This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Items dated after August 1, 2009 to April 19, 2011.
Louis H. Carpenter
Hi John, just to let you know I've completed the GAR for Louis H. Carpenter and passed it for GA status. Thanks very much for your efforts and responses. It was a pleasure working with you. Well done and thanks! — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow! It could not have been done without Kumioko and you. I see it as team work. And I learned a lot in the process! Thank You!
Jrcrin001 (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
You welcome, glad to help. --Kumioko (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't realy helped out that much on this article lately but it seems to have quite a few editors actively working on it so I backed off so we aren't all stepping over each others edits. --Kumioko (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Kumioko (talk) please check out the review here. I have worked on some of them, but I am not sure about others. Tag. Your turn. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
OK thanks I'll take a look. --Kumioko (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Louis H. Carpenter has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b (links: http://crossedsabers.blogspot.com/). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Can anyone please help with copy-edit of this article? I would like to get this article to A-class or FA. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I recommend that you take a look at WP:Peer review. The people there are very helpful and willing to help you out. Oftentimes, they will be even more willing if you review an article in the backlog there. NW(Talk) 03:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Great reply above, and I agree completely. I have moved this over because we deal with helpme requests on user talk pages. We can answer specific questions, but we cannot really undertake a full A-type review. 'Peer review' is certainly the way to proceed with this. From a quick look, the article certainly looks good, so I wish you all the best in getting it to A-class. I also suggest that you review all of the points mentioned in User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet - the points there are easy enough to check through and fix up, and that can go a long way towards getting a successful GA. If you need help with a specific aspect (such as 'how do I fix this link', or 'how can I make this citation better'), then please feel free to use another {{helpme}} here, on your own talk page. Cheers, Chzz ► 03:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is under A-Class review and has already made it to GA status. The A-Class review says to get it copy-editted. Apparently my poor American English is not adequate. So the question remains, "How can I get a copy-edit?"
Thanks for the copy-edit efforts on the article. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Me? I only did a little, in passing. I agree that it needs a copyedit. One way to get one is to request a peer review, and specify in the request that you'd like a copyedit. Another way would be to ask on Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. A third way would be to ask on the talk pages of relevant project groups, which in this case would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philadelphia. You could try any combination of these methods, to see if a volunteer has the time to help you out. Sadly it is not so easy to find a good copyeditor, but that is the nature of the project. I hope that you will be able to find someone who can help you out. Chzz ► 05:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Thats what I needed! I placed the requests as follows. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Just a note to let you know your work is noticed and appreciated! My area of interest is the history of the United States Army between the Civil War and World War I, which overlaps on occasion with what you've been doing, so I have run across your name in various places. I just thought I should say howdy and leave a token of gratitude. I hope to run into you again. Keep it up!! Ejosse1 (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! That was very kind of you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Louis H. Carpenter ACR closed as unsuccessful
The maximum 28-day review period has now expired, so without reviewer consensus to promote, I've closed the milhist ACR for Louis H. Carpenter as unsuccessful. Thank you for your hard work during the review, and you can take pride in the fact that the article has improved as a result of its nomination, regardless of the final outcome. If you wish to continue to work on the points raised, we'll be happy to re-review the article when you feel it's ready. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 09:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Aye, I do think the rush for A-Class review was premature. The article needs some time and there is some information still pending. When it is ready, I will take you up on your offer. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Jrcrin001. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
another reply
Hello, Jrcrin001. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
For your information
Iwanafish (talk) was using sockpuppets again. He used Enfermeroo (talk) and had used Daikusama (talk). Both sockpuppets are now restricted. See comments on user pages. He is a strange person. He seems to be leaving you alone for now, but started in on me. Thanks for the warnings! Enfermero (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome! Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
It's quite close to a B, maybe even a GA, but needs a few improvements: it needs a few more inline citations e.g. paragraph starting "by 1629" and there's a long paragraph in the middle that only has 1 or 2 inlines. The intro is a bit of eulogy so needs to be toned down a bit. alt text needs to be shorter and not repeat anything in the captions, see brevity section in wp:Alt. there's quite a lot of background in the middle that doesn't focus on the sisters i don't know if these needs to be refocused or not, thanks Tom B (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I always value such constructive comments.
I added the inline refs that I missed in that one paragraph. I added a few more ref cites based on the primary in the first para of 1620 to 1623. The intro was toned down a little bit, let me know if more is needed there. Alt text was trimmed also. The background sections labeled as such with an intro with the why.
What else needed for the B-Class? Any other suggestions?
If you think it meets B-Class would you be so kind to re-rate?
