This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
My comment "Quit freaking out and pissing off editors" was not a personal attack on you. It was a comment on the end result of the speedy deletion policy and how it is interpreted and implemented by various admins. In the end this type of deletion has caused many editors to get freaked out by admins who are too fast on the draw and also caused many editor to get so pissed off they never come back to wikipedia. The Heritage Brewing article should not have been an article for speedy deletion. If the article meet the criteria then I can identify many article that should also be deleted. Mr.Badlands (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Clough Creek and Sand Ridge Archeological District
nominate
) 16:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
5228 times
Requested move
Hi there, back in January last year you boldly turned
Talk:Black Caviar (horse)#Requested move which you may therefore be interested in. Please feel free to voice your opinion there if you wish. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk
Why is this photo being deleted? It is a historic photo prior to 1923 (thus no copyright). It one thing to not link a photo in an article but another thing to delete the photo because you think it shouldn't be linked in an article. I guess that I don't understand and would like to know the rule for deletion. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Wut
Tell me why something like this needs to sit and stagnate in MFD for more than a day. Your declining the G2 is just process for the sake of process. Deletion reasons aren't chiseled in stone; common sense IAR deletions like this won't suddenly get you desysopped. Quit being a process wonk. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Paulding County Carnegie Library
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You correctly removed the incorrect csd tag on Mark Goddard (driver), replacing it with an {{
WP:RFD, and the edit summaries left by yourself and the csd tagger give no clues as to why it should be deleted. Accordingly I've removed the rfd tag, but should you still wish it deleted feel free to retag but please complete the nomination this time (ideally within a few minutes). Thryduulf (talk
) 14:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I hadn't spotted that the CSD and RFD tags had been on the article simultaneously. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page. Message added 19:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page. Message added 20:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page. Message added 21:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Geneva College
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to
Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --Flyguy33 (talk
Hello, my friend. You removed the Speedy tag from the above article, stating that the business "Has coverage from multiple reliable sources, so notable as well as important," but I respectfully disagree and hope you will look at the article again. There are three sources, two of which have the same information and neither of which is neutral and unbiased. The other source is the website of the organization itself, and it is the same website as under "External links." Please let me know your decision. Sincerely,
Hi Nyttend, the edit history for UEFA Euro 2020 when it was deleted can be found at User:Avala/UEFA Euro 2020. The version that was deleted was substantially identical to the current article, in fact it was probably better. In that context I think it meets G4 and should be speedy deleted. I didn't want to delete it over your head given that you have already declined the CSD. What do you think? Regards, Woody (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, just saw your post at Talk:UEFA Euro 2020. I have to say I disagree with your interpretation of G4 and what is substantially identical. I don't see why a new AFD has to take place for what is substantially the same article saying the same things. There is no new content in the new article, in fact there is less. But hey, I will bow to your opinion if you still don't think it meets G4 as you dealt with initially. Regards, Woody (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
re:Sanatoga Road
nuclear power plant
just to make it fun. In any case, next time I'm in the area, I'll get the best pix I can of both sites.
The reason I don't use the layers on the PA CRGIS site is that I use a Mac rather than a PC. The CRGIS forces users to use explorer as their browser, and the only one available for a Mac is about 10 years old and not supported anymore by microsoft. Ergo, I keep everything as simple as possible at the CRGIS site. The times I've tried to use layers it's taken an hour to tell me that I haven't gotten to first base yet. All the best. Smallbones (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Greetings. I think this template probably warranted a deletion discussion again, as some issues stated in the previous deletion rationale have changed. In that discussion it was stated that the template only linked to two articles, whereas the version you deleted linked to three. Regards, P. D. CookTalk to me! 00:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand that the content of the template is basically the same. I figured that the addition of the Gerlach article made the previous deletion reason no longer strictly true, as the nominator pointed out that "currently only two mayors even have links to an article." Now there are three. It seems to me that TFD is a better route here, but I'm not going to get all worked up over a minor template. Thanks, P. D. CookTalk to me! 13:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you provide for me the proper interpretation of "this excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies..." (emphasis mine) under G4 at
I've been working on reorganizing and creating NRHP listings in NPS units, and in particular am tidying up NRHP properties in Grand Teton National Park in support of Mongo's work toward making the main article an FA. I'd like to do a template focusing on the park similar to the Template:NRHP in Teton County, Wyoming, but focusing only on the park and omitting the redundant NRHP bottom bar. Since that template is set up only for counties, I'm having trouble reformatting it - I have no template mojo beyond a certain point. Can you look at Template:NRHP in Grand Teton NP and advise on what (presumably nested) parameters need to be adjusted or created for it to work? See the list already generated: National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Teton National Park. Since some places, like Yellowstone, span multiple counties and states, I thought I'd start with an easy one first - GRTE's all in one county, but the template will have to accommodate more complex arrangements. I'll ask Dudemanfellabra as well. Acroterion(talk) 12:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm definitely not familiar with template coding. Virtually all of my template edits have been the ubiquitous county navboxes for communities, which I placed all over the country, but with all of them I simply copied and pasted code. The only thing I can suggest is what I've done with MPS and other local templates: you can see examples of my MPS templates at {{Samuel Hannaford and Sons TR}}, {{Cross-Tipped Churches}}, and {{Upper Prospect MRA}}, or you could check the non-MPS {{Archaeological NRHP in Hamilton County, Ohio}}. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That's all right, I'm no master at templates and thought there might be something easy I was missing. I like the way the county template distinguishes between NHLs, HDs and so on, and could probably adapt templates I've used for French and Belgian fortifications, but there's probably a more elegant way to do it. Thanks for looking at it. Acroterion(talk) 13:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Just stopped by to thank you for your helpful & commonsense edit here [1]. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Template talk:Did you know. Message added 01:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WP:BRD is discuss, so I am looking forward to you participating in the discussion on the talk page. Plastikspork―Œ(talk)
21:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I am more than happy to change all the counties as well, if that is your only concern. The linked template was using the default coloring, so it doesn't appear that is an issue. As far as the other NRHP templates, I thought they had their own color scheme. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 21:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay. The only complaint I have received is for Nevada (see the thread below yours on my talk page), so I changed those to use the {{NRHP style}} template. I really don't have a strong opinion on that one, just trying to make everyone happy and have some level of consistency. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
An admin ought to know better
Than to engage in edit warring as you have quite clearly been doing at
talk
) 01:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Lily Dale
I noticed that you have removed Lily Dale from the "Other hamlets" section of Template:Chautauqua County, New York twice. However, there are many reasons why Lily Dale should be included in a list of Chautauqua County hamlets:
most of the references and external links in the
Lily Dale
article give some hint that it is a populated place
here's a quote from this reference: "Susan Glasier, executive director of the assembly, who answers my many questions, tells me that the town is still seasonal, “although we have a permanent population of about 275 people."
