User talk:Emmette Hernandez Coleman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman.

Contents

Be careful when being bold[edit]

Be very careful with edits like [1]. Even though it's clear you have good intentions, not bolding a recommendation in an XfD comment is often a deliberate choice by the commenter and not an error. I've seen in the past commenters state that adjusting the emphasis they used (or didn't use) in the comment is the same as altering the words they used (or didn't use). Closing administrators read the whole of comments to determine consensus, whether there is a bolded recommendation or not.

While I'm here, I will also take the opportunity to mention that some of your non-admin closures are very borderline in terms of being too bold, particularly your early closures. For example closing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 2#Ring-Ring as a snow close when there was only one recommendation (mine) and that did not correspond to the nomination. It wasn't wrong per se (otherwise I would have called you on it directly), but it is not a good example of when to use WP:SNOW nor of when an early close is desirable. It is not the first time either when you've been sailing close to the edge of the grey area between clearly right and clearly wrong.

I was coincidentally musing earlier on that while I would not currently feel comfortable supporting you at RfA if you were to run, I hadn't actually expressed this feedback to you so you could take it on board. I hope you take this message in the spirit of constructive feedback as I intend it (I know I'm not always very good at getting the tone of these sorts of messages right). Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Israeli cities[edit]

I just had a thought of an opening sentence which might work as a compromise and help explain more succinctly exactly what the list is. How about opening the article with:

  • The following is a list of cities in Israel and Israeli administered cities in the West Bank, based on the current index of the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).

That way we are giving a very precise and exact description of what the list is and what we mean by the title "Israeli cities". No room for any ambiguity. Dlv999 (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried that, Ynhockey said it violated WP:NC. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Tough that doesn't seem substantially different then my "The following list of Israeli cities, in this context defined as cities in Israel and Israeli-administered cities in the West Bank [...]". The "list of Israeli cities, in this context defined as", acide from presumably following WP:NC, merely makes explicit what was previously implied. Eather way we're using a definition of "Israeli cities" other than "cities in Israel" in the context of the list, so I'm confused at to why you would support the first but oppose the second. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)e
Because the vast majority of sources do not describe them as "Israeli cities", they call them "Israeli settlements". The "context" here is actually a minority position and we are not supposed to write articles from the perspective of minority positions. Dlv999 (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how that would apply to the second, but not the first. Eather way we're saying what we mean by the title "Israeli cities", the context is the same in both. Also you statement has the premence that "Israeli settlements" and "Israeli cities" are mutually exclusive. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Communist State of Antarctica[edit]

Oops i found out how to reply to you, thats fine im waiting for official documents from the "Communist State of Antarctica" as i too have herd very little about it, when i do is it ok to foward to you and let you to do the page etc? as im very new to Wikipedia and think ill mess it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamrind (talkcontribs) 09:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Emmette Hernandez Coleman. You have new messages at Manway's talk page.
Message added 15:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Manway 15:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Berber Revolt[edit]

Hello Emmette, i don't participate on english WP but in french WP, and i need your help in this article, the sources exist, see this link or this for example and i can give more sources but in french, thank's for your help. Best regard.--Waran18 (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What about the article do you want my help with? I don't know much about the Berber Revolt, so I might not be of much help. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk)
Thank's for your answer, for example : this source say, "a dynasty that would reign over a large part of the central Maghreb until the arrival of the Fatimids, omar toons write on the article "over the area of Tahert". And this map made by omar toons, is wrong. I take pic of the original map. The Idrissides control juste a city of Tlemcen, not all North-West of Algeria and on page 224, there is no map of Aghalibids or Idrissids, but a map of the arab conquest of Ifriqiya (East of the Maghreb).--Waran18 (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For User talk:Larry Sanger#Trout. Don't let the haters get to you. BDD (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

City of Greater New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Queens County
Flag of Abkhazia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Flag of Georgia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

--24.18.140.235 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)== VCR tape ==

VCR_Tape (VCR tape) redirects to VHS, but according to [2], there was actually a format called VCR, made by phillips, with coplaner reels. I'd never heard of it before, went to the wikipedia to find out more about it, but apparently the wikipedia doesn't know it exists? Sounds like a small-production-run thing, apparently only in the U.K., but as the first cartridge format in the U.K. seems like it ought to be notable enough to at least get a footnote on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.140.235 (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC) [3] might be a more useful link from that page - 24.18.140.235 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of West Jerusalem for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article West Jerusalem 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/West Jerusalem (2nd nomination) 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.

