User talk:Castncoot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Castncoot)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Koreatown, Fort Lee, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

AlexGraal (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Congratulations, Castncoot, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia!

Thank you for improving and expanding articles on Korean diaspora communities, and for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, this means a lot. Castncoot (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

NYC for FA[edit]

You have done great work on that article! I really appreciate the efforts. There was a completely un-sourced section of sports which was one of the reasons for a failed FA which is now sourced by me. Also I have add more sources and I m searching for few more. So can I please ask you to do copy-edits and find sources for few facts. After 1 or 2 weeks, we can probably nominate it for FA. Cheers! →TSU tp* 06:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to - but what exactly are "copy-edits"?

Castncoot (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

See Copy_editing. And this means that making minor changes like making a sentence proper (looking better and encyclopedic). →TSU tp* 10:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. But my goal is simply to make a better article. I won't specifically pander to someone's criteria for "Featured Article" status. By the same token, if it just so happens that constructive edits obtain FA status for this article, then certainly well and good.

Castncoot (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree and the problems which were responsible for failed FA nom previously are almost addressed. We can go for FA nom in a span of 2-3 weeks. Keep up the good work! →TSU tp* 02:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll be also removing few things which make tthe article go off-focus and which are no sourced (and can't find any) and which are not neutral or the sourcing is poor. →TSU tp* 04:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasm, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't have a hidden agenda - but as an apparently new Wikipedian, you need to learn how to share and reach a consensus. That's why each article has its own Talk page. Some of the issues you have brought up have already been discussed and debated at great length on this article's talk page, with a consensus arrived at - please go back to the archives to refer if necessary - but you have to play by the same rules as everyone else, as opposed to storming in randomly. Discuss things on the article's Talk page, please.Castncoot (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Roger that! →TSU tp* 06:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New York metropolitan area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garden State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Will fix this, thank you.

Castncoot (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

NY Metro Area revisions[edit]

Greetings, I see that you made a terrific effort in improving the NY Metro Area article. However, some of your revisions (specifically the Transportation ones) I had to revert back. The extra information you added was wonderful, but that should really go in that bridges' own article. This is supposed to be just a list.

Also, I removed the Driscoll and Tappan Zee Bridges because they doesn't really connect to the 5 boroughs of New York, especially Manhattan. I can understand why you added the TZBrg, but since that's part of the Thruway system, I don't see any need to add it. You could consider the Newark Bay Bridge (along the New Jersey Turnpike Extension) to be a major crossing, but then again it's part of the Turnpike system and doesn't directly cross into one of the five boroughs. Same goes for the Driscoll Bridge.

Any questions? Feel free to contact me. Thanks. Mlaurenti (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Have responded on your talk page, thanks.

Castncoot (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

POV quotes[edit]

becareful of adding quotes which pushes a pov.Curb Chain (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Not at all - this symbolic quote has been up for a while, made by a major news organization. The symbolism is the significant issue here, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to this and your msg on my talk: Your rationale is from the perspective of WP:SYN. That's why we don't include it. Hope you can see that.Curb Chain (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC) I think it's a gray zone, but I don't mind either way. Castncoot (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Gangnam Style#ABC (good morning america) quote". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN[edit]

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Gangnam_Style.23ABC_.28good_morning_america.29_quote I've filed a report here.Curb Chain (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Fair enough, but also acknowledge that two editors are in agreement opposing your (thus far) lone viewpoint. Castncoot (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gangnam Style, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madonna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rican migration to New York[edit]

Your additions to "Puerto Rican migration to New York" are really good, however you know that Wikipedia policy requires that you cite and provide reliable verifiable sources to back up your statements. Otherwise, your additions will be removed, something which I would hate to see. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Will look for some. Maybe you can help.

Castncoot (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  • The thing is that I couldn't find any reliable verifiable source to back up the following statements:

"However, in more recent years, there has been a resurgence in immigration from Puerto Rico to New York and New Jersey, with an apparently multifactorial allure to Puerto Ricans."'

"New York City also became the mecca for freestyle music in the 1980s, of which Puerto Rican singer-songwriters represented an integral component."

