User talk:Larry Hockett/Archive 1

Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for updating article Bharat Jangam user:rjthapa —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Eric, i got a notification that my article about Sunny Zorawar was declined by you on grounds of copyrighted content. Well dear Eric there were 15 references on the page, out of which 12 were from totally independent sources referring to /or showing his creative works.

I know Sunny Zorawar personally and his work has been astonishing and ground breaking for his age. If you claimed that lines were taken out of his website, then it doesn't mean that it is untrue. Facts are just facts, and no matter how they are said,it should not matter. I made a genuine effort to write an unbiased and to-the-fact article. There was not even a single instance of bias or flattery. All the content provided an honest and factual information about him. If you want me to change the formatting style by rearranging and re-furbishing my words, then i will do that, but it will still keep the information same.

Please tell me if i should refurbish the content, so that you may approve. I want to get it published as soon as possible.

Regards Hjujhars (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Jujhar

I apologize to you, Hjujhars. I don't want to make your article creation more difficult than it needs to be. The Wikipedia rules on copyright violations are very clear though; my own opinion is really irrelevant. You can see the discussion with another user right next to this one for a more detailed explanation. Have a good day! EricEnfermero | Howdy! 10:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey EricEnfermero,

I just received a notification about your declination of my submission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/University_Institute_of_Technology_RGPV on the grounds of copyright violation (content copied from the website(http://rgpv.ac.in/index.aspx)). First off, the aforementioned article is about the institution, I'm currently a student of. Secondly, the reason I copied content from the website, is that I was under the impression that for articles to be accepted, they need to have credible sources, and what more credible and official source can there be, than the website of the university, my institution is affiliated to. It is also the reason why I refrained from writing facts that I know about the institution, but have no online references.

Also, the copying of the content was done after taking permission from my institution head and those that own and maintain the website(http://rgpv.ac.in/index.aspx).

Frankly, my own excitement about creating my first article on wikipedia, esp. one about my own institution, is also responsible for me acting hastily and copying the content from the website, rather than writing(something, I'm not very good at) the article myself.

Lastly, I'd very grateful if you could please review my article, again, in the light of what I've said. And if you still can't accept the article, please do tell me what edits I need to do, to get it accepted.

Thank you Gt4789 (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gt4789 - This page should help you to understand a little bit more about why we're so concerned about copyright. It also links to a page on appropriately obtaining copyright permission. The holder of the copyright (your school) must release the website information into the public domain for use by anyone and everyone; instead, it's easier for a Wikipedia editor to just take the info from a source, put it into different words, then cite the source. Using sources = good; copying sources = not so good. Once you have a chance to edit the article and put the information into your own words, you can submit it again for review. Have a great day! EricEnfermero | Howdy! 11:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi EricEnfermero,

Thank you for the quick and very helpful reply :) I have rephrased the information taken from the sources, in my own words, like you suggested, and re-submitted the article. I hope it gets accepted this time(fingers crossed)

Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gt4789 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Enfermero,

Greetings. Just received a message saying that my contribution has been rejected by you on the grounds of copyright violation. The article is about a musician of note and his bio can be found in different places, CDs and other publications in Portuguese, Chinese and English. In those publications Mr Jardim's bio is presented in a more or less identical fashion as it is usual with artists. FYI, I work for the Macau Youth Orchestra's office and most of the English materials presented there have been written and/or edited by me, including Mr Jardim's bio presented there. I have chosen the website of the orchestra as a source as it seemed the most reliable one available online in English. In that particular aspect, I believe I have followed strictly the guidelines established by other Wikipedia editors and several other examples found in Wikipedia itself where biographies of living people are based on reliable online sources. Mr Jardim has a respectable career as a musician in China and his name is well known internationally. The sole purpose of submitting his name to Wikipedia is to make the information about his life and achievements available to a wider public of English readers. If you read the article thoroughly, it was clearly stated on the reference section that his bio was retrieved from the website of the Macau Youth Symphony Orchestra, which is a non-profit educational organization. The portions of the text used served exclusively as a point of departure to my Wikipedia article. The substantiality of the portions used in relation to the alleged copyrighted work as a whole (Mr Jardim's bio at the Youth Orchestra's webpage) does not, in my opinion, represent any infringement of copyright as the text was greatly improved with addition of new references, recent information collected elsewhere (whose sources are mentioned), such as his Chinese name, compositions, recordings, articles, publications, press comments, family information, etc., and all the sources are clearly stated. However, if the above reasons are not sufficient for acceptance, please kindly make the article again available on my editor's space for further editing. Since that was my first contribution to Wikipedia I am not very familiar with all the technical procedures and I have no back-up of the all the work I've done which, BTW, represented several hours of serious research and hard labour. I am working on subjects related to Macau, PRC, and Mr Jardim's article was the first of a series of personalities, musicians, writers I intend to write about. It seems that you erased completely the article as I can't find it anywhere on my working space. Therefore, I thank you in advance for your kind assistance in helping me to retrieve my work for further improvements. Your serious input and specific suggestions in improving the article will be most appreciated. Macau might be a small and remote place, however Wikipedia, as a collaborative space (as I believe it is) is open to all. Let's make it more and more comprehensive. In case of further questions please kindly contact me at phonoart@yahoo.com. Thanks. Pedro xavier (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Pedro xavier (talk)