Wikipedia:Files listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Files. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Files redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Wbm1058 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Palestine RM[edit]

Hi Emmette. After I read this article about Google changing "Palestinian territories" to "Palestine," I wanted to leave a notification where the last RM occurred. But I couldn't find it on the talk pages of Palestine, Palestinian territories, or State of Palestine. This was the RM shortly after the UN's upgrade of Palestine. Do you remember where that was? --BDD (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Palestine/Archive_13#Requested move
Hm. Not sure how I missed that. I guess I didn't think it was that long ago. Time flies. --BDD (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Flag of Bushmanland[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Flag of Bushmanland. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Bushmanland. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Bushmanland – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Ignatzmicetalk 02:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

PWC[edit]

No, because you've not provided evidence that these places are somewhere else. If you have that evidence, change the name to whatever it should be; if you don't have it, leave things alone. I've never seen a list in which we challenge or require a citation for the place name; we always go with NRIS unless we find an error, in which case we fix it quietly. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that about half of the Manassas entries that I could check (by looking up their addresses in Google Earth) were not in Manassas. This casts strong doubt on the ones I can't check. What's wrong with a {{Dubious}} template here? I acknowledge that {{citation needed}} wasn't quite the right template, but {{Dubious}} is for "a specific statement or alleged fact which is sourced but which nevertheless seems dubious or unlikely. Most commonly, this involves uncertainty regarding the veracity or accuracy of the given source [...]. This template's wording is milder than that of {{Disputed-inline}}, which indicates that the material in question is being directly challenged as being incorrect." I'm not directly challenging that they are in Manassas, I'm just saying that there is strong uncertainty. The main point of this is "to warn readers that a specific statement in the article may not be accurate". (Besides, NRIS seems to think that Manassas Park, Manassas, and even Arlington County are part of Fairfax County, so their probably not the most reliable source.) Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Remember that these lists routinely include things that are nearby but not within the municipality itself; we have a pile of places in Hanover County that are listed as Richmond because they're closer to Richmond than to other places, even though they're in the county and not in the city. It's not necessarily an accuracy thing; it's a vicinity thing. Meanwhile, did you consider attempting to find locations? Not asking this as a challenge but in case you'd not thought of it. Many sites aren't hard to find; for example, this city website provides the location for the Manassas Industrial School. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Update — this source puts Cannon Branch Fort in the city near the airport, while these historical markers are also plainly in the city. All that needs to be resolved, if I understand rightly, are the Manassas National Battlefield Park and Signal Hill, which somehow don't have any city listed at all. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The ones without cities are ones I confirmed weren't in Manassas, but I don't know what, if any city their in (quite possibly some unincorporated community, but Google Earth isn't very good at showing unincorporated communities). That's an interesting point about Hanover County, but those Richmond's all include disclaimers in the location fled that they are not in Richmond. There were no such disclaimers on the PWC list, except on the Battlefield Park and Ben Lomond entries, and without such a disclaimer it is an accuracy thing. I took a que from the Hanovor County list and added the closest cities (Gainesville for the Battlefield Park and Manassas for Signal Hill). This edit removed the disclaimer for the Battlefield Park and makes it appear to be in Gainesville, and why did you remove the mile information?
This just leaves the Manassas Industrial School for Colored Youth, which is in Manassas. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Our practise nationwide is not to use the disclaimers unless they're in NRIS; it's not an accuracy thing. Anything in Prince William County isn't in a city, by definition, and things listed under the names of towns and unincorporated communities are not necessarily in those communities. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You sure about that? To simply list a city with no disclaimer clearly implies that it's in that city (I'm using city in the expanded sense of the word to include incorporated cities, CDP's, etc.), and the practice at the Hanover County list would seem to go against your assertion. I've never seen any NRHP list with a broad disclaimer in the lead that the locations might be near, but not in the cities listed. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