"and whose influence in popular music continues today, encompassing major artists such as Jennifer Lopez."

Since you added them, you have the option of backing them up before they are tagged as POV, in which case it would be preferable to have the statements removed. You have most likely checked out my user pageand therefore you know that my main interest is to protect the integrity of the Puerto Rican articles that I and others have created for Wikipedia.

That is why I salute you for your contributions, but at the sametime ask you to avoid that the article be tagged POV. It is for the good of our readers and those who know little or nothing about the contributions which Puerto Ricans have made in general who may being to question it's contents. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, well you may not have seen that I've already added one ref in the meantime, and will look for more - they're there, give it some time. (I have a busy real life, too!)

Castncoot (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Castncoot (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

^Excellent! You did a fine job. I understand about having a busy real life. I can relate to that. That is why the time and effort that you have put into this project is appreciated by people such as myself. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Castncoot (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Koreatown, Long Island, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Financial capital of the world[edit]

Hello Castncoot. Seeing as you're the editor who reverted User:Martin Hogbin's recent change to the statement about New York City being the financial capital of the world, I'd like to cordially invite you to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page. In your edit summary of your revert, you state that the subject has been "talked to death" and that there is no obligation to conform this article to another. Not being one of the team of dedicated editors who work on the NYC page, I couldn't comment on whether you have talked about the subject enough. What I do know that things change over time, including economic figures. It may be that New York can still be considered the financial capital of the world but that cannot be established without examining the facts.

As for conforming to another article, we should try to be consistent across Wikipedia, since we are writing an encyclopaedia, not a collection of unrelated articles. Whilst there is no up-to-date Wikipedia guidance about consistency (this page seems to have been abandoned), if two pages about such high-profile cities directly contradict one another, then we are not provided a coherent service to our readers.

With this in mind, I encourage to come and engage in the discussion. Warmest regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

United States edit[edit]

There's actually a very good reason for the dab. "New York City" is not the actual name. "City" should only be used to distinguish it from the state. That's why the article is called that. And the parameter is "largest city", so "city" is not needed after "New York". It's redundant. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You're actually incorrect. "New York City" is official (see the City's official web site at url=http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/?front_door=true ) and entirely interchangeable with "New York" as its common name. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for a superfluous disambiguation, which if anything would unnecessarily perplex a significant proportion of Wikipedia's readership. Castncoot (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I looked (and looked) but I don't see anything on the web site that says that it's the official name. The WP article explains it, but wiktionary says it more clearly: "The city’s official name is New York but is commonly referred to as New York City (NYC); the City of New York; or New York, New York (NY, NY), in order to distinguish it from New York State." --Musdan77 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you're kidding. Look right at the top in the City's web site - it says, "Welcome to the official New York City Web site".

Disambiguation here would anyway be frivolous. Just plain frivolous. Why confuse the Wikipedia reader?

There are a couple of other (purely additional) noteworthy points as well- - "New York City" is ubiquitously used in common language. Have you ever heard "Los Angeles City" or "Chicago City" ever being used in common language? Didn't think so. - Aesthestically it looks nice in the pictorial section, with New York City displaying three words, Los Angeles displaying two words, and Chicago displaying one word. See? There's a method to the madness!

