User talk:Amerique

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
FACs needing feedback
viewedit
Amphetamine Review it now
Subway Sadie Review it now
2013 Rosario gas explosion Review it now
1987 Giro d'Italia Review it now
Briarcliff Manor, New York Review it now
Kangana Ranaut Review it now
Okęcie Airport incident Review it now
Sesame Street international co-productions Review it now
Urgent FAR/FARCs
view edit
Electrical engineering Review it now
Manila Metro Rail Transit System Review it now
WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks
This project creates new articles and improves neglected ones.

Pacific view from UCSC

Response to "Welcome!"[edit]

Hello Amerique. Thank you for the welcome, and the references you provided. I'll probably have some questions from time to time, but am limited on how much time I can spend on wikipedia. Feel free to run any ideas past me. Some things I think I am good at are organizing and categorizing information and rewording things to just the essentials. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm just happy to have someone literate police the IE-related articles. I see you've become acquainted with Wikipedia's resident "expert" on the region... Most of my recent edits may be considered "housekeeping." Ameriquedialectics 05:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


The IE needs Help[edit]

So since you are intrested in the Inland Empire (California) area, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Inland Empire and join if you like. It is a newly formed wikiproject that I just created. House1090 (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the Wikiproject IE user box, hope you dont mind. House1090 (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It's nice. Thanks, Ameriquedialectics 23:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder[edit]

Thanks for your comments at Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. We appreciate your commitment to "mind the shop" while other Wikipedians are busy working on article content. The non-article areas of Wikipedia are vital for the good of the community, and the work you do there is much appreciated, especially during this campaign while other Wikipedians are busy abstaining from them to work on articles. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 22:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

UCSD[edit]

Your even-handed approach and contributions at UCSD are appreciated. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


Riverside in SBV[edit]

Hi Amerique thanks for your contributions to the Greater San Bernardino Area article, but riverside is not in the SB Valley. I tend to believe that Riverside is in the Perris Valley, I just asked User:MissionInn.Jim since he is an expert, if I may say, in the Riverside Area to verify that for me or to see if I am wrong, which I could be. I think Riverside is in the Perris Valley because I read in a Press Enterprise newspaper article stating that the Perris Valley was going to get a new metrolink line, being called the Perris Valley Line, which included Riverside. So I thought I let you know that I am working on a Perris Valley Article for wikipedia, which includeds the cities of Rubidoux, Moreno Valley, Riverside, Perris, and Corona (I may be missing some cities). House1090 (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Pittsburg State[edit]

No I was going to add a refrence/source but wikipedia did not let me it told me something about a block or something about the site or something like that. I will try again see what happens if try it for your self so that way you know iI am not makeing it up. House1090 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand I would be, but I thought if I added a source or a refrence it would be fine here in Wikipedia. Thanks for letting me know, but what if I rewrote but still included some of the info, will that be okay? Will I need to provid a source or a refrence, even though it wont let me? House1090 (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Just don't use that site, and don't make direct copies. This site is considered ok:[1]. Ameriquedialectics 23:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok then and dont worry it wont happen again, it just I thought it would be fine with a source. House1090 (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Top-importance Chicago articles[edit]

For the rest of this month we are looking for more candidates to be promoted to Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. We are hoping to bring the list of category members to a total of 50. Either you have participated in past votes and discussions or you have recently signed up to be a part of WP:CHICAGO. In either case, please come visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment where we are determining who to add to the September 1st ballot. Some candidate debates have lingered, but there are many new ones from the project's top 50 according to the Wikipedia:Release Version 0.7. Help us determine which pages to add to the ballot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO voting for Top-importance Chicago articles[edit]

Feel free to come vote at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Current_Top-importance_Candidates for our next Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. Voting continues until September 10 and nominations/discussions are ongoing for future ballot candidates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


Orphaned non-free image (File:UCLA Bruins Alternate Logo.png)[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UCLA Bruins Alternate Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 04:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar-camera.png The Photographer's Barnstar
Thanks for your pictures of the Inland Empire, we needed them. House1090 (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Amerique reported by User:House1090 (Result: both warned)[edit]