(ec with following 2 comments by N and by EHC) EHC asked me to comment. EHC has good points. Nyttend is being, in my opinion, abrupt and arbitrary-seeming and non-explaining, too much so for good practice dealing with a new-to-this-topic-area contributor. The tone of this seems unfriendly, frankly, and I don't like that. N seems to be coming down hard, imposing upon this Talk page rather than discussing in the wt:NRHP discussion that EHC opened helpfully. (Disclosure: Nyttend and I have had numerous disagreements, including a recent arbitration in which we were both named parties. And interactions where Nyttend used administrator tools in actions that were eventually overturned upon appeal. EHC asked for help, and deserves to know this much, IMO. If someone wants to give a different summary, go ahead.) Anyhow, back several years now, Nyttend and I and others created the NRHP county list-tables using a computer tool that put a National Register Information System (NRIS) "location" field into that column. The location field used is kinda "descriptive" in nature, and includes cities that are "nearest" sometimes, and such cities can even be across a county border. The county location info in NRIS is far more exact, and almost always turns out to be exactly correct (except when county borders change later). In retrospect, it is arguably poor writing of ours, not to make the usage in the list-tables more clear, and/or it was poor of us not to clearly guide improvement of the information. It is not proper to assert merely that the info is what it is, and cannot be changed. It should be changed. I tend to think that the NRHP list-article column title "City or Town" needs some refinement, a footnote perhaps, to indicate if/when the locations are not locations as a normal reader would expect. Since it would be hard to word any such footnote, perhaps the contents of the column should be changed instead.
It is refreshing that EHC brings fresh eyes to this PWC list-article. Sensible corrections to make the list make sense, using current, accurate town and city and county info, should be implemented, IMO. I tend to think the correct place for this kind of discussion is in neutral territory of wt:NRHP, getting other editors' views, and it should not be imposed upon EHC's personal Talk page, where there could seem to be an assumption that EHC is at fault and out of step with consensus in some vague way. --doncram 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Your idea is way off base; it absolutely does not imply that. As I said, we use NRIS unless it's wrong, and NRIS provides the disclaimers for Hanover County; I cannot see why you say that it's a counterexample. If we start playing with the addresses without replacing them entirely with different sources, we're going to have chaos and make things much less accessible than they are. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
If you list something as being in a city then unless stated otherwise that implies that it is in that city, how is that way off base? If your correct why does the Hanover County list's Richmond's include disclaimers that they are not in Richmond (allot of other entires on that list have slimmer disclaimers)? I don't know what if any disclaimers the NRHP has, but their not relevant unless the the WP article has the same disclaimers. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Both of you, stop! There's nothing urgent here. Take a break. --doncram 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
When I invited Doncram to weigh in I had no idea that there had ever been any serous conflict between you two, sorry about that. The reason this is on my talk page is because I originally postted this on Nyttend's talk page in response to this revert. There's no fight to break up here, I'm not upset at Nyttend. Unless I've misunderstood him I don't see why he thinks my idea is way off base, but this is just a disagreement. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This edit which clarifies that the Battlefield Park isn't in Gainesville was all I wanted. I also identified Evergreen as being well outside of Haymarket (based on it's address). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I cannot make more responses that will make sense when Doncram repeatedly and seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia's normal editorial processes and expected standards of behavior and decorum. All I have more to say is that because Virginia is not 100% incorporated (unlike the northeastern states) and doesn't have townships everywhere in the unincorporated areas (unlike much of the Midwest), we have to say that these listings are somewhere; it's not at all a good idea to dispense with NRIS unless we find an outright error, and these are the best approximations and not errors. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I see no problem listing the closest city when something isn't in any (known) city. I just think that in those cases we should have a disclaimer like the ones at the Hanover County list in such cases. Listing the closest city, with a disclaimer, is one thing; listing the wrong city is quite another ("approximation" or not). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
As I said, NRIS is the basis for all that we do, unless it's outright wrong, and things like the Manassas Battlefield are not errors. Saying that it's an outright error is like saying that they've made an error with the name of a site in Ohio because they give it the awkward name of "First Concrete Street In U.S." instead of "Court Avenue", its actual name. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Emmette Hernandez Coleman. You have new messages at Talk:List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists.
Message added 20:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification[edit]