the article
Administrative divisions of New York
defines a hamlet as a "community within a town that is not incorporated as a village but is identified by a name"
this is exactly what Lily Dale is
I live in Chautauqua County and have traveled through Lily Dale more than once, and I have seen that it is a small hamlet
if you look at a detailed road map of Chautauqua County, it will show a few small streets in the southern Town of Pomfret with the name "Lily Dale" written beside it
Thanks for the reply, Nyttend. Although Lily Dale slightly resembles an intentional community or religious commune, I will try to make some changes to the article to show that Lily Dale is a populated place. (and sorry about not signing the comment above) —Reelcheeper (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
User page
I cannot speak for Tbhotch, but I would assume the CSD nomination of (
Not to mention massive BLP violations to such an extent that they merited
talk
) 19:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
F11 on File:CalendarBarreto.jpg
Hi, I noticed your rejection of my CSD F11 on File:CalendarBarreto.jpg, and was hoping for some feedback. My logic in tagging it was that there was a watermark on the image identifying a particular website, and no information was provided elsewhere to explain how the uploader had the authority over a picture so marked. Was that not a sufficient justification for an F11, and if it wasn't, what would be the proper venue to raise my concern over the uploader claiming it was their own, but it having a water mark? Thanks for any advice you can offer. Monty845 04:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification on my talk page. Monty845 04:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article on HMS Polyanthus I submitted on the
Did You Know nominations page. The hook is edited and shorter. Thanks again. Leidseplein (talk
) 11:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Re: Photos coming
Thanks for the heads up and for taking the pictures - hopefully they will not be photos taken in the pouring rain! Ruhrfisch><>°° 12:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday was the first day of trout season, but it was pouring rain and quite cold, so I did not get any pictures of anglers - I would have needed a waterproof camera! Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I have only fished a few times in my life - I just wanted to get pictures of fishermen and fisherwomen on some streams I hope to write more about in the future. Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You have reverted my edit where I changed "It is the only Greene Township statewide, although there are sixteen
?
13:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright infringement
You declined a speedy deletion of
Gradate School of Design at Ewha Womans University
on copyright grounds.
From the "Major in Fashion Design" section of the article:
"Based on the artistic originality, we are running the education course which can strengthen the design research ability. through the fashion image exhibition and fabric exhibition, we help our student to develop their own creative potential faculties and establish the own design research system. With the study of collection, settle own modelling and sensible identity and deal with the real problem of designing with the industrial business seminar. This special subject of study is aiming to train the professionals who will lead the industries and fashion education with the systematic research course which can help to develop the modeling, design thinking, planning and analyzing abilities."
The exact same text is repeated at [2] (click "Fashion Design").
From the "Major in Fabric Design" section of the article:
"Textile Design aims to cultivate textile related female professionals with flexible adaptability to the new mental modes of the rapidly changing 21st Century. In order to provide the specialist training demanded in the general textile related education and industry, this major cover diverse theoretical and practical approaches to promote skills in creativity, management, communication, and collaboration. The major also provides practical training opportunities for actual designing through active education-industrial collaboration projects."
The exact same text is repeated at [3] (click "Fabric Design").
And so on and so forth.
I don't want to go through every single section of the article to confirm exactly where on the original website the text has been lifted from, but I am confident that there is no properly free material in the article that is worth saving. --
talk
) 14:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
East Brunswick Township, New Jersey
I am going to ask you to reverse your move of
common name and the place naming convention. There is noting that I am aware of in the policies that says official names have preference. Vegaswikian (talk
) 19:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
RE: Billings Metropolitan Area
Hi, I disagree with you! How can you not count the other counties that border Yellowstone County as part of Billings' Metro Area!?
Wolfdog406 (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nyttend, I see there's still some discussion regarding your alt on the nomination page, I'll review it once you've settled on a hook. Poliocretes (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for deleting my user pages. =) Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Children's Museum Update
Hello!
I wanted to give you an update on the Children's Museum
Wikipedia collaboration. You can check out my brief overview in the Children's Museum blog, which includes details on the Apprentice Program project to create five new Wikipedia articles as well as the image donation and use of the new Wikipedia Widget
to link the museum's website to Wikipedia.
Last month we completed our first museum image content donation of 30 images. While this seems to be a low number, what makes the donation unique is the curatorial involvement in choosing and vetting the images for their appropriateness and usefulness within Wikimedia (many of the objects are copyrighted toys and other works that have copyright restrictions.) The curators in the collections department were very hands-on in their involvement, and we'll be outlining this process in an upcoming case study. If you would like to help further this process, I'd be happy for you to help disperse the images into useful Wikipedia articles, or let the appropriate WikiProjects know of the new images. Another 30 will be uploaded in the coming month.
In addition to the collaboration with the Museum Apprentice Program students and the curatorial department, another important collaboration was between User:Ealdgyth and the American Collections curators to significantly update the Broad Ripple Park Carousel article. After an impressive amount of time and work, the article has now received Featured Article status. The museum is absolutely thrilled and will now be adding a QR code to the carousel exhibit Carousel: Wishes and Dreams. In the future, more QR codes will be added to the objects that have had articles written by the MAP students. We're excited by the success of this collaboration & will also be writing a case study on the process.
There is now a recurring Indianapolis Update on the newly minted GLAM Newsletter. If you'd like to subscribe to the GLAM newsletter, you can do so here. Thanks! And let me know if you have any questions!
Thank you for comparing this newly reported article against the previously deleted version. Not being an admin I wasn't able to read the previously deleted version. As you indicated, if this version is substantially different then that was not the most appropriate nomination. As the article is clearly unreferenced spam I have renominated it for CSD as spam. - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, it is good to know that I got it right this time! I see that User:Syrthiss has deleted it this time. As you may have gathered from the records for this article, it keeps getting recreated by COI spammers to promote their school. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
That is probably a good idea! - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you say it's "Not clear whether this is a US Department of Education image or a Minnesota government image" when the image is clearly sourced to http://education.state.mn.us/. This site also clearly states "Copyright 2011 Minnesota Department of Education" and you can see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 3 and the related commons deletion discussion for some more background as to why MN state works are not all PD. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
First, thank you for your efforts thus far -- I know how tiresome this sort of work can be for admins. Second, I inadvertently placed this same post at User:Daniel Case, who reviewed and turned down a block-lift request, thinking he had been the admin who'd instituted the block.
User:DeadSend4, aside from being uncivil, indeed borderline abusive, at his latest talk-page comments here, is apparently attempting to evade his block (See Nicole Kidman history here) through anon IP 24.92.19.152, which, despite this being its one-and-only edit, makes the same wholesale reversion that DeadSend4 has been making.
