User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 39

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40

Unincorporated communities in Michigan

I noticed that you've merged several articles I wrote on unincorporated communities in Michigan into their corresponding township articles, such as in the case of Lacota, Michigan. Why shouldn't articles on unincorporated communities in Michigan have standalone articles? To my knowledge, all of the other states outside of New England and New York almost always keep unincorporated community articles separate from township or county articles; the exceptions all have much stronger town government than Michigan, and even in those states unincorporated communities which already have articles are often left alone. The fact that these articles are often stubs is not a reason to merge them; stubs can often be expanded, and it's much easier for new editors to expand them as standalone articles. The stubs often contain information that gets left out of merges, such as the map, elevation data, and the GNIS ID. You also seem to merge articles inconsistently; there are several articles in Category:Michigan geography stubs about unincorporated communities which are much older than the ones you just merged, including some that you wrote (Au Train, Michigan, for example). What's your basis for merging these articles the way you do? TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 22:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Many of these unincorporated communities are permastubs, with nothing much to say about them other than that they exist (or in many cases existed, past tense). The merges do contain the GNIS ID. The elevation info could be added, although I believe even the GNIS site advises that the elevations are to be taken with a grain of salt. I do very strongly feel that avoiding permastubs is a good reason for merging into an article that provides better context for the sentence or two of actual content. If it turns out that there is additional verifiable encyclopedic information about the places, then they certainly can be expanded. That is the normal process for article development. Yes, I am sometimes inconsistent. In the past I tended to create stubs more freely. But over time, I've seen so few of them expand in any significant way (and often become fodder for vandals or spammers) that I'm now more inclined to merge. One criterion is how much verifiable encyclopedic information there is about a place. For example, with Au Train, Michigan, there is more than would neatly fit into the township article. That article is in a way a reasonable illustration of the process. I started a stub, then decided to merge it into the township article. Another editor later came along and expanded it beyond a stub. I've no idea what editors in other states do, though if it results in promulgating permastubs, I think that is a bad idea. olderwiser 01:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
My main concern with that method of building articles is that merging the articles creates a barrier for expansion for newer editors. Though it may take a while, not all of these articles will remain "permastubs" forever as standalone articles; however, merged articles are less likely to be expanded much unless editors realize that they can expand upon the redirected stubs. The articles you're merging can frequently be expanded if editors have the right sources available, and need not be permanent stubs; for example, a while ago I expanded Deer Park, Michigan beyond a stub within the day of you merging it. I don't see what's wrong with having stubs; they're a natural part of an article's expansion, provide useful and encyclopedic information, and can generally be expanded if they're notable. The vandalism and spam can be removed so long as someone's watching the article (and I do watch all the articles I create), and non-stubs have that problem too. Even some of the articles you've merged aren't all that short for stubs; Lacota had a full paragraph of history in it. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 02:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Expansion can happen in a couple of ways and both happen frequently enough with brand new editors that it does not appear to be a significant bar to expansion. One way is that editors will add to content in the township article. Then someone else comes along and splits it off into a separate article. The other is that the editors are savvy enough to figure out the redirected from message and link and directly expand the article. I've not seen any evidence that redirected topics are any less likely to be expanded than stubs and it doesn't match my experience with some 20,000 odd pages and redirects on my watchlist. Obviously we don't agree about permastubs. I doubt we will convince each other. As far as I'm concerned, mere existence is not sufficient reason for a stand-alone stub. olderwiser 02:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
And FWIW, Lacota was a marginal call. That three-sentence "full paragraph" of history is close to the threshold. I happened to be in a merging mood tonight. I think that the article incorrectly began by saying Lacota was in Calhoun County help tip it towards a merge. That the community in part straddles other townships normally would have argued for leaving as a standalone, though I only came across that after beginning the merge. olderwiser 02:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Since I also doubt we'll convince each other about stubs, I'm fine with leaving things the way they are for now. The Michigan communities can stay as they are, unless I ever can expand any of them beyond stubs as I did with Deer Park; since the content's mostly there, it's not that big of a deal. (The whole existence of settlements issue has also been debated numerous times, and I won't open that particular can of worms again either). The Lacota mistake probably had something to do with me copying and pasting content (since the infoboxes and references are usually standard, I do that a lot when writing stubs); sorry about that. (Incidentally, since I don't know what townships they go in and don't want to write 14 new articles just to have them merged, do you think you could make redirects for the last 14 redlinks at User:Nyttend/ZIP/MI if you get a spare moment? I've been trying to finish off several of these ZIP code pages, which is why I wrote most of the other Michigan articles, and I'd hate to abandon this one so close to completion.) TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 04:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been wanting to see that list finished off for awhile also. I'll see what I can do. olderwiser 00:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Adan (given name)