We just can't copy and paste text from other sources even after naming those sources. Wikipedia automatically blanks AfC submissions in the case of copyright violations; starting over with multiple independent, reliable sources (and using different words) will keep us all out of legal trouble. Thanks! EricEnfermero | Howdy! 12:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Could you kindly help me to retrieve the previous work? I spent hours finding those references and footnotes. I have been searching high and low and the work simply vanished. Is there any way to retrieve it? Thanks for your help. Pedro xavier (talk)

Hi EricEnfermero

Sorry for pestering you for the umpteenth time, but could you please approve my submission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/University_Institute_of_Technology_RGPV)?

I have not only re-phrased the information obtained from the references, in my own words, like you suggested, but also added and removed a few things from the earlier submission.

Sadly, the review process is already severely backlogged, and on top of that any editor other than you will have to start reviewing my submission from scratch, thus exacerbating the already grim situation. Also, I really, really want my article to be published soon, because there's a lot more I want to add to to the article, but I'm holding myself back as I think a small and simple article will be easier to review, and will get approved, soon.

Really looking forward to a positive response :)

Thank you Gt4789 (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

THANKS! :) Gt4789 (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello EricEnfermero, Thank you for reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Tadashi Shoji. Peacock terms have been removed and hope it is now in encyclopedic format. Article has been resubmitted. Thanks again! JMH TadashiShoji (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like for a different editor to review it the second time. Good luck to you though! I was noticing your username. Just make sure that you take note of WP:AVOIDCOI. EricEnfermero | Howdy! 02:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the umpires task force! We have not completely finished developing the project, but that shouldn't be a major hindrance. I do want to mention that at this point we are not tagging talk pages with the umpire banner manually, as one of our members plans to use a bot to do so soon. Once again, thank you for joining up and welcome aboard! AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'm looking forward to it. EricEnfermero | Howdy! 22:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Brooke_mayo I've made the changes you mentioned and hope it makes it this time :)

Candaceowens (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi ,

I have uploaded all the documents , official titles , books reference for my article titled Baraon Raj. I am not sure what else i need to submitt for getting it approved.

since there is very less material on the web related to baraon Raj , princely state , i can only submit the scanned documents, official papers or pictures i have for any reference and citation purpose.

please advice.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashirai (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Good luck to you. I personally do not like to review the same article twice, just for fairness. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 12:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you make them? I might borrow a few... --Greenmaven (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! No, I borrowed them from others. Feel free to do the same. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 00:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one really participating in the improvement drive so far. Would it be okay with you if I picked articles more often than once a week? At this point, some of the articles need clean-up more than they need expansion. You seem to be good at cleaning-up articles, so would you mind if I just gave you one every couple of days to clean up a little bit? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. Sounds like a plan. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 04:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, good. The Phil Cuzzi article looks like it could use some help. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I touched it up a little and will be back to it soon. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You definitely made an improvement already. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like, you might take a look at Tim Welke. An idea that I just had would be for the two of us (and perhaps some other Umps task force members) to pick an article and try to bring it to GA status. If that sounds good, I can compile a small list of candidates. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd love that. I have stumbled into an article that was being edited with the goal of GA status, but I haven't worked on an article yet with that goal in mind. Sounds good! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 20:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try to get a list of candidates within the next 24 hours. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the list (drum-roll please): Joe West, Ángel Hernández, Jim Joyce, Bob Davidson, John Hirschbeck, Dale Scott, and Tim Tschida. If you would like, you can pick one to the focus for promotion to GA status. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward Joe West. It will be interesting to see whether the page of any current, prominent ump can stay vandalism-free enough for GA status, but there should be no shortage of coverage on West and the article has some areas that could be substantially improved. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 00:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He probably would have been my choice too. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eric, I realise that you're brand new to STiki, but there was nothing good faith at all about this edit; I mean: "Ching Chong Chinaman"? Really? It's also a good idea to check the history of pages manually if you can; I had to revert this vandalism manually. Graham87 13:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I was a chicken at first and used the AGF button far too generously. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 14:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey EricEnfermero,