Another of the multiple editors he is warring with,
WP:OWNing the article for months now.--Tenebrae (talk
) 19:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
file transfer from flickr
Are you familiar with transferring files from Flickr? I'm going to overhaul the
talk
) 19:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. The house is the James A. Beck House, and is listed
talk
) 17:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Spring Creek Site
nominate
) 06:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Question about
Ulrich Meyer-Bothling (eye surgeon)
I saw you contested my speedy deletion which is fine, buy could you clarify why it is not a resume? Yoenit (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
My point is that it's not the author's résumé; we have no reason to expect that Sir Andreas King is also Ulrich Meyer-Bothling, and if he's not, I don't believe it likely that he would be advertising him or posting his résumé. Given the way we write biographies, a résumé will be rather similar to a basic biography except that it's in a list format instead of in prose; since it's not that hard to recast lists into prose, the format itself isn't a good reason for deletion. Moreover, the sheer number of publications this guy has makes him important and perhaps rather likely to pass WP:BIO; it's irrelevant to a G11 speedy of course, but relevant to keeping. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Charles Silent
nominate
) 00:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Joseph Bloomfield Leake
nominate
) 12:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Anil Kumar (disambiguation) delete
Hi there, thanks for checking into my speedy deletion. Please read the full discussion at
Talk:Anil Kumar (businessman)#Requested move
instead of just the headings; you'll see the following:
The first oppose thinks the disambiguation page should stay, which we all agree on; I didn't know disambiguation pages could be just moved as well (nor how redirects work), so am just trying to make room for that.
The second support suggests moving the disambiguation page, so that's the first step regardless. Deleting the redirect is holding that up.
Oh, I'm sorry! I didn't know about the 1-week thing. My2011 (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It's been a week! Hope all is well. :) My2011 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
OK -- thanks again. My2011 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Off to Denver on Thursday
If I can get everything in place by Thursday, I'll be off on a major road trip. Still haven't got my documentation etc in place.
Sometimes I think I can get carried away with things. In that respect I've added about 45 pix of Wildwoods Shore Resort Historic District (see the Commons cat). It's not an NRHP Historic District, only a New Jersey one. It does have 2 NRHP sites in it. And it probably doesn't strike many people as either historic or as worthwhile architecture. Well in any case, if somebody is going to criticize it I'd prefer it be done now (before I get another 30 photos of those damned motels- I'm only about 60% of the way finished). BTW, taking the pix was fun, uploading them was not.
Thanks for the perspective and for the "hidden maps" - I've made a list and printed out a few. If you find the location of the new Denver site, could you leave a note on my talk page? As far as the perspective, I sometime think that folks looking at what I'm doing might think I'm entirely nuts - now at least I can say "but Nyttend is nuttier than me!" Seriously, though, it is enjoyable so I should care less about what others think. I do think I'll enjoy the trip as well. Thanks again. Smallbones (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Got back from Denver 1.5 days ago, so I'm sorry to say that the new site will have to wait. Actually, I was quite busy in Denver and never got in the real city, but did get a couple of snaps in the Suburbs. Overall, I probably got 200+ sites on the trip, including Cheyenne WY,
Ogallala, NE, Kearney, NE, Atlantic, Grinnell, Council Bluffs, and Davenport, IA, Rock Island, Aurora, and Joliet, IL, finished Champaign County, IL; Ft. Wayne and Plymouth, IN; Park Ave. (does equal old US 30) in National Register of Historic Places listings in Richland County, Ohio (except for 699 W. Park Ave, where I seem to have gotten everything in the park except the "gateway.") Some pix on US 30 in PA, but as shown above, I got off US 30 several times along the way and stayed on I-80. Far eastern Ohio was rained out. And uploading is a real drag for me, as usual. All the best. Smallbones (talk
) 12:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Hodgen's Cemetery Mound
nominate
) 00:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Doncram/Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures
OK by me if you want to move
User:Doncram/Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures back to article space. I said (more than once) that all he needed to do was convince an administrator it was acceptable, and it does appear that has been accomplished by the improvements made to the page. --Orlady (talk
) 01:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of 'File:Arcelite through vipers.jpg'
I see that
edit war
).
I strongly believe that the image added context to the article and should therefore like to propose its reinstatement. If you have any means of accessing File talk:Arcelite through vipers.jpg, the rationale should provide some explanation. Is it at all possible to reinstate the image please? If so, I'm happy to contribute to the justification of maintaining its presence.
Thanks for your time. --Trevj (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you --Trevj (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again. Is there any chance of also restoring File talk:Arcelite through vipers.jpg? ISTR it only has project tags on it, but perhaps I'm mistaken. --Trevj (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Freestanding template
Greetings. I noticed you closed a couple of my Speedy deletion requests. I'm just curious. How are templates that relate directly to a WikiProject that was deleted "freestanding". There is no reason to have a template inviting people to join a nonexistant project, nor is there a need for a WikiProject template for a project that doesn't exist. But thats just my opinion. --
talk
) 02:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Buildings by year by country
Based on a series of previous discussions, that was the consensus. If you look at the architecture by year tree, you will see that most entries are there solely based on the year the building was built in. As such this is a feature of the building and is only indirectly related to architecture. If you look at the articles, you will see that virtually all of these fail to mention why they are architecturally significant. Hence that is not a defining feature for the building so they probably don't belong directly in an architecture category. However it is reasonable to classify buildings in the same manner that bridges have been for a while which is simply by year built. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Your deletion of John Stewart image
Can you pls supply a reason why you think my reason for fair use is not acceptable?
It's a PR shot provided by the company for this kind of use!
Same for pic of David Thodey!
WikiProject templates
They may not be subpages, but they are "pages dependent on a nonexistant page" and therefore fit G8. If you still think they don't, then surely they'd fit G6 (housekeeping) — it's a complete no-brainer. No one's going to protest if you delete a template belonging to a now-deleted Wikiproject. Don't be such a process wonk. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Census
I noticed you have reverted some population numbers citing no source. While they definitely need a source, the census numbers are available at http://factfinder2.census.gov. Rather than revert to old, outdated information, why not simply add the new source? It's going to be a generic source anyway because the new FactFinder2 site doesn't allow you to bookmark the pages, so you have to find the page you want every time. As for the New Albany article, I'm not sure what the problem is with either source you removed. "ThisWeekNews" is a local newspaper website for that area (see Contact Us); it's not like city-data.com or another site that merely collects stories or data from somewhere else, so it seems to fit reliability to me. Interestingly enough, if you go to the bottom of the main page for that site, there is also a link to county-level census data from the Columbus Dispatch. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Because you have declined to delete a couple of images I tagged (one of which was crying out for deletion, the other admittedly a little less so) I have FfD-ed them. In future, please be more careful, since your removal of the speedy-tags has added a needless level of delay and bureaucracy to what should be a simple process. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 22:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page. Message added 22:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DYK for George Stumpf House
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page. Message added 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Image permission but too late
Hi, several hours after you deleted File:Horeb Mill 2011.jpg, its creator put a message on its talk page. Is this valid permission? Whether it is or it isn't, what is the procedure to follow? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Not quite, but I've left a note on the uploader's talk page explaining what to do. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Wulfrida
I see that you reversed speedy deletion of Wulfrida back in 2007, so please note that I have now nominated the article for deletion. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Restore?