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, Flag and coat of arms of Walloon Brabant, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Flag and coat of arms of Walloon Brabant" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 18:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Arlington County, Virginia[edit]

A recent edit of yours added the city name of "Pentagon City" to this article as the location for the Pentagon or Pentagon Office Building Complex. Pentagon City is the name of an unincorporated neighborhood/shopping area and would seem to not be the most optimal/widely-known locale for the Pentagon, especially since the building, which came first, then gave the name to the subsequent neighborhood. Shearonink (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Other then the interdependent cities of Falls Church and Alexandria, the only cities in Arlington County are unincorporated communities/neighborhoods. (see {{Arlington County, Virginia}}. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I actually did know that Arlington County has no physical cities within its boundaries, and is a totally unique government within Virginia. I think that saying Alexandria City and Falls Church are interdependent to Arlington County might be fighting words to their city governments, they'd probably not consider themselves as adjuncts of any particular County. If anything, Alexandria and Falls Church could possibly be thought of as more within Fairfax County, but that is not my point...they are independent entities in and of themselves and are not considered to be part of any County. Of course, they could be considered to be partially or wholly within a County's physical boundaries, as a State is physically within the confines of the US. But anyway, my main thought about this is that stating (within the NHRP/Arlington County table) that The Pentagon is located north of the Pentagon City shopping mall is like saying the White House is located off of Lafayette Park - as in which is more famous/well-known/worthy of being noticed...the article subject or the neighborhood it gives its name to? I think stating that the Pentagon is in Arlington County, VA is enough. Shearonink (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Arlington County isn't a unique government, it's a county like any other except smaller. Arlington County (along with Washington County) used to be one of the two counties of DC, that's why it's so small. Do to a querck in Virgina law (and DC law before the DC municipalities were abolished), incorporated cities (but not incorporated towns) are not legally part of their counties (see independent city (Virginia)). Before those cities were "independent cities", Alexandria was part of Arlington County (then called Alexandria County, and part of DC), and Falls Church was part of Fairfax County.
But as for the main point, every county list has a city colloam. What you're arguing, if I understand you correctly, is that Arlington County shouldn't have one because it's cities aren't well known. Lafayette Park is a public park, not an city. Pentagon City is an City/Neighborhood (more specifically an unincorporated community) within Arlington County, not a shopping mall. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Arlington County *is* totally unique in the state of Virginia...it is only a county and there are no independent municipalities contained within its borders. I just think that stating a shopping mall ('Pentagon City' is what the shopping mall-area is colloquially known as even though the mall's technical name is "Fashion Centre at Pentagon City") as giving the Pentagon its location is slightly unseemly, and gives that shopping mall/mostly retail neighborhood a gravitas that is undeserved. Pentagon City would not exist without "The Pentagon" itself. And my collateral point about Lafayette Park was that the White House gives the Park importance and location, not the other way around.
In my opinion, the text's previous state is a clearer indication of reality. Shearonink (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The shopping mall of Fashion Centre at Pentagon City is not the same thing as the unincorporated community of Pentagon City, which contains the shopping mall. It dosen't matter if the unincorporated community would exist if it weren't for the Pentagon, it exists. Arlington County has no higher gravitas then an unincorporated community, there is no higher gravitas to put in that field. Besides, unincorporated communities can be listed in the city field, the Charles City County list shows Ruthville. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I know that it is not the same thing, didn't I state that myself? You misunderstand me completely. There is no real "neighborhood", to call it an unincorporated 'community' is somewhat of a misnomer, it's mostly just a bunch of stores. Arlington County is all Wikipedia needs to have or should have in that listing, unlike Ruthville (which has historical significance on its own). In the spirit of WP:IAR, leaving that space blank makes more sense - just because the space is blank doesn't mean that Wikipedia editors must fill it. Shearonink (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Religion in Palestine listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Religion in Palestine. Since you had some involvement with the Religion in Palestine redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). BDD (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Abkhazia deletion discussion[edit]

Should Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and really be added to the The Republic of Abkhazia deletion discussion? While related, I think their topics merit different discussions. They originally redirected to different pages for a start. Why do you think they should be handled together? CMD (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia has redirected to Abkhazia scene 2011, and why would we keep one but not the other? Weather Abkhazia is an independent country (the "Republic of Abkhazia") or a part of Georgia (the "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia") is disputed, but the main article covers the dispute, and both the ROA and the AROA. There's not a need for ether article. What's the difference between the articles that might warrant keeping one but not the other, because unless I'm missing something here, the qualifications for keeping/deleting the articles are almost identical, I don't see any significant difference. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
My mistake on the redirects. I assumed Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia would redirect to Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, which makes more sense to me, as the government at least exists as a political structure. CMD (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Inside the Beltway (region)[edit]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Inside the Beltway (region), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/beltway_inside_the_beltway_beltway_insider/.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications 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.) MadmanBot (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Old Bourbon[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Old Bourbon. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Bourbon County, Kentucky. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Bourbon County, Kentucky – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. --FoxyOrange (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Help me[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Could someone get the map of the present day Bourbon County off the Old Bourbon article please, I can't figure out how to do it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The map is auto-generated by the {{Infobox U.S. county}}. Is there perhaps another infobox template you could use that would be more accurate? GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inside the Beltway (region), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Woodlawn, MD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Emmette Hernandez Coleman. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 22:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some recent edits[edit]