Why did you remove our post from the Karmaloop page? I am a representative of Karmaloop & we want to share our promotions and discounts to the public. Can you fix this problem?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.120.108 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's against the rules to do that, unfortunately. Since Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, we don't want articles to include advertisements or other promotional material. See WP:Promotion. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 11:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 20:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that after a brief discussion with Muboshgu (a user very experienced regarding GA's), I've been left with the impression that Joe West (umpire) is pretty close to the point where we could nominate it to be a GA. These were his remarks, "Overall, I think it's close. It's certainly long enough and seems fairly comprehensive. Without diving into it too deeply, I believe the lead could use some expansion, the body could use some more inline citations, and some general cleanup and rephrasings would help (I don't know if a reviewer would be okay with a phrase like "sparked controversy", the abbreviation NAIA should be spelled out, the references need to be filled in, and the picture should be moved up so it's out of the reference section, for starters)" AutomaticStrikeout 18:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, man! I'm sorry that I've been so scarce. Work demands have kept me away for the past few weeks, but I'm hoping to get back in the swing of things. That's great news on the article. One area of uncertainty for me comes in the 'Outside of baseball' section. To me, it looks awkward to list all of the notable acts he's performed with in a single sentence. I think we should either trim down the list or expand that section. I appeciate your message! Let me know if there are things that I can do to help this process move along. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 23:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I will let you know if I need any assistance in the process. AutomaticStrikeout 23:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated it. AutomaticStrikeout 20:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hear me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSleach (talk • contribs) 04:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your deletion was false claimed, don't mess with it. PESO44 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Um, no. Calling the Saudi royal family "money hungry" is not acceptable and it should be reverted. AutomaticStrikeout 18:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It don't have to be acceptable for you, You can't delete it or call it unconstructive. --PESO44 (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly gives you the idea that you can tell other editors what to do? AutomaticStrikeout 18:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Will you be handling the GA attempt on your own or do you want me to participate as well? AutomaticStrikeout 02:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what I'm doing. I tried to make many of the straightforward suggestions from the first review, but I have no idea whether it's ready to move forward again. Any help is welcomed! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 02:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we should talk to the reviewer about the Retrosheet link. I feel that those should be included, it's kind of like how we include external links to player statistic pages. As far as the rest, could you please tell me what you have done so far? AutomaticStrikeout 03:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I marked the completed ones as Done. On a couple of the items, such as the Numerous reference problems... bullet, I think they're now addressed but they could use another eye. Is the Retrosheet issue just that we've used it in the article, or is it a reliable source issue? We could easily replace the Retrosheet references in the article. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 04:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not a referencing issue, more of an external link issue. I'm about to head to bed now, so I'll look into it more later, but I do believe that the accessdates on many of the reference you filled-in are going to be incorrect, unless you just added all those sources. AutomaticStrikeout 04:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Embarrassing, but I think I seriously misunderstood the accessdate parameter. I pulled up the listed references on those dates to verify them, but it makes sense that we would want the date that a reference was originally added. I can go through diffs to look for when each reference was added, if that's the easiest thing to do. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 08:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead, although I think it won't exactly be easy. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't too bad. There was about a two-year period where all of the edits were unsourced, which sped up my clicking through the history. Sorry to add to the confusion. Hopefully it's straight now. Anything else that needs attention? EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 18:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Go Phightins! has helped with the lead, I think it looks good now. I'll have to take a look at the rest, I'm not too sure about the overlinking problem. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you take a look here and check off the things that you did if there are any that aren't marked as done? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. I think we're good. I went back over the references and links as best I could. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 12:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks oodles. I think you and Phightins! deserve most of the credit for this one, assuming it passes. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edits certainly helped, and the article is pretty close to passing now. There are a few unstruck sticking points, but not too much. There are a few other issues which would not necessarily prevent this being a GA, but if you want to tackle them, feel free. The nominator is missing in action at the moment, and from your copy-edit so far, I think you could easily solve any remaining problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Unwrap it. Congratulations and thanks for all your work on it. The Umpires task force can now boast their first article promoted to GA since the opening of the task force. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you for the idea to do this and for the encouragement you provided to move the article along at every stage. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 21:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. One other thing:

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey EricEnfermero,

Firstly, your editing on UIT RGPV was a very pleasant surprise! :) Frankly, I never expected anything related to the article from you, after you accepted the draft and changed it to an article in public space. Apparently, you really take genuine interest in the articles you have reviewed, I for one am quite glad due to that. I really appreciate your time and effort. Thanks for the edits :) Since you have just reviewed the entire article, do you have any suggestions for me?

Also, I once witnessed gross vandalism on the page (deletion of information, addition of wrong information) Luckily, I've the article on my watchlist, so I quickly reverted the changes. This lead me to search for vanadalism prevention features on Wikipedia, but sadly, I didn't find anything concrete, any tips there?