Could you please restore User:Baseball Watcher/Sandbox? I was just testing with it. Thanks. Baseball Watcher 02:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Re undoe on Kelleys Island page
you wrote: (Undo, because those are insufficient citations: we need to have publication information in order to confirm that these really have been published and that they're reliable)
What information do you require? There are two books about the history of Kelleys Island and over 100 sources are cited. The books contain a total of over 740 pages of original documentation, records and stories. Kelleys Island 1810-1861 - The courageous, poignant & often quirky oives of island pioneers was published in 2009 ISBN 978-0-9819612-1-7. Kelleys Island 1862-1865 - The Civil War, the Island Soldiers & the Island Queen was published in 2010 ISBN 978-0-9819612-2-4. If you need more documentation, just let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LKorenko (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my request, but I was wondering if you could move the page back.
The Northeast isn't just a region "defined by the census bureau." As you must know, it's one of the major regions of the United States. It's kind of strange that the article focuses only on that one definition. I understand it was moved because of that, but the Census Bureau's definition alone probably isn't notable enough for its own article. When it gets moved back, I actually plan to reword the article so it talks about the region, not just that one definition. SwarmX 19:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Buffville, Kansas
Knowing that you follow locations in at least some parts of the country, I was wondering if you had heard of Buffville. It is near where I live and is a ghosttown now, but from about 1910 to 1950 existed with a post office. My question is: would this be notable enough to warrant at least a stub entry? It was located between Neodesha, Kansas and Altoona, Kansas in Cedar Township, Wilson County, Kansas and was the site of the Kansas Buff Brick and Manufacturing Co. Would appreciate some guidance as I respect work you have done to keep fluff out of other Kansas town and city articles. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Votes
Would you consider reverting your closing of this FfD since it was admittedly based on vote counting? --Damiens.rf 11:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Carabinieri Art Squad
nominate
) 18:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Charles Bemies
I'm glad you enjoyed the article. Every once in a while, you come across an obscure figure who has led a really fascinating life. Bemies is one of those. It's a lot of fun to dig into the source material and start to put the story together, and even more so when others appreciate it as well. Cbl62 (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Cummins School
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
It has been ages since we talked and you've been very helpful to me in the past. After years of a photo being online, I have these two yahoos that are trying to claim that some photo is invalid. Many editors have looked at it and never stated a word. Could you help me out and end the discussion. I believe your editing skills and status on Wiki are far greater than theirs. There's a file discussion page on the Mary Hood photo, but I'm not sure how to get you there. Can you help!!! Carsonmc (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Ask and it shall be given
20 Mansfield pix just put into the Richland County, Ohio list. There are 5 or 10 more to squeeze out in Mansfield, which will take awhile. The comment on the gas station/info center is mostly because I get grumpy with mass uploads. But these info centers work mainly when I'm not there or don't need them. The 11:27 was Eastern time, but I think also that one works Memorial Day to Labor Day. For another grumpy comment, see the 699 pic in Category:Park Avenue West, Mansfield Ohio at Commons. Back in 30 minutes. Smallbones (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Images
Hi Nyttend,
I notice you're working your way through my images and deleting them under the rationale that they could be reasonably replaced. I'll admit I'm inexperienced on images, but I'm surprised to see this as the criterion; these are images of current political prisoners, and I'm not sure how we're going to readily acquire fair use images of them. Thanks for clarifying--
talk
) 22:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, should have clarified what images i meant:
talk
) 22:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say I'm not sure what you mean by "replaceable" tags here. Another editor instructed me to use this specific rationale for cases of political prisoners and I've been trying to follow his example. Any additional guidance you could give on proper format would be appreciated, though.
As for the length of sentence issue, can you point me to the relevant guidelines so I can avoid this mistake in the future? I read through some on replacability but never quite found this section. I'm probably writing some political prisoner articles soon and I want to make sure I get it right. Cheers,
talk
) 22:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take a look at that tagging issue. As I said, I thought I was following the example of a more knowledgeable editor, and I apologize for not investigating more closely myself. In the future, what would be the appropriate license to select for a similar case?
I'm sorry to say I have to run off in a moment, but I did want to appeal to you specifically on the Su Su Nway image. As Su Su Nway's not scheduled to be released from prison until 2020, I'm surprised that you see her as falling on the wrong side of that first criterion; waiting until 2020 and then asking a Wikipedian to meet an opposition figure into one of the most repressive nations in the world for a photograph strikes me as a rather extreme definition of "available". (We Wikipedians are a
talk
) 23:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
One more follow-up question, and I apologize if I'm a pest at this point, but I'm still not clear what sort of licensing I'm supposed to select for a case like Khun Bedu. If I understand you right, you've told me very strongly not to select "fair use image of a living person" from the upload drop-down menu, as it brings up an automatic nomination for deletion and invites the editor to post their rationale for fair use below, which I've been doing using their suggested template. Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to put in its place, as none of the other licensing tags seem to quite fit, either--"fair use of a historically significant event or a deceased person" appears to be the closest, but not as accurate. When I don't input a license at all, I get a warning on my talk page from a bot that I need to do so. Is there a selection that I'm missing here? Or should I not select from the drop-down menu and enter a license by hand? To put it another way, if you were uploading an image like Khun Bedu, which license would you select?
Oh, I also asked for clarification
talk
) 03:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Nope, that's a big help. I'll proceed that way in the future, and thanks again for your patience in explaining. Cheers.
talk
) 04:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted image
Hello,
You recently deleted File:Mitch Daniels and Richard Lugar.jpg. This was a press photo released by the campaign specifically for use in Mitch Daniels articles. There are several others, but I was using this as a trial balloon to see what licensing I needed to add. Thanks for deletion notice too. :) What licensing can be used to add this image? —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 11:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I have an email from Daniels press office saying they released the image, and several other, to the public domain, and that they claim no copyright over them. I could forward you that email if you like. While there are replaceable images of Daniels available, I cannot find any of this specific period. I also have a photo of him receiving an award from
LBJ, and another of him working with Reagan. I know press photos are not usable on the commons, but I thought they could be uploaded here with fair use rationales. They would be excellent for the article, but if I misunderstand the licensing policy, then thats ok. Thanks —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs
) 12:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I found a similar example [[4]], this image is used on a featured article, and is a press release image. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
New release editnotice
You are receiving this message because you contributed to
. It is intended for films, video games and other prominent popular media items which may be subject to high levels of editing by newcomers around the time of their release date.