You're a hardworking editor and have made a variety of improvements to the encyclopedia, but please take greater care to ensure that your edits are correct, and consistent with other edits you make. For example I just removed two private schools you added to Template:Chevy Chase, which are physically located in Chevy Chase DC but which residents do not zone to - their addition was inconsistent with the existing footnote in the template which indicates that school are on the list when residents zone to them, irrespective of physical location. Also previously you had removed some areas of Silver Spring from the Chevy Chase, Maryland article noting that post office conventions do not determine the identity of a place (which was fine) but later added Somerset, Maryland to the Chevy Chase template, when the only connection between Somerset and Chevy Chase is Somerset's zip code. These are small things of course, easily remedied, but it would be better if mistaken edits weren't made in the first place. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I only added Somerset to those other pages because the Somerset article itself at the time said it was part of Chevy Chase. You challenged that statement and removed it from the article, negating the reason I added it. I would have self-reverted if you hadn't beat me to it. This was merely because the USPS giving an area an X postal addresses is not the same thing as the USPS considering said area to be part of X. That's a different issue then whether Somerset is part of Chevy Chase, even if it is, it is not because the USPS "considers" it to be part of Chevy Chase. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
As for the private schools, would the concept of zones even apply to them? Even if it did, if physically located in Chevy Chase DC, wouldn't at least part of the zone cover Chevy Chase? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm just asking that when you make edits you review the material you are changing and make sure that what you're doing makes sense. In both the Somerset case and the template, the correct information was present on the page - the Somerset article plainly described a history different than the rest of Chevy Chase (introductory language notwithstanding); and the template footnote explicitly said that the list of included schools were ones to which residents are zoned. (Private schools generally have no zones, though of course they may draw more heavily from nearby areas.) JohnInDC (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to get beck to you sooner, but I've had allot on my mind. I see your point about Somerset, I probably should have taken it to Talk:Chevy Chase, Maryland before doing that.
As for the template footnote, I wrote it. The way I intended it was sense zones wouldn't apply to private schools, the ones listen would be in (or maybe very near) Chevy Chase. Would you object if the private schools were re-added, but with a clearer footnote. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back. No, I don't care how you do the template, so long as it's clear. Maybe changing the global note to indicate, public schools are included by virtue of how residents are zoned, and private schools by physical location? JohnInDC (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Help me[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Could someone give {{Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania}} the same color scheme as {{Philadelphia}}? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I probably could, but I don't think that's a good idea. All Pennsylvania county navboxes have the same color scheme, for all I can tell, and at the very least I'd suggest discussing such a change at WT:WikiProject Pennsylvania. Huon (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:US county island navigation box[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:US county island navigation box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania[edit]

I replied on my talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Help me[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Could someone fix the below section of {{Philadelphia}}.

Done. Huon (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Anti-Islamism[edit]

Hiya - there's already a hatnote on Criticism of Islamism that directs away users that got there by mistake - were you aware of this? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 13:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources
Montgomery County, Maryland
Hampton Roads
Takoma Park, Maryland
Elmwood Park, Philadelphia
Friendship Heights
Etiquette in Japan
Cleanup
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
First Hawaiian Bank
Diamonds World Tour
Expand
Newbold, Philadelphia
Oxford Circle, Philadelphia
Multiplication algorithm
Unencyclopaedic
Ryers, Philadelphia
SEPTA City Transit Division surface routes
PRISM (surveillance program)
Wikify
History of Norfolk, Virginia
Hampton Roads Transit
William Mahone
Orphan
Tide Mill, Virginia
Mercer Village
Perdikas Palaeontological Museum
Merge
Jamaican American
Fall Line Cities
Grozny-City Towers Facade Clocks
Stub
AsiaWorld-Arena
Co-operative Women's Guild
Claiborne Farm
Barnaby Woods
Persecutory delusion
Clearview, Philadelphia

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Emmette Hernandez Coleman. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
Message added 04:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Emmette Hernandez Coleman. You have new messages at Talk:East Falls Church (WMATA station).
Message added 14:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LFaraone 14:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Emmette Hernandez Coleman. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mission County (proposal), California[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Mission County (proposal), California has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Alaska borough navboxen[edit]

Not particularly useful. Either they are lacking in relevant articles to link to (see WP:NENAN), or fall into "Original research or making shit up? You decide." territory in the case of unified municipalities. Unincorporated communities within an incorporated community? How did that get started, anyway? Anchorage, Juneau and Sitka could use navboxen for sub-articles (topics, landmarks), but not for this. If not for heading to paying work at the moment, I'd be nominating all of them for deletion. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 00:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't your intention, but it sounded like you were accusing me of "making shit up" and that isn't very WP:CIVIL; if there's some point you were trying to make there I don't see it. Could we just try to work out our disagreement here?
First of all, I'm feeling quite tired right now; my ability to explain things isn't 100% so bear with me.
Almost every county, even tinny little counties with very few municipalities/communities, get their own navboxes; See List of United States counties and county-equivalents and set it to organize it by population. WP:NENAN is just an easy, and long standing president is that it does not apply to county municipalities/community navboxes. It is useful to be able to see and navigate between the municipalities/communities of a county, even if there are only a few of them.
As for unincorporated communities" from Unincorporated_community_(United_States):
An unincorporated community is one general term for a geographic area having a common social identity without benefit of municipal organization or official political designation (i.e., incorporation as a city or town). There are two main types of unincorporated communities:
These are the first type "existing within one incorporated area", not the second type "existing outside of an incorporated municipal government". Full disclosure here, I should probably reveal that I'm involved in a slimmer dispute at Template talk:Los Angeles County, California. I haven't gotten back to Zzyzx11 yet, but for what it's worth, one of the main points I was planning on making might be applicable here: his point about unincorporated areas is irrelevant because as the article points out an unincorporated areas is not the same thing as an unincorporated community. Unless he or you which to challenge the first definition (and if you do I would recommend a {{citation needed}} tag) the ones I added are clearly unincorporated communities.
One more disclaimer: as you pointed out these counties (or in Alaska terminology boroughs) are Consolidated city-counties, and president regarding those and county navboxes is allot murkier then regular counties, but I'm not really awake enough to explain that right now. I'll get back to you on that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Georgia's city-counties[edit]

