User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 →


Bkonrad, Perhaps i'm unfamiliar with the rules, and if I am then i'm very sorry, but aren't you allowed to put images on wikipedia if you have permission from the source? As for the Michigan Senate, I'm sorry but i could find no better tag

You need to be able to demonstrate that the copyright owner has explicitly agreed to release the image under the terms of the GFDL. As for the Michigan drawing, it would probably need to be recreated, even though there likely would not be much chance of any objection to our use of the image. The state maintains copyright on it's works, which makes it ineligible for use in Wikipedia (with the possible exception of claiming fair use -- although that also has come under close scrutiny lately). olderwiser 15:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but how do I demonstratrate the copyright owners agreement? Should I put the e-mail on the Image page? Also, do you have a pick for this board of trustees election?

You can put the email on the image page. For example, see Image:Barciaheadshot.jpg. I've not looked at the nominees' statements closely yet, so no pick yet. olderwiser 15:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Canolfan Tryweryn

I noticed that you have been involved in creating the Afon Tryweryn article, and would like to inform you that I intend to merge the article with my newly created Canolfan Tryweryn article, unless you have any objections. DevAnubis 12:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please post replies in the Talk:Afon Tryweryn page, to save me having to search through all the user's talk pages to find any suggestions. DevAnubis 12:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Governors Island

I noticed that you had tried to clean up the Governors Island article a while back. The same biased "legacy" section continues to return... only now with links to an outside "foundation" pushing its agenda for the island. The legacy section is clearly being used to support a non-neutral POV by lending credibility to this "foundation"'s views. Any support in straightening this thing out would be appreciated. I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia procedure to engage in much more than pointless reversions. Johnichiban 17:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips... I'll try to pursue when I have time. Its not so much the inferior quality of the article that is bothering me (though it is), but that the "anonymous" user is trying to create history that his "foundation" explicitly links to from their site to gain some sort of legitimacy. (see ) -- Johnichiban 18:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Elmwood Cemetery (Detroit) as "Rural"

I have no problem with your deletion of the non-category "rural cemetery" from the Elmwood article.

However, I take very strong issue with your edit comment:

even if the category existed, this is hardly a rural cemetery

Actually, Elmwood (though located in a large city) is precisely one of the earliest Midwestern products of the Rural Cemetery Movement. In the early 19th century, the "urban" approach to burial was seen as the crowded and unsanitary churchyard; the so-called "rural" approach was to create a nonsectarian cemetery with spacious parklike setting with trees and winding drives.

See, e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

The first "rural cemetery" was Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris; the first one in the U.S. was Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, MA. By the 1870s, pretty much every sizeable community in the nation had created a cemetery inspired directly or indirectly by Mt. Auburn. (So even if "rural cemetery" were a real category, it would be meaningless, only slightly smaller than the category "cemetery".) Kestenbaum 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ward disambiguating

Thanks for taking the effort to disambiguate usage of the term ward, but there are better links in most cases than Ward (subnational entity) -- such as ward (politics) or Wards of the United Kingdom or Wards of the United States. Those are all a bit of a confusing mess at present, but, at least in the U.S., it is very unusual to describe a ward as a subnational entity. olderwiser 17:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent catch—the tag you added today on the two (essentially parallel) articles for merger is right on target. I can’t help but wonder if the various subarticles might not also warrant merging into a single article with sub articles, but that is an opportunity for another day. Wards are indeed a mess; I’ll wait until you settle the merger nomination before looking into this again. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 01:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Just to eliminate confusion, the information I submitted for the "All Things Considered" is, in fact, verifiable through NPR internal documents and format clocks, one of which I've uploaded here:

<img src="!Dave/ATCclock.jpg">

I'm an employee at an NPR station, so I assure no malicious or misleading content passes from my fingers on the keyboard onto Wikipedia (I also added the format sections to "Morning Edition" and "Day to Day" pages, for example). I'll re-write the sections I added on September 15 in order to clarify the format section on the ATC page as well.

of 2001 included

Well, DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH........ It's more specific sincee that WOULD be the title as it was passed in 2001 making it the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001! Pronoun 20:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for rving Georgia (country). Can we protect it from vandals? Sosomk 20:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not unless it is the subject of persistent, sustained vandalism. Random occasional vandalism, while bothersome, are, unfortunately, a consequence of being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. olderwiser 22:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ironwood, MI

Could you please look at the Ironwood, Michigan page? It looks like someone may have vandalized it. Thanks Emilynothing 12:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi Bkonrad,

(rv extra period -- the punctuation should be included in text passed as parameter)

Of course!  Sorry to've had a dumb moment; thanks for repair!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Allendale Charter Township map

Regarding your questions about the map, I tagged it as {{PD-self}} because I did indeed create the map myself. I also gave the map to Allendale Charter Township, which they posted on their website. I also have a PDF version of the map, which they have yet to post, but I could send to you as proof that I created the map.