On March 11, 2011 you deleted a page entitled Corporacracy citing that it was too similar to Corporatocracy. Though the two social theories are similar in name, several aspects of the definitions vary greatly. Could you possibly review the deleted article and let me know why they were listed as being too similar? Are there any areas of improvement for the page that you could suggest? Would an inclusion of a corporacracy vs corportocracy subsection that cited individual differences between the two theories expedite the page's publication? Thanks for the feedback, any input is much appreciated. Preceding comment left by Alexsunk (talk) at 18:30 on 19 May 2011.
DYK for Women's tennis in Australia
racquet? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The drawing at File:Carnival Magic.jpg was uploaded at a time when the ship in question, the Carnival Magic, hadn't been built yet, so it cannot possibly be anything better than a derivative work of a copyrighted plan. The uploader also had a history of persistent bad uploads with fraudulent "own work" tags, some of which were uploaded as part of the same series on the same day.
I'd be wheel-warring if I fixed this now, so I'm asking you to revert your unexplained and undiscussed move of undeleting it. Fut.Perf.☼ 06:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I only now notice you did this with a whole bunch of other files too. Apart from being extremely poor admin style (undoing another admin's action without discussion), every single one of your decisions to undo my deletions was also wrong. In each of these cases, I was not merely overriding your previous de-taggings, but was making an independent speedy determination on the basis of additional evidence that you evidently hadn't considered. I expect you will revert your actions.
And let me make this very clear: next time you undo an "obvious copyvio" speedy deletion of mine without prior consultation, be very very sure you can personally vouch for the correctness of the copyright claim. Because I will be holding you personally responsible for the copyvio, just as if you were the uploader. That includes the possibility of a copyvio block. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
For the record, here's the list:
File:P. Ramlee.png, evidently an old photograph or screenshot, inherently implausible "own work" claim; uploaded by a sock of a user who had previously admitted under his other account name that all their "own work" uploads had been copyvios.
File:Solution7.PNG: duplicate upload of File:Solution7.JPG, tagged as non-free, and of File:Solution 7.gif, ascribed to an external source by same uploader. Evidently a non-free album cover, no sign that the uploader represents the publisher; consistent history of bad uploads.
File:Solange Knowles - In My Heart.JPG: alleged album cover, purporting to be of an album owned by a large commercial record company, according to deleted article (Columbia Records); alternatively fan-art on the basis of some promotional picture, which must also be non-free. Updated by abusive account that was later blocked for sockpuppeting and persistent copyvios. Had already been deleted as obviously non-free after first upload in 2006 but was immediately re-uploaded.
Yes, of course I have been following your file de-taggings. You have a habit of de-tagging files on an extremely narrow, formalistic basis, and in doing so, you often leave obviously problematic files simply sitting around for the sake of some formality. If you feel the cases are not obvious enough for you to speedy them, you could simply leave them aside to let others process them, or you could forward them to FFD/PUF yourself, or you could give a notification to the tagger so they know the matter needs to be pursued further. The way you do it, you simply destroy the hard work of those who do the tagging, which is a slap in the face of these hard-working constructive editors, and damaging to the project as a whole. Since I myself often place images into the di- queues, I've learned I need to watch them permanently lest you come along and just annihilate my work, and in doing so I've seen too many poor decisions on your part to leave them uncorrected. I will continue giving such files the extra scrutiny they need, cleaning up after you, as long as that's necessary. If I simply disagree with an action of yours I will take it to FFD/PUF; if I become aware of additional evidence of copyvio or similar problems that you didn't have, and which allows me to make a new, independent call under the speedy criteria, I will do that. And in these cases I expect and demand that you respect my work.
Now about the files I listed above: now that you know they are copyvios, are you still insisting on using your admin bit to protect their continued presence? Fut.Perf.☼ 04:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Hundred billion dollars and eggs.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered,
Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf
Hi. Earlier today you rejected my request to delete a bunch of categories within the above-mentioned category tree and I was wondering if you could possibly re-consider.
overcategorization. Snowman Guy replied agreeing with my suggestion, asking me to implement it. In the cleanup of the century and decade categories I requested speedy deletion of them. I can understand why you originally declined my requests (to you it would appear that I cleared them without reaching a consensus etc) however hopefully this paragraph explains it and they can be deleted under either of those two criterion I originally posted. Any questions feel free to send a message to myself or Snowman Guy. Kind Regards Themeparkgc Talk
copyright violation". Would you please un-delete the image, as it is available under the GFDL? The ownership and the licence were verified by OTRS in 2008 (Ticket ID: 1800191). Thank you. --Joshua Issac (talk
) 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's my place, since I don't have OTRS access — only OTRS volunteers should take actions of this sort. Please understand that the file description never said anything about OTRS, so I had no way to know about it. None of our OTRS team people have been highly active, and I can't find an OTRS noticeboard, so I'm going to post a request at WP:AN and hope (1) that an OTRS volunteer reads it, or (2) someone else reads it and knows a better place to post a request of this sort. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Nyttend, thank you for posting it on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Unfortunately, I had made some incorrect assumptions about the ticket, which Adrignola helped clear up. I apologize for any confusion caused. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome; it wasn't at all a problem. You would have gotten a speedier reply, but we had a brief tornado warning just after I left the talkback, so I didn't have time to finish the reply. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Editing Wikipedia after a tornado warning!? That's some dedication! ;) --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I edited after the warning: not during the warning, but after it had expired :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
wp:article titles lock
Could you undo it, it doesn't do any good, I'm outnumbered anyway, so edit warring doesn't help for me, and the lock doesn't permit anyone else editing, which would help resolve the situation. And with the lock, there's no incentive for pmanderson or blueboar to ever resolve it.Rememberway (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
If you'd happened to have locked it on my version or the original version that stood for 3 years, it would have forced them to be reasonable and seek consensus, but I know you can't pick and choose. Just unlock, and I promise I won't edit war; if I do, you can suspend me, but I won't. ;-)Rememberway (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to jump in here before Nyttend to try and help: See m:Wrong version. You're barking up the wrong tree, here. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 05:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Article titles page protection
did someone ask for protection at Wikipedia:Article titles? I'm concerned that protecting the page now will simply escalate things. The dispute seems to be winding down, in my view. There's discussion on the talk page, and the two of them have pretty much descended to the level of personal insults and whatnot. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 05:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a report at
WP:ANI; see the "Edit warring at WP:Article titles" header. I protected because I could see that the reverting was continuing, and as I said in the log, I intentionally avoided looking at the page history or diffs in order to be impartial about which version I was reverting. Nyttend (talk
) 11:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Hopefully it won't stay protected for months like WP:MOS has. *sigh* — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 18:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Congrats on finishing Tippecanoe County. Just noticed the Purdue State Bank not being an NRHP. I'm amazed, but couldn't even find it in a Historic District.
While in New York last weekend, I managed to get the last 8 or so sites in Manhattan, except for 2 non-extant boats. I've still got a bit of work to do on it, e.g. looking for old pix, but I guess there won't ever be pix there.