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Adan (given name), and it appears to include a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Memory hole

This article is the subject of a Procrustean WP:Deletionist attack. Your thoughts might help. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

WP:Notability guideline

Hi Bkonrad,

I read your response here concerning the WP:Notability guideline, a guideline which was meant to be used with some common sense, but which is being twisted into WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I believe your proposal to downgrade the guideline to an essay may be a worthwhile one, and would like to coordinate efforts to remove it as a guideline. I feel like when articles on real-world communities are under the threat of deletion due to overly rigid interpretations of what was meant to be a common-sense guideline that it's time for the guideline to go away. Your input is greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP you keep reverting,

I posted an ANI about him last night after you went offline (from what I could tell). I just kind of stumbled onto the edits while doing recent changes patrol and didn't know enough about the topics he was editing to know what to do with it. It was obvious there was a history there and he was racking up edits fast. No one commented or intervened in any way but I thought I'd let you know since you seem to be actively trying to deal with the guy. Or girl. Whatever. Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The IP is a sock of a banned user with an obsession about family names in other languages. Irony is that some edits are harmless, while even the edits against guidelines could be productive if channeled differently. But the editor has been following the same MO for a long time and seems impervious to guidance. olderwiser 22:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rioni of the City of Rome

There is a discussion on whether articles on the rioni of the City of Rome should follow the naming convention for Italy, or should be treated differently. I have notified you as you were previously involved in the discussion on a Naming convention for Italian cities. Please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/July#Italy: rioni of Rome. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Survivors / The Survivors

Re Survivors (video game) and its inclusion on The Survivors disambig page. Old games that are now more likely to be played via emulators are often referred to by the title given on screen. In this case all versions of the game except the C64 version are titled 'The Survivors'. The publisher chose to use the name 'Survivors' (as seen on the cover art) but both titles could be used and both could be searched for. See the World of Spectrum link where they have it listed as aka The Survivors and the linked C16 screenshot of the title screen. Please don't just keep up a reverse war. I see where you are coming from but I think you judged too soon (before the article was up). (Retro junkie (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Highest-income places in the United States

Why did you reinstate Brookville, New York at the top of the list check the source: or check Per capita income in 1999 (dollars) is 84,375 not 300,000 or something. Please help me truly remove all the vandalism clutter on that article.--Alcea setosa (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops now I see you just reverted a total vandalism, still there are some serious errors in that page.--Alcea setosa (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Fichte (disambiguation)

I don't understand why you keep reverting my edits to Fichte (disambiguation). At least you tried to point to the relevant guideline in the edit summary of your most recent reversal (a slightly cryptic MOSDAB), but I note that that guideline also provides an alternative to the style you chose (Mozart …). Anyway, I now see the point about linking to the primary topic. I still think that my other edits, which I enumerated in my edit summary, were useful improvements; reverting them without paying attention to their individual merit seems thoughtless. I'm going to incoprorate my earlier improvements with your reading of MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic and trust you approve. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

George Washington

A Good Article review has started on George Washington. It is on hold for seven days to allow issues raised on Talk:George Washington/GA3 to be addressed. SilkTork *YES! 23:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


