User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try.

Fix spelling and grammarLearn how

Fix wikilinksLearn how

Update with new informationLearn how

Expand short articlesLearn how

Check and add referencesLearn how

Fix original research issuesLearn how

Improve lead sectionsLearn how

Add an imageLearn how
Translate and clean upLearn how


You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - Meelar 18:41, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I see you fleshed out the Cherry Wilder article. See you about. --Jose Ramos 11:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Bkonrad. May I suggest your original words in the Hokianga entry, "one of the oldest settlements for the Maori", be retained rather than your amendment, "one of the oldest areas settled by the Maori". Some Maori settlements are older than others, but all areas settled by Maori are the same age. Pedant mode off. Welcome. Moriori 20:50, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

One is a Portage River, the other is a Portage Creek. Rmhermen 22:11, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the NZ towns contributions. I've tried to answer a couple of queries.

robinp 00:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your feedback on George Augustus Robinson. In regards to copyright - I think that the "creation + 50 years" rule applies to these images - there is more detail here - Try too. I'll check into this - might write to the site authors and check. Great resource though. Hope this is the right place to comment - new to all this. Jgritz 15:39, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've just sent an email to the curator of the Tasmanian Image collection regarding the situation - I'll let you know the outcome.

Jgritz 16:18, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bloomfield, Michigan is listed in ( and I've seen it as a postal address. BRG 17:01, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)


Please don't unlink organized territory. That is the correct term. Incorporated is actually incorrect. Thanks. -- Decumanus 04:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to make sure you weren't some kind of weird zealot about it. :) -- Decumanus 06:08, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Kerry Oops

Thanks for the note. Though I rather like the time travel idea myself! ;-) Cecropia 16:46, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fonda is relevant

Kerry knew to distance himself from Fonda, letting her know that she shouldn't be at the VVAW demonstration in 1971 (Fonda complained about that), but she was a financial supporter of VVAW from before Kerry was involved, and also of Winter Soldier. Kerry knew Fonda personally and knew of both her controversial nature and of her involvement. Winter Soldier, the VVAW and the Washington march launched Kerry's political career--he can't disassociate himself entirely from Fonda. Cecropia 16:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, perhaps. I really don't know page and verse about all the details of who Kerry knew and when. I think it may be difficult to verifiably establish the extent of their association. In any case, if Kerry knew enough to distance himself from her, I'd say that constitutes evidence that he disagreed with Fonda. Bkonrad 17:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Included Towns" in Unigov

I'll think of a more diplomatic way to state the legal reality then. I had forgotten about the little "included towns" sop that was thrown to some of the richer neighborhoods that were legally eradicated in Unigov. The alleged "councils" of these "included towns" have no authority to pass ordinances, raise taxes, or otherwise act as more than glorified neighborhood associations. Dogface 22:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