Except maybe one of a really big pier (16?) without the boat. The other was in a big harbor near the Twin Towers, so I don't know that it's possible to get a pic of a big harbor. I did get the photo of the missing clock site however :-)
Would you take a look at my question on QR codes at
I was there recently, took a picture of the place, and added it to the first listing. Interestingly, there does appear to be a second front entrance on the left of the house. Is there any way to confirm that these are duplicate listings or not? Regards,
Allow me to clarify: Per edit request linked in the title, you added a piece of code to Template:Merge that shows date of merger proposal. Thank you. Now, will you please add the same code to Template:Merge to, Template:Merge from and Template:Merging? (I assume this a totally non-controversial edit if not actually expected.) Fleet Command (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
That was it. Thanks a lot. (I'll take care of the Template:Merging myself; I just discovered that it is not edit-protected.) Fleet Command (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
New NY NR listing noms
There's usually a bit of a lag between a property gets officially listed and when NYSOPRHP puts the nom up. I don't know exactly how long it is but it takes a few months. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, sorry for misusing this template.....
"Hello. This message is being sent ....." Thanks for your help and explanation. Qwrk (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion redirect
Hey Nyttend, I thought I was being clever. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:3RR definitely does not require that the material reverted is the same, only that all edits are to the same article in a 24 hour period and non-exempt. The policy page has a big blue bubble on this point and everything (actually, that is new since last time I checked; not sure I like the bubble as a stylistic choice, but if it works I can deal). Anyway, good call there, I just wanted to quibble with your reasoning. I also closed the Iraq War thread up a bit on that page where you also commented - a warning and a firm nudge towards talk. It was almost refreshing to see flagico reverts that were not about the flag icons themselves. If you can think of anything better to do there, go for it. - 2/0 (cont.
) 13:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Herpes zoster
I was going to template you with a cranky comment about sourcing your edits. But, I see you've been around, so I assume
reliable medical source. If you're going to edit medical articles, we do expect a higher level of sourcing than the regular Wikipedia articles, and are not all willing to keep unsourced statements that are probably incorrect.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions
16:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
AWE (academic writing in English)
Thanks for picking up - which I did myself late at night - that I had not included the web address that I ought to have done in my addition to Wikipedia on AWE (academic writing in English). The address is hull.ac.uk/awe. With regard to your deletion, I protest - is is not self-evident that some wikipedians (notably students) might find the content useful? How much should it be 'justified' in a factual article? MacAuslan (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your response of yesterday. AWE is the only resource of its kind in British cyberspace of which I am aware. It receives interest from around the world. It is a valuable aid to students, and is offered free to them. It should be known about more widely. (I say this though it may expose to me to criticism as 'advertising': no one stands to gain anything from the article in wikipedia.) MacAuslan (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi I trust the weekend break + wedding were good. I got your message before you went off, and tried to leave a message on the admin noticeboard: nothing seems to have happened. I can no longer trace it... Basically, it gave the e-mail address (hull.ac.uk/awe, which redirects to http://slb-ltsu.hull.ac.uk/awe/index.php?title=Main_Page); it claimed significance in its seeming uniqueness, and its hit rate. It added a commendation from John Hilsdon, then Chairman of the (UK) Learning Developers in Higher Education Network, who circulated the group with this "Briefly, I'm a big fan of Peter Wilson's excellent AWE site http://slb-ltsu.hull.ac.uk/awe/index.php?title=Main_Page
I've directed various students there and always had good feedback ... " ([1]) MacAuslan (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
NHRP document copyright status
I believe these are all PD-USGov, so quoting from them wouldn't be a copyright violation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand you provide a service to Wikipedia deleting much unsourced, nonnotables, trivia information, etc. But as you know I disagree with some of your
deletionist
tendencies. My philosophy is to improve just not delete.
I have put back the edits into the See also section you have deleted twice from
WP:REPEATLINK
allows duplicate links in infobox and main article would of explained my reasoning well enough for Marshall County, however you again deleted my edit with the edit summary explanation of That's for in-text links: a see-also section is for links not elsewhere provided. I will now quote the REPEATELINK here with the bold emphasis on my point: ====Repeated links====
In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including these:
where the later occurrence is a long way from the first.
where the first link is in an infobox, navbox or similar meta-content or an image caption.
where the links are in a table or in a list, as each table or list should stand on its own with its own independent set of links.
I read the information at
WP:SEEALSO
which is to large to quote in total however I quote with my point in bold print: However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a "See also" section at all.
Considering there is not any information about the County Courthouse in the article about the county and the only link provided to said county courthouse is in very small print in the infobox caption under the picture, I believe my editorial judgment is correct. However if you would like to take the time to write a sentence or two about the county courthouse in the main county article providing the link there instead of just deleting it from the See also section I would see that as improving the article and would thank you. If not please do not delete my edits that I think makes good common sense.
This being said, I only patrol the Iowa communities and I realize you may add substantially to other articles in Wikipedia and you may have added to Iowa articles in the past, and just not deleted as I have seen in the last 6 months or so I have been patrolling. I hope that this long explanation helps you understand my choice in reverting these two edits of yours. Good editing.--RifeIdeas Talk 23:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Christeele Acres Historic District
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gerda Arendt (talk
) 11:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Palmer Township
Hey Nyttend. I was wondering why you've renamed
Palmer Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States, the further disambiguation is only needed when there are two places of the same name in the same state (like here and here). But since there is only one Palmer Township in Pennsylvania, it would appear to me that guideline means the "Northampton County" is not necessary for disambiguation in this particular article title. I wanted to check with you before I changed it back, so if you object to that, please let me know your reasoning. Thanks! — HunterKahn
14:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
If that's the case, I'm fine with it, but can you show me where exactly this was decided?
WP:CONSENSUS somewhere else, that wording might need to be changed. What was this decision made? — HunterKahn
19:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it a violation of the naming convention, but I don't believe it's following the naming conventions either. Per Wikipedia guidelines, it appears the proper name for that page is Palmer Township, Pennsylvania, unless I can find somewhere where a different consensus was reached. But it doesn't really bother me either way, so I won't change it back for now or anything. — HunterKahn 01:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Epsilon II Archaeological Site
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Sir,
you seem to be in an edit war over the inclusion of
East Cobb in the template for Cobb County, and you and I seem not to see eye to eye on a similar issue for Buford Highway Corridor, DeKalb County, Georgia. When I look up the entry for "unincorporated place"
it mentions a geographic area which has a common social identity. It specifically says that this can be a place that goes across municipalities, as Buford Highway Corridor does; or is entirely in unincorporated territory, as East Cobb does.
These two places definitely do qualify as having social identity - in terms of mentions in the local press, common usage among locals (I can only personally vouch for that), names of businesses and churches, etc.