Thx!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that now. I'm about to address this issue. Thanks!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you removed the cats on Ms. Ardis E. Parshall's redirect. It was very judiciously put there per wp:RCAT (viz, she merits an article but it just hasn't been written yet; and the target is not a "living person" etc.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what happened with Ardis E. Parshall -- that wasn't intentional. But when creating links on disambiguation pages, please observe WP:MOSDAB -- i.e., no piping of the subject term (with only few exceptions) and when the link is piped in the description, the link should be descriptive of the actual linked article and not imply that it is something it is not. olderwiser 19:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe the difference between your and my approach is that I am an incrimentalist and your more of a perfectionist. That is, the no-piping rule is for the end result after the target articles get created, but the minimal piping I put in could be "good enough" in the mean time. So, your way in the end makes for more work, because insisting on perfection and deleting almost perfect simply hindered my good faith efforts thus far, wouldn't you agree? E.g, you deleted my interim step of making a redirect for Lowel C. "Ben" Bennion. (And I don't even know any admins that go out of their way to delete redirects). But, be this as it may: In Ben's particularly Ben's particular case, such a deletion was detrimental to building the encyclopedia, because formerly Bennion's cats were already placed on his page--which page is now nonexistent.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
That would be an incorrect understanding of the guidelines. Disambiguation pages exist to disambiguate existing topics in Wikipedia, not to provide a framework for article development. That has been discussed extensively in the past and it is not my opinion alone but enjoys fairly robust support. As for some of your recent additions, I have modified the format somewhat, but I honestly think most would fail the policy Wikipedia is not a directory.
You mean with concern to redirects and not even things in article space? I just read the NOT A DIRECTORY guideline seems say it only applies to non-notable info. I feel like I can't even breath because as soon as I type something, you've deleted with a baseball or cricket bat, via a misapplication of the scalpel-like advise plainly stated in the guidelines. But you don't want to see my point and don't seem to care that you're making my work harder, so maybe I should take a break rather than just get more frustated at your trigger finger deleting the baby with the bath water or everything but the kitchen sink, please choose whichever idiom you prefer.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for causing frustration, but the guidelines for content seem pretty clear to me. It is really inappropriate to create redirects from a person's name to either a disambiguation page or to some other article that contains little or no information about the subject.
By doing so, you are actually making it somewhat more difficult to identify where Wikipedia is actually missing an article -- the blue link makes it look as though the article exists, when in reality it links to a page that contains little or no information about the subject. olderwiser 20:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe that you believe you followed this guideline: WP:R#DELETE--despite the fact that you clearly have not. (That is: which itemization there did you believe the deletes described by?)

    But I want to switch gears here, because I know already that you're not going to admit that you overstepped proper bounds and overreacted to my edits. <clears throat> What I think the real problem here is simply systemic bias. No one has heard of Mormon studies, so the scholars that practice this discipline are generally looked at askance in academia (that is, by the il-informed, as even academics can be outside of their target area.) So, even smart people can fall into systemic bias traps. But, here's the deal. The Pew Survey says that there are 1.7% of the U.S. that areself-described Jews and exactly 1.7% of the U.S. population that are self-described Mormons (with about half of either of those indentical percentages the one the survey measured for self-described American Muslims). Would a scholar who was working in Jewish studies be considered too crufty for an encyclopedia? Why the knee jerk assumption that the scholars that have risen to the top of the Utah educational system in self-reflective social sciences don't merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, when such scholars are very active in their field, have won awards for their work, are published widely, and so on and so forth?

As an example, I'll pull out Andrea G. Radke-Moss. Here's what happens when I googled her. If she studied aboriginal populations instead of Mormon or midwestern women, would the supposition so quickly be that a mere redirect page, per the guidelines, could be allowed until her article was created?

