a few articles for me? For the articles I'd like clipped, could you do for Kana'i Mauga 1 (here) 2 (here) 3 (here) 4 - Keenan Isaac (here) 1 (here) - Chris Glaser 1 (here) 2 (here) 3 - Shyheim Carter 1 2 3 4 5 (as well as any additional parts to any of the aforementioned links)? I would greatly appreciate it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a few (see "here" parentheticals above). Will do more tomorrow. Cbl62 (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did a couple more. Cbl62 (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you do the Carter clippings soon? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Beanie, I've been in travel mode the last few days. Returning to the USA today. I should be back to regular business by Monday. Cbl62 (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright - there's another user willing to clip them for me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cbl62, could you please create an article for American actress Inez Cooper?, She appeared in 22 films. 190.140.147.233 (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I did find this and this which are a start. At the time of her death, all I could find is a paid death notice in the Montgomery newspaper here. Are you aware of in-depth coverage besides the Atlanta newspaper articles linked above? Cbl62 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work in expanding Bill Heindl Sr.. Do you have time to expand Kerry Ketter? He is nominated for deletion, but I feel he is notable. Flibirigit (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure how much time I'd have for expanding, but I added some sources to the discussion. Thanks, Cbl62 (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cbl62. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:1956 Northern Michigan Wildcats football team, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pin-ups of Yank, the Army Weekly, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Yank pin-ups (example pictured) were distributed to American military personnel during World War II to promote morale? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pin-ups of Yank, the Army Weekly. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pin-ups of Yank, the Army Weekly), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 47,426 views (1,976.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	To one of the greatest writers in Wikipedia history, Cbl62. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thank you very much for that, User:WikiOriginal-9. Cbl62 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're aware but you have the 27th most articles created ever and your articles aren't little one sentence stubs or disambiguation pages so arguably you should be higher on the list if quality is taken into account. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what happened to Newsbank? I used to use it to find tons of GNG sources that you couldn't find anywhere else and I believe you used to use it too? Of course, you couldn't actually read the articles without paying but the excerpts they gave you were enough to tell if it was significant coverage or not. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know. Haven't tried using it in a while. Let me know what you find out. Cbl62 (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just checking out Willie Hernández who died recently and so has been nominated at ITN. I noticed that you brought this to DYK last year and expanding such a long-established topic must have been quite a challenge so kudos for that.

I mentioned your work at ITN and was wondering whether this would generate a ping as the user name link was added as an update and I'm not quite sure what happens then. So, I clicked on your user page, planning to notify you directly. But I just got a blank screen. I tried again with the same result and it seems to be consistent behaviour. So, there seems to be a technical issue with your user page which perhaps needs fixing. I've not seen anything like this before and the browser I'm using is Chrome. Your talk page seems to work fine.

I tried again after writing that and your user page seems to be fine now. Must have been a glitch in the Matrix...

Now I can read your user page, I notice that you did the articles about Frances Vorne and Selene Mahri. I read those when they appeared at DYK and thought that they were especially excellent and interesting topics. So, as you are doing lots of good work, please accept a barnstar as a token of appreciation.

		The Special Barnstar
		In thanks for your excellent work on a variety of interesting topics. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, User:Andrew Davidson. I enjoyed working on the Hernandez article and was sorry to hear about his passing. Cbl62 (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Salty Parker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Salty Parker, who spent 60 years in organized baseball, described his lifelong love of the game as "a beautiful disease"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Salty Parker. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Salty Parker), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cbl62. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of homicides in New York City, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Cbl62: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2023 Colorado Mines Orediggers football team, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the No. 1–ranked 2023 Colorado Mines Orediggers, "college football's nerdiest contender", featured players with pigtails and a drawn-on blue mustache, a friar's haircut, and Harry Potter cosplay? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2023 Colorado Mines Orediggers football team. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2023 Colorado Mines Orediggers football team), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cbl, can you move Willie Gay (linebacker) back to Willie Gay for me. I forgot the Steelers guy was actually named "William". ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9: Looks like someone beat me to it. Cbl62 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]