Please see my comments at that thread. If you would like help or advice on procedural matters, please do not hesitate to contact me. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I use preview. I generally mean what I write; I don't think my use of preview is an issue here. However, anyone who bothers to fix House's edits can be accused of edit warring due to his misplaced sense of ownership/pride in the IE, etc. Following your suggestion, a "local" discussion over how to handle the House account at will be initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California when I have more time for this. Ameriquedialectics 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Oops, the link to WP:TWWPK was directed at myself, as I made a truly silly formatting error and so had to post here twice. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Inland Empire comments[edit]

I protected the page and left a note on the talk page, as I'm sure you saw. Please drop me a line if I can be of assistance- unprotecting, warning, blocking, commenting on the WT:CAL or Talk:Inland Empire threads. tedder (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just about to note that @An3. Will be collating diffs for a topic ban request at AN, hopefully by next week. Will continue discussion in the meantime. Ameriquedialectics 07:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Maybe prepare the diffs on a subpage- I'd be curious to see them. tedder (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll make a start on this process on a subpage tomorrow. Going to sleep. Thanks again, Ameriquedialectics 07:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Handling ..." discussion header on WT:CAL[edit]

I've refactored the header to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California#Handling House1090 and moved the User5 template just below so the section link will work. I'm trying to come up with a solution where the content is improved, and you aren't stuck policing articles for quality. I'm assuming you'd rather be developing articles than arguing with strangers on the internet. I'll try to chime in with my two cents on the IE article's talk in a bit. -Optigan13 (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and [[wikt:Suffer fools gladly|Suffer fools gladly]] will produce a wiktionary interwiki Suffer fools gladly if you didn't know that trick already (Help:Interwiki linking#Project titles and shortcuts). -Optigan13 (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I agree with your proposal at WT:CAL, but will let House chime in first. Will be starting up an ongoing case file on a user-subpage soon. (I'm ok with policing articles, if it were only that, but as you can probably tell I have a low tolerance for ignorance or misplaced egotism posing as authority.) Ameriquedialectics 21:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There you go being mean again, now you know why I get mad at you. You need to learn to be nice and not insult your peers. House1090 (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking forward to engaging with you more on article talk pages. Ameriquedialectics 01:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've posted some more formal wording to this whole arrangement on WT:CAL. Also, I know I said I would try and weigh in on the content, but I've decided it's best if I stay out of the content side of things on IE articles to remain relatively neutral on this in case it requires any escalation. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout[edit]

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dinos[edit]

Hi - if I had the time I would do it...would you be willing to report 68.5.101.139 for 3RR? Enough is enough with the edit war, don't you think? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Replaceable fair use File:Cyclops,_1947,_William_Baziotes.JPG[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Cyclops,_1947,_William_Baziotes.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a representation of a work of art, so no free image is possible, but I uploaded a new version that is within fair use policy. Ameriquedialectics 21:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona help needed[edit]

The current University Collaborations of the Month are
Ohio State University
&
Princess Nora bint Abdul Rahman University
WPUNICOTF.png

Every month two B-, C- or Start-Class higher education-related articles are chosen for you to improve. Be bold!
This COTM is organized by WikiProject Universities. (vote for future collaborations or see past collaborations)
This collaboration is effective: May 20, 2011 — June 20, 2011 until someone updates it.
Pick the next WikiProject Universities COTM!

Symbol support vote.svg
The current WPCPP collaboration for the period ending February 27, 2010 is:

Help us get the Cal Poly Pomona article to GA-status

Hello Amerique! I'm humbly requesting you help in order to get raise Cal Poly Pomona's main article to good article-status. Thank you. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Could you take a look at Talk:Los Angeles#CSA. House wants a 3rd opinion, it would be great if you could comment. SoCal L.A. (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully i have. SoCal L.A. (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