Castncoot (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you obviously like to belittle people. Your first reply starts with "You're actually incorrect" (which I am not) and your second starts with "I'm sure you're kidding."?
1. Again it's distinguishing it from the State. That's not saying it's the official name.
2. How in the world would that be "confusing"?
3. Actually, "Los Angeles City" is used sometimes to distinguish it from Los Angeles County. It's not used as often because a state is (obviously) much bigger. And Aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder. It's your opinion (which I disagree with). --Musdan77 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not trying to belittle you. This is just such a frivolous argument which you are advancing that I am not going to spend much more time on it.
1) ALL of Wikipedia uses the term New York City to describe the City. It's a Wikipedia convention. It's been like this forever. Are you going to want to revamp ALL Wikipedia articles mentioning the City now?
2) The name "New York City" is as official as the name "New York", to describe the City, as you have seen on the City's website. Nobody can ascribe that the actual motivation for the City was thinking about distinguishing itself from New York State when it calls itself "New York City" on the "official New York City website". In fact, the website itself is "NYC.gov" - that should tell you something. It could have just as easily called itself the "official City of New York website", for example. As a matter of fact, "The City of New York" is just as official, as you'll see at the bottom of the site page. These monikers carry equal weight and significance, that's the endpoint.
3) And EVEN if it were ever meant to officially distinguish itself from the State, then obviously that should tell you that it is then just as important to similarly service the reader properly to avoid ambiguity with New York State, which is where "New York" directs to throughout Wikipedia.
4) NOBODY ever says in common language, say in Cleveland, "Hey, let's fly to L.A. City tomorrow." Even locals will say, "Let's go to Downtown L.A. this afternoon"; or "hey, let's go to Hollywood tonight"; but nobody says, "hey, let's go to L.A. City today". But the term "New York City" is used as frequently if not more than "New York" in regular, everyday language, by both locals and out-of-towners.
5) Just a question, how much DO you know about New York City? Have you ever contributed to the article about that city?
6) The aesthetics were a minor point. I don't care about that.

Castncoot (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So, you think this is frivolous, but it's not too frivolous for you to revert. You can't say that "all Wikipedia uses the term New York City." I'm sure you haven't been to all of the articles on the site. No, I have not made it my mission to change it everywhere, but if I happen to change one, I guess you'll be right behind me to revert it. The New York City article itself says, "The city is referred to as New York City or the City of New York to distinguish it from the State of New York". I guess now you're going to change that too. And I checked the history of what I quoted from wiktionary, and found that it's been there almost from the beginning (Feb. 2006). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I request that you please don't comment on this Talk page about this matter any further. Thank you.

Castncoot (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Climate box[edit]

Are you not having problems with saving the page or things being super slow? I have consistently been getting timeout errors. It would be nice to discuss on Talk:New York City how to improve the article, in this aspect, to somehow reduce the number of templates on the page. Templates are known to be a problem if too many of them. --Aude (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as a matter of fact, no, I have not had such a problem. This was simply a specific edit directed at the climate table, however.

Thanks, Castncoot (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

hmm.... okay then. Let's see how the new templating engine (coming next week) helps. Until then, I can't edit too easily. The article looks quite good now anyway and don't see that much for me to help with. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

References with copyright notices[edit]

Hey, I noticed this. Can you please be careful not to add (or restore) copyright tags to references? Thanks, --John (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just had a discussion about that with another editor. Thanks for the info, you learn something new every day.

Castncoot (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Your revert[edit]

I would just like to let you know that the Demographics section has only been placed before the Government section for the past few months, so that is hardly "longstanding". I distinctly remember it being after it just like almost every other article on a nation or political division. The conventional organization of sections in such articles is the reason we don't put "Culture" as the first section and "Government" as the last section. Your response to my edit also sounded very caustic. I placed the section between "law enforcement" and "Economy" if you look at where that actually is, it is hardly the "bottom of the barrel." Now I know why Wikipedia has gotten the reputation of having hostile watchdogs who think they own articles. I'm not willing to make a fuss over a little rearrangement but most of all I wanted to inform you of your attitude. Have a nice day. Cadiomals (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Now please take a look in the mirror. Have a nice day.

Castncoot (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes to the New York City article[edit]

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my changes to the New York City article, with the comment:

Undid revision 554682440 by DocWatson42 (talk) You have a browser issue. This looks horrible and there are editing errors as well.

I intend to check on the possible browser issue later today, but right now I'm curious about the "editing errors"—besides image placement, what errors do you feel I made?—DocWatson42 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If I remember, in at least one instance you had left the File parameter brackets dangling. I appreciate your good faith, but I know you've tried to make this edit several times, and with all due respect, it looks awful, not to mention that it would be aberrant amongst city articles, of which images are a big part and deserve their appropriate prominence rather than being shoved together. Please do check your browser.