<redacted>

If you're referring too Georgetown, Quitman County, Georgia, You made a bold edit, and I reverted it, and now we discuss (see WP:BRD). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Per BRD either the reverter or revertie can start the discussion. I'll start the discussion at Talk:Georgetown, Quitman County, Georgia.
I've redacted my original comment which was erroneously placed without adequate forethought. I apologize for reacting badly to your good faith efforts which withstand the test of reason. Please grant an indulgence and pardon my rash behavior. I'll remember my error while endeavoring not to repeat anything similar—as a gesture to the kindness and civility you extended to me, in the face of provocation. Your example is worthy of emulation and I thank you for setting it before me. I wish you the best. :) John Cline (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
No big deal. Thank you. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of World War 11[edit]

A tag has been placed on World War 11 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gbawden (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Germantown-Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Germantown-Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia 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/Germantown-Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia 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. JesseRafe (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dale, Virginia[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Dale, Virginia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I can't imagine a user who would arrive at that address, find this perversion of the Dab concept, and be any better off than if it were an uncreated page. At least then they would try a search producing the same results, rather than be misled about how WP is supposed to work.

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. Jerzyt 04:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Unitarian-Universalist Church[edit]

It appears that you turned Unitarian-Universalist Church into a redirect for Unitarian Universalism. As you did not discuss this action of yours in the appropriate locations before implementing it, I reverted it. I would apresiat it if before you make significant changes like this in the future that you discuss it in the appropriate locations. The appropriate locations in this instance would have been Talk:Unitarian-Universalist Church and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group. --Devin Murphy (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Good show sir[edit]

So you removed a deletion tag because, per that tag, you dont have to give a reason. Its has no refs, its uses the wrong geo coordinates. This is also in line with the campaingn to get a post office declared an unincoporated commkunity because, the zip codes did not align here is the "place" you call a community. So, you do not wish to place a ref, thats swell, it now has a ref needed tag. Which you cant remove, until you get a ref. So, how about a discussion? I know you want a 3RR, so then its stuck due to edit warring, no dice.Coal town guy (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Transjordan (region)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Transjordan (region) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reason for yet another article when there is already "Transjordan," "Cisjordan," "Oultrejordain," "Jordan" and a whole host of others, all about the same geographical place.

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. Geewhiz (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Kurdish separatism in Iran campaignbox[edit]

Hello, since you were active on the Kurdish Iranian topic in the past - i would like to notify you the following: Recently an article Kurdish separatism in Iran was forced a split into new Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan; In addition, the campaignbox was as well split [4]: from template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran into the new template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict. I proposed to remerge the campaignboxes via a community consensus, with the rationale that the split of articles was made artificially and without any real need (the user who did it, had wanted to rename the Kurdish separatism in Iran article, but when failed - he started a "competitive" article). You are welcome to express your opinion at related discussion.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Kurdish separatism in Iran article[edit]

Hi, i would like to notify you that articles Kurdish separatism in Iran and Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan are proposed to be merged. Previously a related discussion was held at proposal to rename "Kurdish separatism in Iran"->"Kurdish insurgency in modern Iran" (rejected). In addition, the template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran was later split ([5] into new template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict, but was later remerged via a community consensus (see discussion). Current merger discussion is held at Kurdish separatism in Iran#Proposed merge with Kurdish separatism in Iran.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide[edit]

Hi,

Why was Expulsion of the Armenian population redirected to Aremenian Genocide denial? As far as I was concerned the expulsion was part of the Aremenian Genocide, not an alternate explanation for it.