I'm not going to war with you, but I was just wondering why you were removing content from the pages of the articles? You were just reported to AN/I. The thread is here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we're about to mark that thread as resolved, but the basic outcome is that there is now a formal for his 1RR listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community and I'll now be mentoring House and trying to play a more active role in working on this. If you have another conflict you can drop me a note and I'll try to work with you two on it. Here's an oldid link to the ANI discussion. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for stepping up to the plate and doing that. I suppose whenever I have conflicts with House, I'll go to you first, if you aren't already "on the scene." Let me know whenever you want to make a run for admin, I'll definitely put in a good word for you. Best, Ameriquedialectics 18:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
If it's on a specific article you can also just leave the note on the talk and ping me with a {{talkback}} or a brief notice so that the discussion stays where future editors can find it. But if its all over the place a talk page will work. I felt since I already had the bulk of the material and usual parties on my watchlist, and was getting notices already it's probably the best way to go at this point. I'm also going to be scaling back the amount of time I spend doing other work on wiki just to not try and overwhelm myself since I've been going at a pretty rapid clip for some time and have a lot of stuff on my plate. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you were doing a lot. Well, hopefully your new responsibilities won't break your enthusiasm for Wikipedia. Take care, Ameriquedialectics 22:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of University of California, Santa Cruz[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:University of California, Santa Cruz/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Look[edit]

I will use the talk page before I add a major comment, if you agree to do the same. Arguing wont get us no where. And I will add a reliable source in the future. House1090 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

FYI: In response to your comments I went ahead and created a straw man proposal for the metro area guidelines here. Feel free to peruse and criticize.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.[edit]

Thanks for the feedback. Some questions and comments:

  • "Treating the government as exclusively authoritative in such cases amounts to original research." While I agree that what you are talking about is a problem, the OR policy would not seem to apply, as gov sources are generally considered reliable. The problem is that some people editing in good faith without scholastic backgrounds can misapply any sources, including gov sources, generally by reading their terms too literally, or by otherwise not following the purpose of the document or the purpose of WP. These "local yokels" generally do not observe the policies or guidelines WP has in the first place, so developing a special guideline for regional articles may have limited effectiveness. However, so far as article titles are concerned, the relevant policy breach would seem to be: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_titles, rather than WP:NOR, as WP:RS has presumably been satisfied by the (mis)application of a gov source.
    • I don't follow your logic. Whether or not government sources are reliable sources is irrelevant. The issue is not whether the government is authoritative but whether the government is exclusively authoritative on the subject. Saying we can ignore the opinions of all other sources and treat one source as being the only one that matters is original research unless there is evidence that the experts believe that one source is truly the only opinion of merit on the subject. For example, if some book claimed Puerto Rico is a U.S. state it would be reasonable to reject that opinion even if the book was written by a serious author simply because the U.S. govt is the only entity with the legal authority to admit a state to the Union. However, if the federal government says somebody's favorite color is orange and but that person is quoted in by the newspapers as saying their favorite color is blue, there is no basis to claim that the govt has more authority in the matter than the newspapers. The govt has no legal authority to dictate what somebody's favorite color is any more than it has the authority to say which cities can consider themselves economically or culturally tied. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:NOR applies when someone is stating opinions as fact, not when someone is applying a particular rs as "the Word of God" or something... it's a different issue. Perhaps WP:OWN is the more relevant policy. Ameriquedialectics 23:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:OWN is about disagreements between editors not disagreements between sources. I don't think that could be applied here. But wrt WP:NOR the applicable section would be Synthesis of published material that advances a position (WP:SYNTH). For example, saying that the U.N. defines poverty as people earning less than XXX per year is fine if you cite U.N. publications or, better yet, 3rd parties that state the U.N.'s position. However, it is a different story to say that nobody is poor if they earn more than XXX per year and to reject definitions provided by journal articles, government studies, etc. Even if a few sources treat the U.N. as having unique authority, it is still WP:SYNTH to reject, on that basis, major sources that choose a different definition. It does not matter whether the U.N. is a reliable source in general. Making such a claim is, effectively, taking their authority out of context. --Mcorazao (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As WP:SYNTH is written currently, a violation would seem to depend on whether there was some combination of sources used to advance a position that wasn't stated in the sources. SYNTH as written does not seem to cover over-reliance on a single source to advance some expressed or seemingly implied position, in or out of context. What you are talking about is a problem, but it has to do with a fundamental misreading or misuse of potentially any source, not only gov sources, that would only become noticeable or actionable when people try to WP:OWN their (mis)interpretations, so to speak. (Perhaps it might be useful to bring this up at the NOR page?) Ameriquedialectics 01:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess WP:OWN could technically apply in that sense though this seems a stretch (to me WP:OWN applies more to preventing others from contributing as opposed to determining appropriate content). The "synthesis" I am talking about is combining
  1. the government's description of something and
  2. the fact that this description gets quoted in reliable sources
to claim that the government has exclusive authoritity in saying what a legitimate description of that thing is or that the government speaks for all experts on the subject. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Using Google hit counts as proof... seems inconsistent with WP:COMMONNAME.
    • Why? The number of "hits" you get for any particular string does not establish in any way how common the name implied by that string is. It is typically the case that if you get 1000 hits for a given string the majority of them probably have nothing to do with what you were searching for (I have seen cases where virtually all of the hits have nothing to do with what I am searching for). Regardless, WP:Common name says we have to use reliable sources. A heuristic computer search does not apply (technically this is the very definition of original research). --Mcorazao (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oops, I meant to link to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but using search engine hits is just another way of determining what is conceivably "out there" on particular terms. I think you mean that search engine hits should not be taken didactically, and on this I agree, also as per my recent comments as Talk:Inland_Empire. Ameriquedialectics 23:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess we're saying the same things. As I say, the only thing I have found Google hit counts useful for is in some cases ruling out very non-notable names (i.e. the hit counts don't prove anything, but if I only get — say — a dozen hits for some name then I am usually pretty sure that spending more time looking at references for that name is a waste of time). Other than that, though, I generally ignore the hit counts and just look at the actual pages Google finds to see which ones genuinely refer to what I was searching for and which ones are reliable sources.
So how would you recommend rephrasing (feel free to edit the strawman if you like)? --Mcorazao (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do with it. But I think you would agree that some minimal scholastic background is required in order to discern sources, interpret them, and appropriately use them, right? Not all Wikipedians have that, which I view as the "primary source" of the problems I've been having. But on another note, perhaps it might be better to leave out discussion of policy violations for the time being and focus instead on the editing pragmatics of the guideline? 01:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Ameriquedialectics
Yes, obviously one has to be educated enough on the issues to understand the sources. There is no simple solution, unfortunately, to deal with that.
If you feel better about not mentioning other policies I'm ok with changing it. My thinking is that it is helpful to relate this guideline to other guidelines and policies explicitly so as to help the reader understand how all of the guidelines relate (i.e. sometimes if the reader is unclear on what they are reading, relating it to something they are more familiar with can make things more clear). But it's debatable ... --Mcorazao (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and took out the mention of WP:OR ... --Mcorazao (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, thanks again for taking the time to review so thoroughly. --Mcorazao (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't had a chance to work on this. But your revisions look very good. I would support this as an addendum to WP:USCITY. Ameriquedialectics 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Or as it's own guideline. Good job on this! Ameriquedialectics
Thanks. It looks like this will be an uphill battle. There are already two people who have said they don't want this. I guess maybe the best thing to do is to put forward a survey to guage concensus. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI: I posted the survey here. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Replied there. I'll keep an eye on the discussion. Ameriquedialectics 19:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: RFC, you haven't structured it in terms of a proposition to support or oppose, etc. I would put it in project space and request comments on whether it should be a guideline. It could still be effective as an essay if it does not gain consensus as a guideline. Ameriquedialectics 20:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason I did not try to put it in project space is that I am not a member of WikiProject Cities and have not been actively involved. So I did not feel it was appropriate for me to start polluting the project's space without gaining a first level of consensus that this was something project members supported.
I'll rephrase the question for clarity, though. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

new page[edit]