German or nazi names in Poland

Poland was occupied for more than 100 years by the German-language countries: Prussia, Austria, Germany in the 18th-19th centuries and later by the Nazi Germany during World War II, Polish people were persecuted or even murdered by the Germans just because they were Poles and wanted to use Polish names for Polish cities. Using German names for Polish cities and rivers is very offensive and insluting to Polish people. After WWII they are no longer neutral German names, they are Nazi names of Polish cities. Mestwin of Gdansk 22:48, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The worst offender is Nico who makes no improvenemt to Wikpedia artciles, makes sure German names are menstioned everywere. I have no doubt in calling him a Neo-Nazi Nico Mestwin of Gdansk 22:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Gdansk (caius2ga) has no doubt in calling RickK a neo nazi either :-) [1] -- Nico 23:24, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that giving the alternative language names of geographical objects ONCE is a valuable thing. The problem is Nico makes no improvement into the articles, he only makes sure the German names of Polish cities are mentioned EVERYWHERE, he also makes sure the German names is mentioned in FIRST PLACE, he also erases alternative names in other non-German languages. Nico also claims that most of Poland should be called Eastern German. That's why I have no doubt in calling him a Neo-Nazi poison mind. Mestwin of Gdansk 21:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While the use of German names in regard to modern Polish cities is somewhat of a taboo after the Second World War, there is, in the United States, a no harm/no foul approach. Gdansk (please excuse the lack of proper Polish accents) was, for the greater part of its history, known as Danzig. To current Polish moniker for the city is somewhat offensive to Germans, as they originally conquered the territory from the original (and now extinct) Prussian inhabitants. The bulk of western Poland as it now exists was, for all intents and purposes, traditionally Germanic territory and only came under direct Polish control with the vasalage of Prussia (what we would contemporarily consider East Prussia or Russian Kaliningrad Oblask), ceded to Zygmunt I (the old) by Albrecht von Hohenzollern (Grand Master of the Teutonic Order) in 1525. A cursory examination of the Polish realm of that period until the eighteenth-century shows that its western territories were, for the most part, German. After the dissolution of the Polish state during the partitions, territory that was traditionally and ethnically German was incorporated into Prussia and Austria. The Slavic regions went to Russia. At this point, one can only look to the Polish 'region' based on Polish ethnicity, and to make an connection between this and the state that emerged after the First World War demonstrates a lack of historical understanding. This state most closely encompased ethnic Poles in a single unified state, as the one appearing post World War II in no way reflects tradition and more appeasement to Stalin than anything else. The regions ceded to Poland by Germany were in fact 'German', as they had been for well neigh 700 years or so. To characterize someone as a Neo-Nazi for their insistance on providing German names to cities that were, for all intents and purposes, German, demonstrates a lack of contextual historical understanding, as, unless one was Polish and from the areas in question, the towns, cities and regions in question were customarily identified by their German names. If you are talking post World War II, then by all means refering to Gdansk in an article singularly by Gdansk is wholly appropriate, but prior to 1945, it is imperative that dual references to Gdansk and Danzig exist, with Danzig as the primary, as, to the world at large, that was the name of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:29, October 12, 2006

This is an archived talk page -- it is very unlikely that anyone is watching this page other than myself. I had no interest in participating in that naming dispute then and I don not at present. olderwiser 12:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush - Kerry

Thanks for the kind support, Bill. But even as we speak the Bush article is returning to its old sillyness. I dispair over having a real encyclopedic article about some subjects and I think it's an embarassment to Wikipedia. Good thing other subjects I'm interested in like Particle Physics and Biology aren't controversial or I wouldn't be able to trust a word of them. Cecropia 00:34, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Already Checked

Already checked that[2] don't ask me why these aren't linked from that index page--I will get cranky :)--and it says re Lucius L. "He never married.", but this[3] says Truman was also born in Shelburne, VT--if they weren't brothers they were probably cousins. I used to run the Kent Co. MIGenWeb Project which is why I'm aware of Lyon. :) jengod 23:06, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

New York Towns Question

Are you sure that Canandaigua, New York and the town have separate governments? Most of the entries for (town) and (village) in New York reflect the census treatment, in that the demographics, area, etc. for the village are included in the aggregate numbers for the town. Canandaigua might be different as a city. The Rambot entries from the census create the same kind of double entries for census districts (CDP) entries in New Hampshire. If we all keep lugging away eventually we'll get it straightened out. Regards, Lou I 06:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't want to step on Bkonard's explanation (and he may know more than I anyway) but cities are in a separate category in New York. Villages and hamlets are subordinate to town government, but cities are not AFAIK. Also note that the "town" of Canandaigua has a smaller population than the "city" of Canandaigua, so obviously the total of city can't be included in the town. See also: Political subdivisions of New York State. Cecropia 06:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I got most of that information directly from the local web sites. Here's an FAQ from the city; Here's the town web site. I probably should have included the links in the articles. Bkonrad | Talk 12:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. The town's web site says it best. In 1913, when the village became the city of Canandaigua, they became a separate, independent government. This means that the Canandaigua article is correct and so are the entries I've ben making for other town/village combinations. Best of both worlds...;-) Lou I 17:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Good catch at Stevens Mason: I didn't see that the article plugged the 2nd Mason in and went back to the first. Excellent work. :-) Jwrosenzweig 19:02, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I wrote most of the article -- i was never complete comfortably with having the elder Mason folded in between paragraphs about the younger. Your insertion of the divider between them put the mental wheels into motion and I figured why not just put the elder first? Bkonrad | Talk 19:15, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