Castncoot (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

So I checked (a while back—my apologies for the delay in my response ^_^;) using Firefox 18 and Google Chrome 26 on a 1920×1080 monitor, as well as my own (1600×1200; under Firefox 2 <sweatdrop>), and while I have a browser problem, it is independent of the problem with the article which I was trying to fix: that (in wide browser windows) there was excess white space cause by the position of various images. There was a huge amount of white space above the weather template, a small amount at the bottom of the Demographics section, and some at the bottom of the Sports section (in a 1600 pixel window, it is the height of the "Citi Field" image and its caption; check for yourself). I was also fixing:
  • An instance of capitalization (since which census is entirely unclear in the the text)
  • The title of a newspaper
  • The position of a period (per the MOS)
  • The columns in the "New York City Global Partners network" subsection
  • The bottom navboxes
  • The position of the "good article" template (per the MOS)
Someone (or several someones) has since fixed the first two instances of white space and the columns, and I just fixed everything else (again), with the exception of the Sports section, since I wanted to discuss it with you.—DocWatson42 (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, DocWatson42 (talk). I believe your most recent edit represented a significant improvement from your previous layout edit. The only issue that stuck out like a sore thumb was the Regions of New York template being placed at the top - as pegging a big city article, especially a world city article, into a regional or state template, is anomalous; I therefore moved that to the See also section.
A (vertical) infobox like Template:Regions of New York does not, per Wikipedia:Navigation templates, belong in either External links or See also, so I have created a (horizontal) navbox equivalent, Template:Regions of New York navbox, placed it in the NYC article's External links section, and deleted the infobox from the See also section. I hope that satisfies your concerns and those of user Patrickneil. ^_^
Please also post when you've had a chance to examine the article and its Sports section in a wide browser window.—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Haven't had a chance to look at the Sports section in a wider browser window yet, but I really do like what you did with the Regions of New York navbox, thank you.

Castncoot (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. ^_^ It actually wasn't that hard to do—I just needed the inspiration for the idea.—DocWatson42 (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

New York City GAR[edit]

New York City, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethics?[edit]

Whats wrong with my ethics? Anyway I suggest you concentrate more on responding to my edits and hold back on the personal insults. Not because it concerns me, I have pretty thick skin (must be a commonwealth thing), but because it will derail any discussion on improving the article. I know you think my edits are horrendous, I feel the same way about some of yours, but improvemnt is my main aim. I am hoping that it is yours too. AIRcorn (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh, try again! I wasn't born yesterday.

Castncoot (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Article process[edit]

I really don't know how to explain it better than I did at the New York talk page, so have asked someone here to try. The way I see it your options are to ask for a community reassessment or to renominate it at the Good Article page. If you don't like the way the process works you can bring that up at this talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Responded. Now I need to return to my real life.

Castncoot (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New York City. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I also want to warn you against further personal attacks against Aircorn, who's a great editor with a long track record of quality work. Your attacks against his ethics and honesty are inappropriate. This is not vandalism, it's not sabotage, it's not sock puppeting, and certainly isn't "the biggest rogue sabotage, vandalism, and destruction of a Wikipedia article in history". Accepting good faith is a core principle of Wikipedia--your wild accusations only undermine your own case. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Very funny. Aircorn could use some spelling lessons to begin with. And I have every right to disagree with your assessment.

Castncoot (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You have every right to disagree, but you'll get more results if you stop edit-warring and personally attacking other editors. Wikipedia decisions are made by community consensus, not by insults and tantrums. In this case, several editors have double-checked Aircorn's decision and agree it was a good one. The best thing to do now would be to keep working to improve the problems in the article; thanks for your work on it so far. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh please, stop with the faux condescension. I'll fix the sentence in contention about the slavery issue.

Castncoot (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds like a good start. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, I don't need your condescension. By the way, Khazar2, have you seen editor JimWae's appropriate and thorough criticism of Aircorn's editing abilities on the NYC Talk page, in the "Lead" section?

