User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 9

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


← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 →

Please see the new US regions maps

There is a proposal at WikiProject U.S. regions/Maps to replace the current grab bag of U.S. maps with a standardized style. The maps also remove the always, sometimes, and rare categories, in favor of a core area always in a region highlighted in red, while states that may or may not be included in a region are shown in pink. Please comment on the talk page. If approved or revised by participants, I'd like to make the transition within the next two weeks. Thanks. -JCarriker 19:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

NJ Townships

See Township (New Jersey): All municipalities in NJ have equal legal status. The form of government need not, and usually does not, derive from the name of the municipality; most municipalities operate under the Faulkner Act, and I believe the old Township form of government (which was not in any case unincorporated, as the term is used elsewhere) is in fact extinct. Beyond Wikipedia, I can only suggest the New Jersey Code or the NJ LWV. Having found this article, I will make sure Township links to it. Septentrionalis 02:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That is a good way to look at it. Municipalities in NJ is a little too complicated for its own good. When you say "township" in New Jersey, it can either refer to the TYPE of municipality it is or the FORM. There are 5 types and 11 forms of government. The TYPER seems to generally refer to how the municipality was first chartered, but I may be wrong on that. Also, any municipality can choose any form of government they see fit, so you have abberations such as "The Township of South Orange Village" which has a Village type and a Township form. Anyway, the question is moot, since all municipalities were granted equal legal standing by the Home Rule act.... For the record, that means that NJ is 100% incorporated, which leads to other abberatrions like the two municipalities are nothing more than an airport (Teterboro, New Jersey) or golf course (Pine Valley, New Jersey). Roodog2k 14:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

POV

Everyone at one time makes an edit that another thinks is POV. Until I have needed to do a revert or 2, however, I have normally not accused others of it, even when I think it. I have not disagreed with your lastest edit, in fact, for many of your edits. So I would appreciate not facing a reactionary POV for nothing (I changed another's edit on the poll from "Note:" to "It is notable"). And, separately, I think I am getting tarred for defending Tloz, who defininately wants his POV. I am mostly defending him because he is brand new and hasn't a clue. I think it is better to help someone than chase them away. Thanks. --Noitall 03:03, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

If you are referring to this edit, I did not intend to describe your edit as POV--rather primarily the usage of the modifier "only" which you did not add and "notable" which you did. That whole sentence strikes me as a big "So What?" 47% is about exactly half, within the margin of errors for most polls of this type, so I really don't see what is so "notable" about the point. And it strikes me a silly to qualify it as "only", as if that implies that the poll is any less valid because of that. olderwiser 23:17, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I admit, sometimes I make a POV edit, as I believe almost all do. You seem to be sort of reasonable, and I just don't like to get called for POV edit for a minor edit change. --Noitall 23:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln/Vote

Please look at the restructured choices on Talk:Lincoln/Vote and clarify your vote. Thanks! —Lowellian (talk) 08:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Would you duplicate your Choice 1 vote there under choice 2 also since you state that you "have no strong opinion about whether Lincoln should redirect to Lincoln (disambiguation) or should be the actual disambiguation page"? —Lowellian (talk) 03:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

The mop is mine!

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The bible

Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I added another section for "verse-by-verse Biblical analysis should be transwikied to a WikiBible instead of left on Wikipedia with the possible exception of "notable" verses" as something that could take votes *in addition* to votes for other section, so if you support that idea go check it out. Thanks! — Phil Welch 22:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

SimonP (the creator of the 100 or so gospel verse articles) has tried to claim that the votes for the "only notable verses" section would include most of the 30,000 verses of the bible because he sees them as notable. To avoid such a POV twisting of the votes, I have added a new section - [1] - for voting on whether the number of notable verses is more like 30,000, or more like 30. Would you care to vote there as well? ~~~~ 00:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


What do you think of a WikiPedia meetup in Ann Arbor this fall?

I'm posting messages with people that have identified themselves as Wikipedians in Michigan. Let me know if there's interest and I'll see what I can do to coordinate. If there is already a meeting and I'm not aware, please let me know. --Ronreed 00:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Mulhern Graholm

Thanks for your advice and work on the Jennifer Granholm entry. I am still of the opinion that 'popular' names are arbitrary and at the very least that full, proper names are at least verifiable, provable, and can stand as encyclopedic information. Nonetheless, I don't feel like waging any battles, whether I use the 'move' feature or not -- but I would hope that if I do use the 'move' feature, in the future, I won't have to expect that you'll try to revert me, again. It's just an attempt to get things done properly -- not popularly. I would like some more advice from you: how would you suggest I license my wiki contributions? eyenot@hotmail.com 13:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am responding to your talk in my talkpage. The reason I ask about your licensing is because I was wondering which additional licenses you chose and why, what suitable use do you find in them? As far as the use of full, proper names for encyclopedia entries, it is just too bad that WikiPedia authors consider themselves authorities on popularity instead of just sticking to being a population of authorities on various subjects. When recording people in encyclopedia, you should use their full, complete, proper name. Period. If there is some 'popular' usage, then create a redirect to their actual entry ("Popular Name (See: Full, Proper Name)"). What is proper is not always popular and vis e versa, but if we're to have standards then we're supposed to stick by them. The lack of real scholastic standards at WikiPedia tends to drive me away from it. Gabriel Arthur Petrie 15:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that you've personally taken a hand to editing the appearance of her name to suit your whims, you can no longer authoritatively state that it is 'the more popular usage', as it's now actually just your arbitrary, stuck-up little preferance, toad. I will have this. Gabriel Arthur Petrie 14:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but did you just call me a "toad"? You might want to read about Civility. As for the rest, it was you who first systematically went through a host of articles applying your own peculiar preference regarding the Granholm/Mulhern names. "Common usage" refers to how the persons are known outside of Wikipedia, and can be fairly easily demonstrated via a web search with Google or Yahoo or whatever. "Jennifer Mulhern Granholm" has 243 hits (about 50 of which are Wikipedia or copies) while "Jennifer Granholm" has 130,000 -- there is ittle contest as to what is the more common usage. Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions and stop being petulant. olderwiser 22:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)