JASpencer (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I've retargeted it to Armenian Genocide#Deportations. There were a number of redirects (such as So-called armenian genocide) that were target to Aremenian Genocide, and should have been targeted to Aremenian Genocide denial. Expulsion of the Armenian population was just a false positive. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you. JASpencer (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

UTC[edit]

Hi Emmette, you may notice this yourself, but it's already 5 November in UTC, so the Why wikipedia is great RfD should be the first on the page for that day. That's also where the link from {{rfd relisted}} is currently pointing. --BDD (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

Considering your creation of clearly implausible (although, you claim, actually used, although there is no way that the intended target can be identified) redirects, I'm surprised at your reversion of the redirect from −2. Please leave it until you can actually think of something to say about it, and the change of consensus cat be established at WT:NUM (sorry, the talk page of WP:NUM) or at Talk:−2 (number) or Talk:2 (number). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

As for the redirects, see WP:TOPRED (some seemingly implausible redirects get allot of views), I don't see why you say the intended target can't be identified. As for −2, 2 and −2 are two different numbers. If we should have an article for −2, there is nothing wrong with a stub. If we shouldn't, it should not redirect to the 2 (number) article, that article says nothing about -2 (unless I'm missing something). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I can't find a specific consensus, but redirects which can be easily seen to be implausible by the person entering it (character after the closing parenthesis, reversing the closing parenthesis) are traditionally removed under R3 as objectively implausible. I wouldn't have added the redirects with a stray "m" or "n" at the end unless there was already one; i.e. "m → mm" is plausible, "g → gm" is not. I suppose I'll have to take a couple hours today to nominate most of your redirects for deletion.
Also, there's nothing about −2 in the article you reverted to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
You're right that usually such redirects are implausible, but usually such redirects don't get over 1000 requests per weak. 1000 requests per weak is pretty darn plausible. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
By the way, the redirects with the "\x" should be replaced by those with the actual Unicode character. "\x" is not only implausible, but impossible. You're dealing with an artifact of WP:TOPRED. I'm still going to nominate the other redirects today (PST). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
As for "\x", my understanding was that those were actual requests, things where the reader wouldn't get to the target article without the redirect (albeit requests that were caused by a tencnal issue on the reader's end) but maybe I've just misunderstood WP:TOPRED's description of them. As for the others, how could a redirect with 1000 requests per weak possibly be implausible (unless the redirect is total gibberish or something)? An implausible redirect is a redirect that a reader would not plausibly use to navigate to the target article, and 1000+ requests is about as far from implausible as you can get. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
IMO, an implausible redirect is a redirect that a reader would not plausibly use to navigate to the target article, or one where the reader would see his mistake immediately and correct it. This accounts for misspellings where there is obviously a stray character, reversed parentheses, missing parentheses, quoting the entire request, and most typos. Plausible misspellings (which are not obviously typos) should be kept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Nominations complete; I finally found the option to allow AWB to edit redirects. The "\x" and two redirects where the target is unlikely to be correct were separated out, and I removed nominations from miscapitalization or misspacing except English singers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Please comment in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 20 with two open nominations, one for the "\x" and one for the others. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I see you're point. I don't agree with it, but I think I see why you conceder them impassible. There's a related discussion at User_talk:West.andrew.g/Popular_redlinks#trailing_m_and_n (I only saw it after creating those redirects). I'll vote at the RFD. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Christian Chun[edit]

A tag has been placed on Christian Chun, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page, or a redirect loop.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Steel1943 (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Historical characters in the Southern Victory Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle fatigue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

helpme[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

This edit caused some brackets to and a second "Disputed from 1861" to appear in the infobox, and I can't figure out how to fix it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It's because the infobox's invisible caption field take its data from the office = field - anything you put in office = gets replicated in the image caption, which in turn breaks the formatting further down (because of the extra [[square brackets]]). The only immediate technical fix I can think of would be to create a redirect page called Governor of Virginia (Disputed from 1861) that points to Governor of Virginia, and then use that as the Office caption. However, that's far from ideal; I'd recommend reverting your edit for the time being whilst we try and think of a more elegant solution. Yunshui  15:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that was easier than I thought: [6]. Yunshui  15:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, still something screwy going on with the lieutenant = parameter; it doesn't seem to be working properly. I've temporarily switched it for the deputy = parameter until I can figure out why it isn't working - AFAIK, it doesn't rely on any other parameters so shouldn't be affected by them. Yunshui  15:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Letcher may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |office = Governor of Virginia]]<br><small>Disputed from 1861</small>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

T:TT listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect T:TT. Since you had some involvement with the T:TT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). DePiep (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

2013\xE2\x80\x9314 CONCACAF Champions League up for deletion[edit]

Redirects of this sort are being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_9#.5Cx22Weird_Al.5Cx22_Yankovic. —rybec 23:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

5,391,559,471,918,239,497,011,222,876,596 ‎ listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 5,391,559,471,918,239,497,011,222,876,596. Since you had some involvement with the 5,391,559,471,918,239,497,011,222,876,596 ‎ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

10,783,118,943,836,478,994,022,445,751,223 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 10,783,118,943,836,478,994,022,445,751,223. Since you had some involvement with the 10,783,118,943,836,478,994,022,445,751,223 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

584,554,051,223 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 584,554,051,223. Since you had some involvement with the 584,554,051,223 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