What I would like to ask you specifically is - what in your mind is the criterion or what are the criteria which make an unincorporated place includable in the templates. Is it something specific like a post office or being designated as a census-designated place - something which generally only will occur for very longstanding unincorporated places. I think this will educate us about why we are incorrect in considering our two local communities as valid unincorporated communities.Keizers (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Sir, but your answer still doesn't answer my question. You say that to be considered an unincorporated community it must be a "populated place" (which both of these are) and they must be "self-contained" (it is not really clear what that means). Again, Buford Highway Corridor is not simply a strip - it is an area about a half mile on either side of the highway with large areas of (mostly) apartment communities - a geographic area, bigger than a strip, with a distinct identity and even a distinct ethnic composition than surrounding communities. My reference to post offices and CDPs was a question to you, it was not my conclusion that those things would define a community. My conclusion is that these 2 communities fulfil the criteria expressed (Populated places, distinct identity), and I can only conclude that there are no clear criteria which exclude these 2 communities as communities. Beyond that it does not appear that the "consensus" has settled on any more specific criteria.
As an aside, I think it would be beneficial to have a point of view on "when does a generic unincorporated area become a distinct community"? I would argue this is not through processes like establishment of post office names or CDPs, which simply does not happen anymore, at least in the Atlanta area. (The Brookhaven area is still called North Atlanta CDP which is 30 years outdated; Post office place names are assigned based on the nearby incorporated cities or even City of Atlanta which can be 20 miles away.) I think it would be far more relevant to define criteria such as: Chamber of Commerce with the community name; number of businesses/schools/churches with the place name in their title; community organizations with the place name, and so forth. PonceyHighland (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not for sock puppetry I just happen to be logged in as another user because my main username is taken on another language Wikipedia. It's an accident. My points are still the same if you wish you address them.Keizers (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not in violation of anything. I acknowledged that the use of the other account, the reason for the other account (other language Wikipedia) and that it was an accident. It has not been explained what criteria the "consensus" has settled on. I do, however agree, that we are not getting anywhere.Keizers (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain to me what the proper process is? Is it an umbrella Cfm for
Wikipedia:CSD#G7, can I assume it's safe and appropriate to manually move over the articles from the other subcats of Category:History books by country
I've created in the past in the same manner I have been doing so far?
Awesome, thanks! MRDXII (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
West Virginia towns
I see you have indiscriminately reverted all the improvements I made to these articles. The changes I made were in line with the MoS, specifically the guidelines on overlinking (
WP:OVERLINK#General_points_on_linking_style
).
What generally should not be linked
An article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value. Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article,
Avoid linking plain English words.
Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, and common professions.
General points on linking style
When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link.
What benefit does a reader of these articles get from a link to
Town (West Virginia)? What was so wrong with my improvement of the clumsy boilerplate phrase ""the population was spread out with" to the much clearer "the age distribution of the population shows"? Colonies Chris (talk
) 10:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I watchlist CC's page, and note your recent post there. I don't think many people will be convinced by your argument that "hundreds of thousands of articles can't possibly be wrong". That way, hundreds of thousands of people can't be wrong about the existence of god. It's not a good track to go down; rather, the advantages and disadvantages to our readers matters supremely. "Marriage" is a common term, and should not be linked unless there is a very good reason to do so (such as in the article
pillars of WP state that "WP is not a dictionary". Nor should "United States" be linked unless there's a clear, focused use for the readers. I think we've been through these arguments before in relation to chronological terms (such as "20th century") and other common words. Wikilinking works best when we apply our expertise as editors to ration links on the basis of their utility for the readers. Unrationed, undisciplined linking significantly weakens the whole point of the connections we do want to make for readers. I cannot believe that you would revert CC's much more focused link to "Town (West Virginia)"; nor can I believe that you would reinstate that bizarre wording after CC has rendered it in acceptable English. Please think of the readers. Tony(talk)
12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Please better understand what you are reverting next time
I suggest that the next time you are tempted to perform mass revertings, Nyttend, you first better study the edits the other editor actually made. I see that User:Colonies Chris actually took time to correct poor phrasing like In the city the population was spread out with 31.2%… so as to properly read In the city the age distribution of the population shows 31.2% (this ∆ edit on Zilah, Washington). The former read as if the housing in Zilah was spread out over a large land area. That sort of proof reading and hand tuning takes time and Colonies Chris contributed that quality effort to improve the project.
In your “Eat THIS!” mass reverting, you didn’t stop to devote one tenth the time Colonies Chris did to improve those articles. The result is A) poorer articles, B) happier Nyttend because needless overlinking was restored (along with poor phrasing and other corrections you didn’t bother to examine), and C) Wikipedia’s readership is the loser.
Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment and there are going to be differences in opinion. If, while starting an edit war with someone, you can’t devote as much time as Colonies Chris devoted with his edits, I suggest you just step aside and let others improve Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for this and this. I had been under the impression that the redirect had to be recent regardless of article age. I just re-checked the criteria, though (admittedly, in preparation for querying your edits) and found you are right. So, sorry for doubting you and thank you for correcting me.
I was not involved in the edit waring which lead to the protection of Wikipedia:Article titles, but I have noticed that the following edit was made to this policy, without consensus, prior to protection and the status quo should properly be restored: Dolovis (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Current edit (made without consensus)
Recognizability – article titles are expected to be a recognizable name or description of the topic.
Previously (status quo)
Recognizability – an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject.
DYK BUILDING AND ROAD RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Thanks for the review of my DYK. I have addressed the concerns you raised. I couldn't get too much third party references to support the facts. I will try and find some more. Could you please re-review it for me and accord the right tag to it. Thanks a lot, a friend called--CrossTempleJay → talk 20:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I wished I could get more references for the statements in the article. I have spent my whole day trying to do so but I haven't. Unlike some advanced countries, it is not easy getting references for Ghanaian articles. This is how best I can go for now. I have also expanded the article in certain ways to increase the number of third party references in it. I wish you will approve it. Thanks anyway. If it is still not up to your standard, feel free to try to add to it. I will be indeed be grateful. Still a friend called--CrossTempleJay → talk 16:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am still waiting for you response for my above statement and the DYK. thanks.--CrossTempleJay → talk 09:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I have read the reviews by the editors too. I agree with the third editor. He as worked with me on some of my DYKs and understands how it is sometimes difficult to source certain topics. I have tried, indeed I have tried to make it better. Unfortunately, I don't see how I can add up stuff for now. It was so unlike Nigerian_Building_and_Road_Research_Institute which I got a lot of references for. From our part of the world not everything comes so easy even references. So I might just abandon pushing it to make DYK. Maybe some time to come another editor may get more info to add to it. I had just wished some leniency could have been given the article.Thanks though for what you have done.CrossTempleJay → talk 11:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Alexandria, Ohio
Would it be okay to remove the coordinates from the Geography section if I cited the reference in the infobox, which already has the coordinates? Also, I'm wondering if you've read what
Wikipedia:USCITY#Geography has to say about duplicate coordinates. Best regards, —Stepheng3 (talk
) 03:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I think duplicating strings of numbers is even more absurd than removing coordinates from the Geography section. How would you feel about seeking a Wikipedia:Third opinion? —Stepheng3 (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The "strings of numbers" I was referring to are geocoordinates—that is, latitudes and longitudes. —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that geocoordinates are very important. However, this is information that's already present at the title and in the infobox. To include it in the Geography section as well seems excessive. Back in 2002, Rambot created thousands of articles with two sets of coordinates in the Geography section: one in decimal and one in degrees-minutes-seconds. Would you agree that four sets of coordinates is excessive? The Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities folks decided it was. They wrote the guideline (without my involvement, by the way) and I happen to agree with it. If you disagree, you should take it up with them. —Stepheng3 (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Colorblindness improvement on Graphic Lab
Illustration workshop has been made. If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}} You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply
Illustration workshop has been made. If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}} You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply
Hi there, When looking for the article called Reading Cloggies I noticed you've deleted it and I was wondering why. The article content was:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia
The Reading Cloggies or The Reading Traditional Step and Dance Group was a pioneering dance group based in Reading, Berkshire, England. Members specialised in researching, collecting, documenting and performing traditional social, step, and clog dances from around the British Isles.