Wikipedia is somewhat ghettoized. Mormon topics are all in their own area and non-Mormon topics are in theirs. I looked at the US immigration from Europe, etc. article last night. Jews are mentioned in the article literally a half-dozen times. I think this is appropriate because Jewish immigration is very important to this country. But, do you realize how many Mormons were brought to the US from Europe and trekked off to Utah? Not one word about them in the whole article. Instead, it is but mentioned in passing in an article that is only about Mormons.People are U.S.-centric, too. And English language-centric. Stuff that happens in Canada isn't as important as stuff that happens in the U.S. And stuff that happens in foreign language locales or the third-world become even less important, yet. Yet, in absolute terms, the mores and sociology of the Jersey Shore and of the San Fernando Vally in California (and of the less tony enclaves of England, to use another English-speaking world example) are just as important as those of the Hamptons or of Beverly Hills or of Oxbridge, Harvard or Stanford. The folkways of Arkansas are just as encyclopedic as the byways of where the "beautiful" or the hip hang out, encyclopedically speaking, too. And as for Mormons...well, let's see. The LDS were predominantly US Intermountain West dwellers just a couple of generations ago. And I guess still are. And, yes, admittedly, they're kind of strange!... All more the reason that it would be interesting to study them then! (objectively or encyclopedically speaking).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It makes no difference whatsoever to me whether a person is a Mormon or anything else. What matters is that it is inappropriate to create redirects that provide little or no information about the subject. Period. It is up to you to create articles on subjects that you care about and to make sure that those articles meet applicable guidelines for verifiability, content and notability. As for which WP:R#DELETE reason would have been applicable, take your pick -- they could have been deleted as 2. The redirect might cause confusion, or 5. The redirect makes no sense, or 10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. olderwiser 21:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)]
Ah, but a last name disambig page would never need to be redirected to the full name, thus a very scalpel-like delete would not ever be in order, in this case, allegedly to ease the way, per #10, a necessary, future redirect from the last name disambig page to a scholar's page name. (Which would be meaningless.)

Take the fairly new PhD, Radke-Moss (...&, btw, Mormon studies--not as part of devotion, but from objective scholarship--is just now becoming recognized as a worthy academic discimpline): I had redirected her page to where? That's right, to Brigham Young University. So, you're really claiming that Brigham Young Univeristy might in the future need to be re-directed to the full-named Dr. Radke-Moss page, thus your delete was a precise measure, taken with forethought and deliberation, rather than merely some reflexive, delete-key "pollice baton-waving"? hmm? <smiles; that is, meaning no offense, btw--just tying to reason with you>--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you've missed the point entirely. Brigham Young Univeristy does not so much as mention that person. There is no reason whatsoever to create a redirect from that person's name to the university article. Rather than create such a useless (and actually unhelpful) redirect, it is better for that person to remain as a redlink on whatever existing articles she appears on. olderwiser 21:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Dude, my cous, bro, friend...this ain't namespace. It's a redirect. <sighs> Look, the only way your interpretation makes sense is if you parse the guidelines as saying to second guess other Wikipedians about redirects. Redirects are simply a convenience. A place holder. A searching help. Got it? They aren't part of the encyclopec content in and of themselves. Brigham Young doesn't have to mention professor Radke-Moss. In fact, let's turn now to the next secton at wp:REDIRECT, to wp:R#KEEP: The last three itemized points there say to not use the old scalpel on redirects if...
3. "They aid searches on certain terms." [Namely, in this case, searches for notable scholars of Mormon studies, etc.]
4. "You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them." [And, indeed, this was indeed the case. Each link is used on the Encyclopedia page I was working on.]
5. "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." [Nuff said.]
I obviously qualify for all three, whereas your side is only possibly correct if it can be assumed that my rationales where completly nonsensical and causing havoc. Just because you didn't know the rationale to my building the encyclopedia to cover Mormon studies scholars doesn't mean I did not have one. I mean, wtf!? <smiles>--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No, you really don't get it at all. Creating a redirect to an article that does not provide any information about a subject is unhelpful. Period. There is no benefit whatsoever to readers and it is actually harmful in that a reader will end up redirected to an apparently random article that has nothing relevant about the subject they clicked on. Create the article first, and ensure they are appropriately sourced and meet whatever other guidelines apply to the subject. Then you can start creating redirects and adding the entries to disambiguation pages. olderwiser 22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC) FWIW, I asked for clarification on one of the reasons for deletion we are discussing at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#What does this really mean?. As an example I mentioned your edits to redirect Andrea G. Radke-Moss to Brigham Young University. You are welcome to participate there. olderwiser 22:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, whatever you believe the merits your actions had, you were out of order, period, all right? As it was, I was busily typing away, trying to add a whole bunch of "Historian of the Latter Day Saint movement" cats to my my list of notable Mormon scholar redirects. And, per wp:REDIRECT, the following is what I had actually anticipated, should some admin come along that couldn't fathom what I was doing. Quote.