You're welcome! Any time a situation like this arises, one can use the peerage title to separate the articles. -- Emsworth 19:59, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Historic incorporated territories of the United States

You didn't leave a reason for removing most of the text on this page like you said you would. Rmhermen 20:57, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Actually that question was for Decumanus but his name is linked to your page on the above talk page. You might want to fix that. Or maybe not. Rmhermen 21:08, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Organized Territory

You're absolutely right. I had a brain freeze about the Northwest Ordinance being an Organic Act. Of course the Northwest Territory was an organized territory. It had governors.

Amazing synchronicity about your question about whether those territories were actually "incorporated territories" I just rewrote that whole article after getting fed up at my hazy understanding of what that term actually meant. As you state, it is arguable about whether the concept applies to organized territories (and unorganized terr.) before the 20th century, since it seems to be a concept that arose to clarify the distinction regarding U.S. posessions that were acquired but not annexed to the U.S. (like Puerto Rico) and made clear only in several U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding the application of the U.S. Constitution.

I'm not enough of a legal scholar (well I'm not really one at all) to know if historic organized territories such as the Northwest Territory satisfied the criterion. Perhaps there is actually no answer, since maybe it was never tested in the courts. Certainly they were "included", but that is only part of the modern definition. It's an interesting question. Cautiously I would think it should be removed from articles about historic organized territories, since perhaps we are making a statement about the U.S. Constitutional history that is factually incorrect by doing so.

On the other hand, that would severely gut the article Historic incorporated territories of the United States, since really only three (Palymyra, Alaska, Hawaii) might truly qualify. Perhaps that article can be renamed. But what? Sheesh. We get back to the paucity of terms in this regard. What do you think? -- Decumanus | Talk 21:32, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

May 7-July 4, 1800

Thanks for clearing that up with the Indiana Territory. I couldn't make sense of the two dates floating around. By the way, I liked what you added to the Northwest Ordinance. I thought it could use a little fleshing out in the details. I should actually read the darn thing. :) -- Decumanus | Talk 00:01, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Great work

Great work on Illinois Country. I've got a map to add when you're done editing for now. -- Decumanus | Talk 00:10, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

U.S. Regions Proposal

Please review my proposal at the General Talk Page.

-JCarriker 21:54, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

John Watson

John Watson is a disambiguation page and John D. Watson doesn't exist. Did someone already help you out? It appears that the pages are as you request. - Texture 16:28, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do you have what you need now? (Not sure) - Texture 17:08, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think your original idea was a good one. Let's redirect James Watson to James D. Watson for now, and then when you and I have fixed all the links we'll turn it into a disambig. moink 17:11, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? I think it's pretty funny that we both started at the end of the list (presumably as to not conflict with the other?). I switched to the beginning of the list once I realized you had started at the end. moink 18:03, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree about user and talk pages. I'm leaving the politician ones to what I'm presuming is your greater knowledge. moink 18:10, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stunning weirdness...about the time you creating this article I was in Manhattan today taking a picture of the guy's house on State Street by Battery Park. It's now a Catholic Church. I actually took a picture of the plaque with his name on it. -- Decumanus | Talk 21:06, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The very same dude, as far as I can tell. House was built in the 1790's in the federalist style. It's last remaining federalist row house in that part of Manhattan. -- Decumanus | Talk 21:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bkonrad, what do you think about Cecropia's nominations for adminship? Get-back-world-respect 14:04, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)