Castncoot (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What difference does that make to the article's status, exactly? Aircorn pointed out legitimate problems and gave you weeks to fix them, and you chose to throw a fit instead of addressing them. When asked for a second opinion, other experienced reviewers agreed that the problems required delisting. I'm sure Aircorn's flattered by your mounting obsession with him, but it's time to move on and focus on content. So far, the rest of us at GAN agree with him; it's about the criteria, not about him. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
You have GOT to be kidding, on both fronts. I AM flattered by YOUR insults, however. The point I'm trying to make is that three experienced editors - JimWae, Oknazevad, and, with all due respect, myself, have all expressed diametrically opposite viewpoints to that of Aircorn in recent days on various pages, but this seems to have gone completely unheard. Khazar2, can you explain to me why or how on April 25, this article became a Good Article after an exhaustive review by someone else? (I'm trying to trace that editor, perhaps you can help.) Perhaps this article does not qualify for FA status at this time - but GA status? Come on, that's ridiculous. I can pick out a bucket of articles labeled GA that would fail the exceptional criteria you have mentioned.

Castncoot (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That review--here it is--doesn't look exhaustive to me; it's got about four sentences, raises issues with no followup discussion, and the reviewer didn't even bother to complete the checklist. The editor who did it now seems to be indefinitely banned from WP. So I think that explains how something might have been missed that was later caught.
Anyway, I guess we just disagree about how the GA criteria work. It happens. If JimWae and Oknazevad want to post there about this issue, I'll be glad to discuss with them, but I think you're overinterpreting their comments; neither seems to have addressed the key issue of missing citations needed to meet the GA criteria. This'll be my last post here on this, though. Good luck sorting it out. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Yawn... Castncoot (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I must say, based on your edits at NYC and here, you seem unwilling to work collaboratively. The lede alone should be enough to get the article delisted (or at least have some serious comments). LEDE clearly states that in many instances citations aren't needed in a lede (particularly generalities already cited below), yet the NYC article goes to the 40s before the lede is finished. If you disagree with Aircorn's review, you can ask for a community reassessment at GAR.
As for Jimwae's comments, I note that he did not begin edit warring on the page after reassessment was completed, but engaged in discussion on the talk page to work towards a consensus regarding ways to improve the article. Given that you are pointing to Jimwae as an example for Aircorn or Khazar to follow, you may want to take your own advice.02:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
GA status appears to have lost its significance today. Educating the reader is far more important than following a cookbook recipe. Given the scale of NYC, following a cookbook would deprive the reader of constructive information. "One size fits all" truly is an unwise algorithm (and boring). Have a great day!

Castncoot (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't think anyone's tried "one size fits all". The level of detail expected for NYC would be far different than that of an obscure lost film such as Gagak Item, for instance. However, certain standards are set which apply throughout the encyclopedia which are intended to a) make it more easy to use; b) make it more reliable; and c) present a unified voice and thus give a more professional appearance. It looks like discussion on the talk page is bearing fruit, so I'll let you all work that out. I don't doubt that the NYC article (with a bit of work) will soon be back at GA standards. With so many dedicated editors who know each other and work together well, it's hard to imagine otherwise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input.Castncoot (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your signature[edit]

Hey there! Looking at discussions you are involved with, I'm guessing your user signature includes a line break? I was initially confused as to what text you wrote or if your signature was just some sort of test edit, see WP:SIGAPP. Perhaps reconsider this practice? Thanks and cheers! — MusikAnimal talk 02:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me so much credit. No, it's just a random habit. I can change it though, if it confuses people. See, like this! Castncoot (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Demographics of New York City: 800 languages[edit]

Please see this section on the Demographics of New York City Talk page.Robocon1 (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And again please. You are employing circular logic.Robocon1 (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Check this out.Robocon1 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we try for a consensus? Do you agree that the ELA are the experts? If so, wouldn't the best thing be to quote their actual statement on this? Please see the talk page. Robocon1 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

See the article's Talk page, please.

Castncoot (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see comment on talk page posted 17 Sept Robocon1 (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln Tunnel[edit]

Instead of reverting my edit on Lincoln Tunnel, you should have contributed to the discussion at talk:Lincoln Tunnel#busiest tunnel which has been open for almost 10 months. —EncMstr (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know about the small discussion there, dominated by yourself. Going to take out the entire sentence - too much doubt. In any case, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge doesn't have a single count for its two tunnels. And truth be told, the Trans-Manhattan Expressway tunnel underneath the apartments just east of the George Washington Bridge is likely the busiest.