To delete a redirect without replacing it with a new article, list it on redirects for discussion. See deletion policy for details on how to nominate pages for deletion.

Listing is not necessary if you just want to replace a redirect with an article, or change where it points: see these instructions for help doing this. If you want to swap a redirect and an article, but are not able to move the article to the location of the redirect please use Wikipedia:Requested moves to request help from an admin in doing that.

But instead you took it upon yourself to pull the rug out right from under me, causing me to do it all over again. Twice. Thanks for that, btw. Yet, I'd be more happy if you could Instead use, if at all possible, more discretion in the future.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Um, no. You were creating inappropriate and unhelpful redirects. I deleted them. Instead of creating such unhelpful redirects, you would be better off creating actual articles first. olderwiser 22:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Saying "um no" means you don't want to follow the guideline, which says "List for discussion, not "speedily delete." (That is the purpose for listing for discussion in the first place, so admins won't decide things on whim: willy-nilly, might-is-right mobocracy vs. reasoning discussion and judiciousness.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm saying the redirects were invalid and I was entirely justified in deleting them. Since you seem to refuse to even consider that you might be wrong, there isn't much point to continuing this discussion. If you think I acted inappropriately, there are other forums in which you can raise your complaint. olderwiser 23:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

UN names

Hi, thanks for contributing to the discussion on this. One thing you said I wanted to ask you more about if you have a minute. In your most recent comment, you said "there are some issues that editors will simply have to agree to disagree about" - I realise this is to some extent an acknowledgement by you of the realities of the way Wikipedia operates, but isn't it also just a teensy bit admitting that WP is a failed model? If what you say is true (and I don't doubt there is truth in it), isn't it an admission that as there is no chance of consensus-building on fraught topics like national identity, that a quality article with accuracy cannot be built? I am thinking here for example of China. The modern state is almost universally reported as China, not just in official sources but in the media, etc. So it would appear to fulfill both Primacy and Commonname. Yet the article divides state off into the official PRC name, which in nearly all other similar cases is disambiguated in intro text. Isn't this in fact a capitulation to POV? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, so far as editors are able to reach a point where they do agree to disagree and accept a solution that has elements objectionable to all parties is evidence that the Wikipedia model works. Yes, China is an unfortunate case, though the passage of time might see things shift. But having an article about the cultural entity known as China rather than about a specific nation state doesn't seem that unreasonable. With a civilization with a few thousand years continuity, it's not all that clear that when people refer to "China" that they always mean the modern state. olderwiser 21:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviously casual readers with half a brain will realise what the article divisions are all about and clearly it is a fractious issue (China) both within and without Wikipedia. I think it concerns me more that it's so flagrantly different to the policies within WP - which I care about, as I care about and admire the model here. It's one of several that are in breach of Common Name, in breach of Primacy and in breach of NPOV as the motive for the "compromise" is settling with POVs. I wouldn't get worked up if this were about cans of beans, but as I mentioned in the main discussion, it's about one of the most basic elements of a cyclopedia - the set of nations. I appreciate your thoughts, but am still puzzled about how very experienced Wikipedians such as yourself can live with this situation. I suppose it's a big boat and all kinds of stuff goes on, some of it shaky and one has to live with that a little. But on something as basic as the largest country on earth? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Barber's pole

BK, I am having a minor format issue with four lines that I added to the Computer science section. These were from a much earlier edit, and I put them back. They don't display correctly, and either should be fixed or eliminated entirely. Could you please help? Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Stan

Never mind.
7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Stan


Could you zap the redirect currently existent at "Restoring Honor rally"<--[THIS ONE] out of existence? If so: thanks. The page is needed to be empty so that Restoring Honor rally (Glenn Beck) can be moved there (per the pertinent talkpage).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I may have figured out a way around the problem! <smiles>--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we still could use the "zap," since **Restoring Honor Rally**, the title I moved it to, now has the unwanted 2nd capital-R.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I put a speedy on it and someone (you?) deleted it. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Traverse City (pronounced /ˈtrævər ˈsɪti/)

Please take a look at the pronunciation. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Stan