I also notice that the map is missing from the Allendale Charter Township Wikipedia page. I assume you removed it? Phizzy 16:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 14:27, September 25, 2006

No, I didn't remove it. I may have removed the PD-self based on the unanswered (until now) questions regarding it (or someone else may have done the same. I don't recall. But in any case, once the PD-self license was removed, there is a bot which goes through first hides such unlicensed images from articles and after an additional period of time, removes the image. If you did indeed create the map and provide it to the township, you should explain that in more detail when you upload the image. Otherwise it looks to be simply copied from the township website. The township website is copyrighted and without any additional information, the content of the website is assumed to be copyrighted. Ideally, you should have the image at the township marked as being in the public domain. olderwiser 14:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Sorry abput the disambiguation foul-up (i.e. Category:Doe (actor), John).

So should I bother to disambiguate at all, or should it be Category:John Doe (actor)?

Please respond on my talk page.

Thansk for the advice. HOT L Baltimore 13:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

History of the United States

Hey, there's been some discussion at History of the United States I see you've been a part of. It seems some people want to set up some distinction between the English colonies and pre/non-English entities there (and it looks like one guy wants to do away with any mention of the Spanish, Indians, etc.) I think that may unfairly weigh the article towards describing the history of the official nation of the United States rather than the history of all the peoples whose descendants make up the US today. Could you weigh in?--Cúchullain t/c 21:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for picking up on {{CongBio2}}. I didn't know if anyone noticed it. Spread the word!—Markles 01:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Romeo, Michigan

Moved to Talk:Romeo, Michigan

Not sure how to site sources, and do not have time to look it up. I took out all references to a specific member of the Romeo government, so the POV of the article should no longer be a question. I did call the village hall to verify that all of the noted upgrades have occurred over the past 20 years.

Clarkston, MI

the --> a

For many locals, Clarkston is synonamous (spelling) with Independence Township. Even locals that are aware of the difference between the two, still very commonly refer to Independence Twp. as Clarkston.

Stating that, and remembering that for locals the two are regarded as the same, I don't see why "the" is unacceptable in the stated article. Could you elaborate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doctorisham (talkcontribs) . 14:02, October 2, 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't accept the premise that Clarkston and Independence Township are viewed as synonomous by locals. One is a tiny municipality, the other is 36 square miles (less the area of Clarkston). Especially I think the areas north of I-75 are less likely to identify with Clarkston. But, if you can provide a reliable source indicating that all residents of Independence Township commonly identifies as Clarkston, then sure "the" may be acceptable. Without conclusive evidence, "a" is accurate without staking a claim for total identity. olderwiser 14:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

as a resident of the village, and a previous residemt of the township, i can assure you that the word "clarkston" is thrown around as freely as any other word. the topic was discussed in a Clarkson News article, unable to locate, that dicussed the common confusion among locals. the village is more commonly reffered to Downtown Clarkston, not the village, nor as Clarkston.


Sorry if the move was a Bad Thing. I forgot to check the article's talk page and didn't realize it was quite that popular. I've added a bit to the discussion page, if you'd like to give your opinion :) Voretus the Benevolent 18:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Good sir i am confused by what you're telling me.Perhaps if you could explain it to me.. Dermo69

Metro Detroit

Yeah, Polaron and I were just talking about that on his talk page. I'm working on a cleaned up version of the intro. Wangry 15:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 21:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You removed a link to Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dennis Schmitz (talkcontribs) . 04:18, October 11, 2006 (UTC)

Because it is spam. olderwiser 12:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That is an utterly useless response. But you knew that when you wrote it, so I'm guessing you're just an ass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dennis Schmitz (talkcontribs) . 20:34, November 21, 2006 (UTC)
You might want to check Wikipedia:External links, as well as Wikipedia:Civility. Ignore either at your own peril. olderwiser 20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Adrian College?

Okay, I sort-of get your connection to AC with your wife teaching at Albion College (a fellow MIAA school). But, just curious as to if you have any connection to AC and/or why you created the article.

I'm a Class of 1990 grad.