Castncoot (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

For completeness, it would be good to add this to the talk page as well. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
No problem, will do.

Castncoot (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Lady Gaga, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Lady Gaga shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That was not a test or repeat edit - the forward slash (/) was misplaced... cool it, guys.

Castncoot (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Demographics of New York City. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Bergen County#Korean American Community[edit]

Hi Alansohn, shouldn't the Korean American Community section precede the other communities, rather than follow? That's how it had been for quite a while, even before being separately subsectioned. It looks really odd following the rest. Thanks, Castncoot (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why looking odd is a justification to place one community before all the others. The county's Korean population was about 57,000, while other communities that merit a bare sentence or two include 190,000 Italian Americans, 130,000 Irish Americans, 98.000 German Americans, and 83,000 Jewish Americans. The Korean community section is entirely disproportional to the other communities and should probably be trimmed and the other sections expanded to provide some small measure of balance. Restoring the Korean section to follow an overall summary of community diversity would be a start in the right direction. Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Alansohn, thanks so much for your communique. In my humble opinion, the notable differences here are, as stated and referenced, that the Korean community in Bergen County is the highest proportionally of any county in the United States, and in Palisades Park actually accounts for the majority (52% and climbing), which is not remotely true of the other communities; it is also much faster growing than the other communities you have noted, all of which tend to be stagnant or shrinking through intermarriage or emigration. Furthermore, this community exerts a profound identity far exceeding the others by no less than establishing two very large, independent, and growing Koreatown business districts, which the other communities don't do; the only other such phenomenon which comes anywhere near this in Bergen is the Jewish community in Teaneck, and perhaps you can expand upon this section further if you feel indicated. Wallington, New Jersey's Polish aggregation falls rather significantly behind by these metrics.

Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Alansohn - I saw your November 1 edit of the main article and noted your edit summary - I can't wait to see your completed masterpieces!

Castncoot (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warren County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Puerto Rican migration to New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Juan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cape May, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

San Francisco[edit]

I have no idea - I'm really not the person to ask. You can post over at the Admins' Noticeboard, if you like. But ups and downs in article page views are pretty standard. The spike might be because the San Francisco page was linked from the Main Page, or some popular external website. Neutralitytalk 05:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seat of local government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kent County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bergen County, New Jersey[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bergen County, New Jersey you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of King jakob c 2 -- King jakob c 2 (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bergen County, New Jersey[edit]

The article Bergen County, New Jersey you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg; see Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of King jakob c 2 -- King jakob c 2 (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carbon County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Washington Bridge Plaza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Modern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclear energy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 1 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation fixed. Castncoot (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

The logo is a non-free image, owned by the hospital. It cannot be used, except pursuant to a fair use rationale. A rationale has been put forward to use it in the article of the hospital itself, but it could not be good fair use in the article for the county (and indeed, a FU rationale has not been put forward for that article. So when I removed it, it wasn't an editorial choice - it was an attempt to enforce our non-free image policy. I've reverted your edit. -- Y not? 14:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Castncoot (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hudson River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Puerto Rican migration to New York City[edit]

No problem at all. Add the name of Jose "Joey" Torres where it was in the "Puerto Rican migration to New York City" article. Just remember to add a verifiable reliable source that states that he is of Puerto Rican heritage and that he served as mayor. I have written over 600 Puerto Rican articles and sometimes it is a little difficult to keep "tabs" on all of them. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, will do, thanks!

Castncoot (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pine forests (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Seal of New York City.svg The New York City Barnstar
For your prolific efforts to improve various articles across the WP:NYC project. Your dedication to the more important topics may in fact be second to none. Thanks for all you do. — MusikAnimal talk 16:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Aw, what a kind comment!!! Thank you!!! Castncoot (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saratoga County, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independence Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your reversion of my edit to New York City[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you've recently reverted one of my edits to New York City, and I would like to explain my reasoning behind said edit so that we may see eye-to-eye.