292,277,026,296 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 292,277,026,296. Since you had some involvement with the 292,277,026,296 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Arizona Territory (Confederate States of America)#Requested move[edit]

Please provide your opinion on the alternate proposal to move the article in question to Confederate Arizona. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS[edit]

Because you have edited Wikipedia:No consensus, your input is requested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Edited your talk page comment - sorry[edit]

I edited your talk page comment on Talk:SimCity_(1989_video_game)#Recent_revert; sorry about that. I saw a missing square bracket, and added it back in on autopilot. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Mitsuo Matayoshi[edit]

Back in August you removed a chunk of text from Mitsuo Matayoshi as copyvio -- it seems obvious that this cut-and-paste site had copied the text from WP (no acknowledgement), so I restored it. If you have any actual evidence of copyvio, please list it. (Here: I will watch your talk page) Imaginatorium (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Palestinian territory development[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Palestinian territory development has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page..GreyShark (dibra) 17:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Wikipedia.org listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Wikipedia.org. Since you had some involvement with the User:Wikipedia.org redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ireland county navigation box[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Ireland county navigation box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. NSH002 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Buckhall, Virginia[edit]

Shouldn't the info box then show both CDP and unincorporated to now match the text and the categories? Shouldn't the county template show Buckhall as being both a CDP and unincorporated? How does this all fit into the 'one or the other, not both' statements made by the Admin Nyttend yesterday? Hmains (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Independent Hill, Virginia[edit]

We now have info box, article text and categories in disagreement with each other. How does this all fit into the 'one or the other, not both' statements made by the Admin Nyttend yesterday? Hmains (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Has the data at Factfinder been checked?Coal town guy (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The article stated, and mid you this was before I edited it, "Independent Hill is an unincorporated town in Prince William County, Virginia. It is located along State Route 234 at the intersection with Joplin Road. [...] In early 2006, a realignment of 234 bypassed the town, leaving it on a side road [...] The greater Independent Hill area is defined by the Census Bureau as a census-designated place". The Buakhall one stated, again before I edited it, "Buckhall is an unincorporated town in Prince William County, Virginia. It is located on Moore Drive, just off the Prince William Parkway, [...] The greater Buckhall area is defined by the Census Bureau as a census-designated place (CDP)"
Amusing the articles are correct, and I have no reason to bereave they aren't, there are two Independent Hills and two Buckhalls. One is CDP, and the other is an unincorporated town within that CDP. Kind of like the difference between New York and New York City. Basically each article covers two different, albeit related, things with the same name. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Please take all this up with Nyttand who yesterday told me these 'both' situations do not exist: that everything was always either/or Hmains (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thease maps of the CDPs would seem to confirm what the articles say about the towns and CDPs being different, those CDPs are clearly a vastly larger area then those places along those intersections that the articles describe. Also when you zoom in to where the towns should be according to the articles, those areas are labeled as "Independent Hill" and "Buckhall". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll take this up with Nyttand if you'd like, but Nyttand's right. The unincorporated town of Buckhall is not a CDP, and the CDP of Buckhall is not an unincorporated community (except in the scene that every CDP is unincorporated); same with Independent Hill. It's just that in thease cases, both the unincorporated town and (vastly larger) CDPs are covered on the same article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The cod is an artificial construct, it will be larger than the original entity, but it's still an unincorporated place CDP in this instance is the valid designation, it's not bothCoal town guy (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cities in Virginia with names involving "Dale"[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Cities in Virginia with names involving "Dale" has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

For a page with this title to state "no cities in Virginia have names involving "Dale"" is asking for deletion.

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. DexDor (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Linux Unified Kernel[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Linux Unified Kernel, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. GZWDer (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Madhani Labor Services listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Madhani Labor Services. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Madhani Labor Services redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WINDOWS @))) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WINDOWS @))). Since you had some involvement with the WINDOWS @))) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

פֿאַרבאַנד פֿונ סאָציאַליסטישע ראַטנרעפּובליקנ listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect פֿאַרבאַנד פֿונ סאָציאַליסטישע ראַטנרעפּובליקנ. Since you had some involvement with the פֿאַרבאַנד פֿונ סאָציאַליסטישע ראַטנרעפּובליקנ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 04:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

T:DOC listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect T:DOC. Since you had some involvement with the T:DOC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

I've withdrawn it now. --UserJDalek 02:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Reference Desk redirect[edit]

In October 2012 you contributed to the discussion that led to Wikipedia Reference Desk becoming a redirect to Wikipedia:Reference Desk (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 8#Wikipedia Reference Desk). The redirect was nominated for deletion on 22 August and you are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 22#Wikipedia Reference Desk. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Windows 6.x listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Windows 6.x. Since you had some involvement with the Windows 6.x redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 10:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)