They had a workshop programme which toured the country termed the Campaign for Real Reels or Putting the Stepping back into 'Folk' Dances.
They also held an annual Step and Clog Dance Festival which not only offered learning workshops with traditional dancers, but also featured a Performer's Show by invited guests, a Workshop Showcase by students of the respective workshops, and a lecture by a prominent researcher / collector.
In later years the festivals were filmed professionally and recordings are still available. Also, performances have been uploaded to Tony Barrand's Digital Video Research Archive of traditional dance hosted by Boston University.
External links
Reading Cloggies website
Reading Cloggies on MP3.com
As far as I know the subject is fairly notable - historically at any rate - epsecially for people with an interest in that area. The article was quite well referenced. Could you explain the rationale for deletion? Thanks. Northern Arrow (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information at my Talk page. I didn't actually write the article and I'm not a member of the group. I just happened to come across the article yesterday but when I looked for it again it had gone. I couldn't find any debate about the deletion and no request for additional information. Would it have been an option to invite further additions to the article and then delete if nothing was forthcoming? There is actually quite a bit of material about them on the 'net. Anyway, no worries. Wikipedia will be none the worse for not having the article. Thanks again. Northern Arrow (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk. Message added 20:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I know you are probably checking this, but I would like you to check it right away so I can change my token Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Ping
Ping, Pang, Pong, Liu, and Calaf are all characters from
You indefinitely protected this policy page over an issue which is now dead on its talk page; the
talk page discussion has been silent for two weeks (and is inconclusive). Please unprotect. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson
00:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI
Saw this whilst reading RC. Thought you should know. :) fr33kman 01:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal attack by Mmann
Your abuse of power has been reported.
Upstate South Carolina
Nyttend, you undid many of the edits I did regarding the 10 counties of Upstate South Carolina. I assure you that every edit I did is backed up by the 2010 Census website http://factfinder2.census.govInkan1969 (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. Everywhere where the 2010 Census added new CDP's I put a footnote to the fact finder website. Inkan1969 (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
What is a railroad?
You may be aware the Dewey Decimal Classification has two separate categories for railroads. Books numbered 385 consider railroads as a commercial enterprise, and books numbered 625 consider the technology of railroads. I find most railroad books cover both subjects, but some are categorized 385.xxx while others are categorized 625.xxx, and searching out two separate locations of each library visited to find books of interest seems a pointless waste of time. Wikipedia, by contrast, has a wonderful ability to reference an article under more than one category -- which brings me to the Rockport, California article.
Readers are informed Rockport was a company town with a company railroad serving the company sawmill. So I question deletion of categories: Defunct California railroads & Logging railroads of the United States. Rockport's railroad never had a fancy name like the Caspar, South Fork and Eastern Railroad; but it operated flanged steel-wheeled locomotives and cars over paired steel rails. I doubt Rockport's railroad has the significance to warrant a separate article, but I hope interested persons will be able to find information about Rockport's railroad through category listings. So I intend to restore those categories; and I hope you understand my reason for doing so.Thewellman (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. I have created a redirect as you suggested; but your suggestion about a redirect using the railroad's name índicates I may have left you with some misunderstanding about logging railroads. The British use the term tramway (industrial) to differentiate railroads constructed for private use as opposed to those providing public transport. Americans speak of both as railroads. Many industrial railroads were identified only by the company name unless the company felt some benefit (like eminent domain) might compensate for the regulatory burdens of government recognition of their railroad. Company employees may have spoken informally of their company locomotive by some grandiose term like the "Super Chief" or "Broadway Limited"; but the concept of naming a logging railroad is comparable to expecting to find a street name on a driveway.
Maps of California's Lost Coast have lots of empty space in comparison to other parts of the state, so cartographers applied names to places notable for their distance from any other place. Coastal rivers of Mendocino County have a unique linkage with isolated sawmills and logging railroads. Each of the river drainages contained a lucrative stand of timber with a downhill skid pattern to a sawmill located on flat ground adjacent to an estuary with the potential for loading ships where interior transportation of lumber was unavailable. I view such locations as an isolated symbiotic ecosystem rather than a separate river, sawmill, railroad, and community of sawmill workers. I agree such locations are better described by a single article rather than a cluster of trivial stubs. Please forgive my skepticism concerning your unwillingness to acknowledge Rockport as identifying not only an unincorporated community, but also a railroad and a logging company. I must confess to curiousity if you accept Eisenhower as both a general and a president.Thewellman (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I mentioned you on the Admin noticeboard: [5]. You should not be calling me a meat puppet. Look at my list of hundreds of contributions regarding metro Atlanta. Like your assessment of what constitutes an unincorporated community, your insults also are unsubstantiated.Keizers (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Powdersville
I don't understand the problem with the Powdersville, South Carolina page. The name is "Powdersville", with an "s". That's the way it's always been spelled here, and it's the way the Census spells it. How come you keep changing the page back to "powderville"?Inkan1969 (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Because 5 years ago, somebody did a
WP:CUTPASTE move, and nobody cleaned it up properly. It's fixed now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)
17:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I had forgotten about the "move" button that is up on the right. I apologize: I hadn't moved any page in a while.Inkan1969 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI, the Census Bureau had previously published data for the place under the name "Powderville", which is why Rambot created the article with that name originally. The name was corrected for the 2010 Census. [6]older ≠ wiser 18:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
^Hilsdon, John (2009) e-mail to the LDHEN network 05/06/2009
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ann_Dunham_with_father_and_children.jpg){kind=link}