You are unquestionably correct that MOS:DASH allows for either em dashes or spaced en dashes to be used in an article; however, I think you may have misinterpreted the Manual of Style. For one thing, the characters you reinstated are neither em dashes (—) nor en dashes (–), but rather hyphen-minuses (-), which are not acceptable as per the style guidelines. Information on how to enter em dashes and en dashes via a keyboard is available at WP:How to make dashes.

Secondly, I think you may not have considered punctuational consistency throughout the article. If you take a look at MOS:EMDASH specifically, you will see the following two sentences: "There are two options. Use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes consistently in an article." The key here is the word consistently; that is, all articles should use either only em dashes or only spaced en dashes. In the very next paragraph of the article's lead, as well as in the remainder of the article, em dashes are used. For the sake of consistency, then, em dashes should be used, not spaced en dashes, and certainly not hyphen-minuses.

Lastly, I would like to mention that while you may find one particular punctuational symbol more readable than another in a given situation, this preference should not be weighted more heavily than the established punctuational standards.

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing back from you.

—zziccardi (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks for your great explanation here - two en dashes were what I intended; but they look just minus signs - (as such) what is the difference? If anything, the entire article should be converted to en dashes, but at least here in the first sentence, the em dashes are extraordinarily distracting, while the en dashes (or minus signs) enable one to breeze through this crucial first paragraph with excellent comprehension and without distraction. If you could explain the difference between a minus sign and an en dash, I would greatly appreciate it, so I can convert the next deployment of em dashes as well. Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I see the difference immediately; I'll take care of it. Thanks so much for your insight. Castncoot (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure! I, as well as many other editors, am always happy to help. Don't be afraid to ask a question.
As for the differences between hyphen-minuses (-), en dashes (–), and em dashes (—), be aware that aside from their rather obvious varying lengths, they do have differing purposes. As hyphen-minus explains, a hyphen-minus is the character you can enter normally on your keyboard; it plays the role of either a hyphen or a minus sign (as used in math). To clarify, hyphen-minuses only exist in the realm of computers as a means of replicating what are, traditionally, two unique characters—hyphens and minus signs. Some, but not all, functionalities of en dashes and em dashes are the same; thus, there are times when they may be used interchangeably. However, em dashes and hyphens never can be used interchangeably, and en dashes and hyphens also never can be used interchangeably. Rather than explaining the various purposes of each character here for you, I will strongly suggest that you read through all of the sections of the Manual of Style to which I've provided links. In fact, you should take the time to sit down and read the style guide in its entirety. It's rather lengthy, but extremely helpful and thorough—not to mention that it is, more or less, (part of) the law here on Wikipedia!
One more thing: There is never any reason to go through as many articles as you can, replacing all em dashes with en dashes or vice versa. As I've previously said, not all of their uses are identical; further, switching all instances of one symbol to the other is something that should not be done without first seeking consensus on the given article's talk page. As per MOS:DASH, either em dashes or spaced en dashes may be used. I understand that you find em dashes "distracting", but this does not mean you may elect to switch all of them over to en dashes without first asking for the input of others—unless, of course, the vast majority of an article uses en dashes. In such a case, you would be resolving the consistency issues of which I spoke earlier. The same is true for inconsistencies concerning the improper use of hyphen-minuses—if you ever see any editors using hyphens to approximate em dashes or en dashes, fix the issue, let them know, and direct them to the relevant portions of the style guide! As you can see, I typically prefer em dashes where the two are interchangeable, but that is my personal preference. Don't let your preferences or opinions ever get in the way of editing from a neutral standpoint!
Again, if you ever have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. (I will probably not see any replies you may make to me here.) Cheers! —zziccardi (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'm quite sure you'll be checking back here. I was asking you merely for some guidance on dashes, but thanks for your lecture on basic Wikipedia principles. Clearly you have a preference for em dashes. I must say, however, that I am highly impressed with your aptitude for articulation in the English language. Cheers in return! Castncoot (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
What can I say? I'm a linguist! Anyway, thank you for the kind words; they mean a lot. :) —zziccardi (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bergen County, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hackensack. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)