You can e-mail or IM me (Yahoo!: miked918) or see my mytalk portion. I have no preference. Take care, Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miked918 (talkcontribs) 18:40, October 11, 2006

No connection. Only noticed that there was no article and I thought there should be. olderwiser 18:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhoods of Detroit

Thanks for removing the circular redirects... I noticed that last night but was just getting around to fixing it today.--Isotope23 16:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

removal of redirect on Talk:Tyre

The removal of the redirect was right. You might not have noticed that the last item on that talk page should have moved to the new disambiguation talk page. I moved it. Widefox 16:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I hadn't. I think you added it at about the same time that I removed the redirect. olderwiser 17:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
yes, you're right, your change was just before my edit. So either editing at same time, or I was editing after following cached redirect. Widefox 17:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mac J. Donnelly Jr.

I noticed your recent edit summary for adding an "unsourced" tag to the Mac J. Donnelly Jr.. As noted in my comments on the article's Talk page, the article reads more like a memorial, and falls under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Having said that, I agree with you that the article should probably be considered for deletion, either under the "Articles for Deletion" or "Proposed deletion" processes. --TommyBoy 02:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Please visit the Talk: Armenia and Talk: Armenians pages please voice your view on the current discussion, there is a small minority that are promoting and point of view that Armenia is geographically in Europe and Armenians are a European people. It is best to serve the factual truth and your support is desperately needed.

Good Job on Editing Grosse Ile

Thanks for keeping the edits to Grosse Ile's article relevant, interesting and accurate. Mhistory 2006 October 13

Dragon Sword and Wind Child

Don't know why I didn't think to check for a reason the move was blocked. I remember looking at the "What links here" page and not seeing the correctly-capitalized title, and then I guess I didn't ever do a search on it. Sorry for giving you more work to look through. Dekimasu 14:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. olderwiser 14:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mac J. Donnelly Jr. Follow Up

Following up on my earlier comments, I have nominated the Mac J. Donnelly Jr. article for deletion through the AfD process. Please feel free to share your thoughts on this matter. --TommyBoy 02:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Brethren page merger

Hi! Speaking as a member of the Church of the Brethren, I would have to object to merging the two pages, although linking them is a good idea. The reason I would not merge them is mostly technical. The Church of the Brethren does not go by any other name, and merging them might confuse people. Also, the current incarnation of the church technically evolved from A. Mack's origial group in germany, which the CoB officially forming in 1908. So, just a thought... Marla Fralin

Taichung City

I am new on WikiProject Cities. I have added considerable content to the first city I am working on, which happens to be the city of my residence, Taichung City. Would you mind taking a few minutes to look it over and leave comments on how you think I can make it better to bring it up to WikiProject Cities standards in a section of the discussion page for the city’s article page that I have set up.

Thank you. Ludahai 03:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Los Angeles

I haven't seen you weigh in on the vote to move Los Angeles, California to Los Angeles. Are you abstaining intentionally, or just didn't notice? See Talk:Los Angeles, California. --Serge 18:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with it at either name, and I'd just as soon avoid tedious and tendentious debates where the stakes are inconsequential. olderwiser 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Boston Harbor Islands article

See Talk:Boston_Harbor_Islands. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