Gt4789 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you are looking for vandalism prevention features, I'm not sure we have exactly what you are trying to find. There are different tools such as Twinkle and Rollback that editors can use to fight against vandalism. Also, page protection can be used for articles experiencing serious vandalism. However, vandalism cannot be completely prevented. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all, Gt. I don't hang out much at Articles for Creation anymore; those can be some hard decisions and not everyone accepts feedback as well as you do. I still have those articles on my watchlist though, so sometimes I check them out when I see a new edit pop up. I'm glad you are still editing. I agree with AutomaticStrikeout's reply to the vandalism issue. Have a good weekend! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 19:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AutomaticStrikeout & EricEnfermero! :) HAPPY NEW YEAR in advance! :) Gt4789 (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Go Phightins! 20:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, Joe West is now up for Featured Article status. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. Awesome! So glad that ou're back. I have very limited Internet access for at least a couple of days, but certainly let me know what I can do. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 12:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Eric. I know that we are still working Joe West right now, but it might not be too early to start thinking about what article the umps task force would like to work on next. If all goes well, West will wind up as a featured article, and I don't believe the ratings can go any higher than that. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would lean toward either a Hall of Fame umpire like Harvey or one that was highly recognizable to fans during his career, like Ron Luciano or Eric Gregg. I know a few of us have been chipping away at Hank O'Day in anticipation of his HOF induction, so that's another possibility. I only have Internet access in short bursts, but I hope to have that worked out this week. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 20:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I think it might be better to do someone who lived fairly recently (ironically, all three of ones you mentioned are deceased, but Gregg and Luciano still somewhat recently). I noticed that Tim Timmons didn't look too impressive and there are a lot more like it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The first time around you suggested Jim Joyce and I think that's a good one to consider. You're right though - several active umps have pages that could use a ton of work. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 05:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code that was emailed to you.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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

I'm nominating EricEnfermero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Eric's account is just over one year old and he has reached an edit count of over 4,700. He contributes to the encyclopedia in a variety of ways. Eric has fought vandalism using STiki and has also assisted me in working on umpire-related articles, Joe West (umpire) in particular (without his help, that article would likely not be a GA right now). He also works with persondata and fixing spelling errors.

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

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 18:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thank you for all your Great work on Wikipedia!!! Cheers!!! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What a cool surprise. Thank you guys so much! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 19:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! You soon will be featured on the WP:WER front page. Congrats. Go Phightins! 19:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Thank you for your work here!!! You may also want to add see the WER page, or use this to see our Editor of the Week template, designed only for you - {{Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page}}. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Many congrats and thanks for all you do. So you are the guy that likes umps, eh? I thought everyone wanted to kill 'em. (j/k...sports officiating is hard hard work, no matter what the sport, and generally very unappreciated) Thanks again for everything you do to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Know it is appreciated! Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrats Eric and by the way Gtw, I like umps too! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I've actually given umpiring a go in two separate seasons, though never higher than high school ball. I love the rules, but it turns out that I'm terrible at calling the bang-bang plays. I guess you can say I feel their pain. Thanks for the kind words! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 21:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrats Eric. BTW, your glasses are on top of your head. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Two of my all-time favorite ump. insults:

• Holiday Inn Express just called; you forgot your seeing eye dog!
• I've seen potatoes with better eyes than you!

--Go Phightins! 14:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Buster and Phigtins!, yer both gone (gives 'em the heave-ho, Balkin' Bob style)  . Earl Weaver and Ron Luciano would be proud. Let's keep the language clean though, okay? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Mike Garcia (AL pitcher), which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the Saltwell Park article and I am delighted that it has been promoted. Getting the little green cross always makes the research, reading and writing feel like it has been a worthwhile effort. Best wishes. Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem! I've helped get articles to GA, but that was the first one I've actually reviewed. I hope that nothing came across as too goofy. Good work. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 21:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Malinaccier (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi EricEnfermero. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Though you did not specifically request this I thought it would be useful. Malinaccier (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Eric, keep up your sharp awareness on catching potential vandals! Your recent editing catch on the boyband page was spot on! If you get a chance, I think you should have a chat with some editors on the boyband page that are constantly having edit wars based on their own personal opinions over facts! Just an honest suggestion, do not mean to step on your toes in anyway at all! Keep up the good work! MusicLoverShawn (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eric. I just wanted to stop by and thank you for the review of She Wouldn't Say Yes that was at WP:AfC. That was very kind of you and I appreciate that help you've given the project. Thanks very much. 64.40.54.219 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Err sorry - this clearly wasn't an article you submitted, I think there are bugs afoot in the new AFC script - as you were! :) --_nonsense ferret 21:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)