FYI: I don't know if you noticed but I went ahead and created Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Conurbation guidelines at the request of one of the other editors. It is for now tagged as simply an essay. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Csusblogosmall.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Csusblogosmall.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
  • If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Amerique have to respectfully disagreed with you about the lawsuit. Not quite sure what you mean by "unsubstantiated" but if you mean verifiable, it was cited at an independent legal journal. I also don't think there's any NPOV violation. If you think, non-noteworthy, why don't we open it open for community discussion since that opinions can vary on that. I'm going to check the discussion forum to see what's posted there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donselma (talkcontribs) 03:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Donselma (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

hey, i think you're right. just got your message. very good point about plaintiff losing. i thought maybe because of the initial settlement, which suggests he did have a case, but you're messaged has changed my thinking . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donselma (talkcontribs) 22:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Meetup and update[edit]

Last fall you indicated that you continue to be active with WP:CHICAGO. If you continue to be active please update your active date at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, we are planning a Chicago Meetup. If you will be able to attend the meetup from 10:30-11:45 a.m. on Saturday May 1, 2010 at the UIC Student Center West, please sign as an indication of your intent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Hi Amerique, thanks for cleaning up the vandalism from my user page. I really appreciate it. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thought I'd drop this off[edit]

WPCF.svg The California Star
For your work on Inland Empire-related articles, I award you this star. Thanks for your contributions! TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 03:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks TorriTorri! Ameriquedialectics 19:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics[edit]

Hello, I am trying to bring WP:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics back to semi-active status. Toward that end, I have moved all members who have not posted to the project page in the past six months to a section, "Inactive members." If you wish to be active in the project, I hope you will move your name back to the section, "Members." You may also remove your name if you are no longer interested in the project. Thanks, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

I haven't seen you around Wikipedia much lately, glad to see your edits popping up again! Alanraywiki (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Alan! Only so much of this place I can take and save my sanity, but I hope to be able to make some constructive edits here and there. Ameriquedialectics 20:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

California[edit]

I saw you help in California cities. I could use help in Chula Vista article. I want to try to get it to FA before its centennial next year. I know you work mostly in Inland Empire articles but both are kinda close to each other, both are in Southern California. if your not interested its ok. Spongie555 (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it & see what I can do for it. Ameriquedialectics 20:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
One problem of the Chula Vista article is that the history was taken from the Cities website where they give a brief history. Spongie555 (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
If that's the case, that section will have to be entirely removed & re-written, noting the city website as a source. (Incidentally, I'll respond to questions on developing the article on the article talk page.) Ameriquedialectics 20:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Message on the talk page. Spongie555 (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It is hard finding 3rd part resources. Also reminding me of books, Chula Vista is making a book about its complete history for its Centennial. It is being written by a historian but i dont know when its coming out. Spongie555 (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the 3rd avenue picture I been looking for a picture like this or a while but couldn't find any in public domain. Spongie555 (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam![edit]

  • Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks. • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States[edit]

Flag of the United States.svg

Hello, Amerique! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Chula Vista[edit]

I know the Chula Vista article is a huge mess but the book on Chula Vista's history is coming out soon. But i thought you would be interested in getting Southwestern College (California) to GA? I know its not a University but its the only college in Chula Vista(Unless they agree to make the University of Chula Vista they always talk about) and i saw you work with university articles. Spongie555 (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't help now... But CV won Forbes' "most boring city" award specifically because there was no media reporting on it. Can't write an article without sources. Ameriquedialectics 04:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of California Preparatory College[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article California Preparatory College has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no assertion of notability, fails WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 02:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree the private Christian junior colleges are not notable. Ameriquedialectics 23:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Children's Museum backstage pass[edit]

The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!
The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis Welcome Center.jpg
The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is hosting its second Backstage Pass and its first Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, August 20. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the event page if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the Edit-a-Thon page. ---LoriLee (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Wiknic logo.svg Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park LA Wiknic 2011 Group Photo.jpg
You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 23, 2012! Last year's was a blast (see the LA Weekly blog post on it) and we hope we can do better this year. We would love to have you there! howcheng {chat} 19:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Associated New American Colleges[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Associated New American Colleges has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GrapedApe (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of California Preparatory College[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article California Preparatory College has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no assertion of notability, fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ORG

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 22:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of California Preparatory College for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article California Preparatory College is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Preparatory College until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 05:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)