St. Louis move

I find it strange that you deleted the redirect and moved the disambiguation page here without alerting the people at Talk:St. Louis, Missouri. Could you please point me to where the discussion for this action took place?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, Saint Louis was a redirect to Saint Louis (disambiguation). It is standard where there is not any primary topic for the disambiguation page to be at the simple name. IIRC, St. Louis was also a redirect to Saint Louis (disambiguation) and I merely repaired the double-redirect. There was no notice of any sort on Talk:Saint Louis that directing attention to discussions on Talk:St. Louis, Missouri. It seems that if St. Louis wants to assert primary topic status and assume the simple name, that needs to be discussed with a requested move. olderwiser 01:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you would have to look at deleted revisions to be sure but I believe at one point St. Louis redirected to St. Louis, Missouri. I thought that this was still true until your move. Which is why I was thinking your recent move should have been discussed with as a requested move with a notice at Talk:St. Louis, Missouri. All I can see is from the logs a move in April 06 listed as moved Saint Louis to Saint Louis (disambiguation) (Makes it easier to get to the city of St. Louis) I have a memory of that time (which is also when the article was moved from Saint Louis, Missouri to St. Louis, Missouri with much discussion) about the redirect pointing to the city article as well. But that was a long time ago and my memory could be off. In any case your move has left a lot to cleanup which would be easier if you had advertised what you were doing.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is the Deleted Page history from Saint Louis:
* 23:39, April 30, 2006 . . Dabarkey (Talk | contribs | block) (Revert to disambiguation. St. Louis can be many things besides the Missouri city)
* 00:01, April 30, 2006 . . (Talk | block)
* 00:00, April 30, 2006 . . (Talk | block)
* 00:00, April 30, 2006 . . (Talk | block)
* 23:59, April 29, 2006 . . Astuishin (Talk | contribs | block) (moved Saint Louis to Saint Louis (disambiguation): Makes it easier to get to the city of St. Louis)
Prior to April 29, 2006, the disambiguation page had been at Saint Louis. Astuishin (talk · contribs) moved the page, apparently without any discussion. The anon IP then went through a few iterations trying to get the redirect to St. Louis, Missouri correct. Dabarkey (talk · contribs) changed the redirect to Saint Louis (disambiguation), which is where it stood when it was listed at [6] Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages] by R'n'B (talk · contribs). I looked at it, examined the edit histories, including the deleted page histories, and the respective talk pages. Aside from the undiscussed, and quickly reverted, attempted change by Astuishin in April, there was no indication that there was any controversy whatsoever. In so far as both Saint Louis and St. Louis had already both been redirects to the disambiguation page for quite some time, I don't see how the move created any additional cleanup. olderwiser 02:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well there are 8 main-space double redirects that need to be cleaned up.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Eh, say what? What are they? I just looked right now and did not see any. olderwiser 02:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry! I am used to not keeping around needless redirects like that one. Normally at Wikisource, I would orphan an unneeded redirect and put it on schedule for deletion. Moving between projects has got me all confused. You are right those are not double redirects. I was thinking they needed to be changed, but I guess they don't.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. They probably should be fixed somehow--it is odd that they would link to the dab page, unless they are in a hatnote. It is actually a practice, although not universally followed, that deliberate links to a disambiguation page, such as the one at the top of St. Louis, Missouri, should point to the parenthetical form of the disambiguation page. This indicates to the people who regularly cleanup mistaken links to disambiguation pages that that link is supposed to be to the disambiguation page. Not such a big deal either way though. olderwiser 02:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cities naming conventions (yet again)

Hey. I thought, in case you hadn't noticed it yet, that you might be interested to know that I've proposed a change to the U.S. cities naming convention. Basically, my suggestion was that we change wikipedia's U.S. city naming convention to follow that of the Associated Press stylebook, which allows use of 30 cities without state names, with the exception of three cities that should probably be considered ambiguous (St. Louis, Washington, and Phoenix). You can see more detail on the proposal over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), but the basic idea was to move all the largest cities all at once, and then basically leave the rest alone. All of the cities in question already have the Cityname article redirecting to Cityname, Statename. In any event, I know in the past you've been ambivalent about moves, and that you have been amenable to the idea of moves in theory, but wanted to see that it was done in a manner that wouldn't result in a wholesale abandonment of the overall standard. There's already been a fair amount of discussion, with a fair number of people in favor, and a fair number of other people opposed, but I thought you might like to know, and I'd be interested to hear your input. Best, john k 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Opps should have noticed that major deletion - oh well - thanks for sorting it. Cheers --Lethaniol 16:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

James Madison

Your comment at Democratic-Republican Party encourages me to take a firm line on what they are called in James Madison as well. Would you mind watching the page? Septentrionalis 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Building support, I see. Well, two can play that game... Skyemoor 11:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Old Salem

the reason old salem can't be verified is that my family holds in our safevault the "charter of the free borough of Old Salem" There's only 18 people left in the borough (my uncle owns most of the land in the burg and he's turned it back into wild. I don't think that even Northville knows that that little bit of land isn't really Northville. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daneslord (talkcontribs) . 08:25, October 25, 2006 (UTC)

So that means it is unverifiable and has no place in an encyclopedia. In any case, it sounds very dubious, since such documents have to be public records in order to have any validity -- that is, the charter of incorporation has to be filed with the state authorities and similarly the plat would also be a public record. olderwiser 12:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack Hoogendyk

If I am the source, because I am the other member of the debate, how do I cite myself? This is in reference to the Jack Hoogendyk article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) . 15:00, October 27, 2006) (UTC)

If you are the only source available for the material, then it is essentially unverifiable and cannot be included. If you can find a news account, even a school newspaper, that would suffice. olderwiser 15:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

about my revert on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)

I have no problem with User:Tobias Conradi stand. Can you plz wait till the poll I started closes? Rgds, hydkat 13:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? Until there is demonstrated support, the addition is merely proposed and it is misleading to include it in the NC without indicating that it is only a proposal. olderwiser 14:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
as someone editing geography articles, you may like to contribute to Talk:Hyderabad,_India#Requested_move Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)