I appreciate this! Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
My own take is that it's not so much not a B-Class article as seriously suspect on whether the subject merits an article at all. I go into more detail on its talk page. Ravenswing 17:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
By strict criteria for notability individually they are not notable and as a group they are not unusual, interesting or a notable enough except for obscure journals and as a side note. Too bad, I thought they might have been notable enough. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
couldn't find deletion discussion. i didn't see the harm the article was doing so shame it's gone. hopefully you can use as much of the material as possible in other articles. Tom B (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
William of Carpenter GA
Thanks! Hopefully it fits the requirements. It's pretty short but I don't think there is anything else known about him. I hope the article becomes a useful resource for you and other genealogists - since there is so much information scattered around the Internet, and much of it is incorrect, having everything in one place is a good example of Wikipedia being used most efficiently. I forgot about the alt text and infobox, I'll put those in too. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:SCTitlePage.jpg
File Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading File:SCTitlePage.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — ξxplicit 05:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Changed to: {PD-self}
Carpenter family of Rehoboth
Hello, I enjoyed the piece on the Carpenter family of Rehoboth. I'm curious about the Y-dna information, as I've come across some interesting matches to your line on Ysearch. Being R1a1 with deep British ancestry, there's a strong likelihood the Carpenters are either descendants of Norse Vikings or perhaps the Normans. I was just wondering if perhaps this is something you're exploring or interested in. I see some close matches to the Carpenter modal to families connected to the John Leavitt of Hingham modal. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I notice in the piece it mentions the 'Eastern European markers,' as they're described, for the Carpenter family. But given that the modal values are DYS447=24, 385a=11, and 439=10, then the Carpenter family modal haplotype is almost assuredly M458 negative. Don't know if you've tested it, but that is how it will turn out. So the markers are not Slavic or Eastern European at all, and in fact more typical of English R1a1a*. I just wanted to point this out as you might want to do a rewrite (once you've tested one of your folks). Here's a useful page for predicting this you might want to check out.[1]MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Marmaduke, Take a look here. And compare to here. SNP Marker M17 shows the old R1a1* with no downstream SNP markers. The newer 2009 format is R1a1a* with no downstream markers. And yes, some adjustments are needed. Thank you! Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:SCTitlePage.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SCTitlePage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --— ξxplicit 06:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:WebMoranCompactb.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:WebMoranCompactb.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 05:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Jules Ord
Not sure, I don't see anything jump out at me. The articles certainly not GA but I would say its a solid B. Ejosse did the assessment the last time. Ask them if they would rereview or provide their input as to what they think its missing. I hope that helps.--Kumioko (talk)
Hello, Jrcrin001. You have new messages at Ejosse1's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Jrcrin001. You have new messages at Ejosse1's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, I have provided a Youtube link for the Ian Brown song on the Scott Carpenter talk page showing that the audio clip 'Godspeed, John Glenn' is used in the song, though, admitedly not featured in the published lyrics. Hope this helps, was not sure on the etiquette of removing your edit as am still fairly new to this.Kiern Moran (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
35th Infantry Regiment (United States)
Hello, Jrcrin001. You have new messages at Ejosse1's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ambos Nogales
Thanks for the message. I was the original writer of the article, it was like the very first page I wrote on wiki (a few years ago under a different user name) and it was not really that special to begin with. However, I looked at it last night, (the first time in a while) and discovered all the notes, references and things of that nature. I just wrote to say that if you added all of that stuff, thank you, when I wrote the page I was new at wiki and did not understand how to create proper references so the article recieved a start class rating I believe. Someone even tryed to argue with me about whether or not Germans were involved in the battle, that is no longer a problem though. Well anyway, thanks for your work, the Battle of Ambos Nogales is special for me as it occurred within minutes of where I am sitting now.--Az81964444 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You are/were a member of the United States military, I thank you for your service. :>)--Az81964444 (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You are Welcome! - I did some cleanup and reference work, but you got it started. Someone mentioned that the Buffalo Soldiers were involved in a border skirmish during WWI and sent the link. I was not aware of this incident until then.
Some questions ... I had heard the Mayor of Nogales, Sonora was killed in the fighting? Another person stated that one of the Germans killed is still buried in the Mexican Cemetery? Is there any stories from the Mexican side that can be cited? Any plaques or local signs about this skirmish? Curious! Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Ambos Nogales, the picture I am referring to.
All very good questions but I am sorry to say I don't know. I was unable to find much information about the engagement other than the U.S. point of view, which is one of the reasons I stopped researching the topic. (I felt I had basically covered the American perspective and because I couldn't find info about the Mexican perspective, I ceased editing the page, hoping someone would come along and clean it up.) Someone before once asked if there were Mexican sources to cite but I do not know, I don't speak Spanish so I probably wouldn't be able to read such sources anyway. As for signs and plaques, things of that nature, there is none that I have seen. If you have seen the picture of Nogales on the Battle of Ambos Nogales page, you would have noticed International Street, which was both a street and the border. As of today, most of the street where the fighting began is covered in a giant U.S. customs building which runs parallel to the border. A wall, probably twenty feet tall also stands along the border at what I would guess to be the center of the street. (Where the white telegrapgh or telephone polls can be seen in the picture) Nogales, Sonora and Nogales Arizona are relatively small. Nogales, Sonora is surrounded by barren steep hills, the hills on the American side are less steep. The two cities abut eachother and as stated the border was International Street. (It is still called International Street but really it is not a street because of the wall that seperates the two Nogales, you can see the huge wall on google maps, it might also help you understand what I am trying to explain.) I have never climbed the hills that the Mexicans and Germans fortified but they are plainly visible. Looking south, it appears that on left side of Nogales, Sonora, there is some sort of fort on one of the hills which looks over downtown Nogales, Arizona. (the hill is at the bottom-left of the Nogales picture I mentioned above)
This structure was not there during the time of the battle but could have been built in response to the incident, maybe there they have plaques and memorials for the battle but I don't know. I don't go to Nogales for the sake of the battlefield. Here in Arizona we try to stay out of Sonora, just the other day in Nogales, Sonora, the Mexican Drug War came to the city. A car bomb was detonated somewhere in town and later that day the Mexican smugglers had a shootout with Border Patrol agents at a checkpoint I pass through just north of Nogales, Arizona. I heard that the car bomb was blown up to distract Mexican and American authorities so that the smugglers could get thier drugs through te border. An underground drug tunnel was also found a few days ago, stretching from Nogales, Sonora across the border. The border looks similar to a front-line in a war zone, as it is, U.S. customs agents walk around with AR-15s, helmets and bullet proof vests. There is always a tan APC sitting right in front of the customs building. I have seen other military vehicles parked on the border also. You cannot stand ad wait at the border, every time I have I have been told to leave, security concerns i imagine, there is always some Mexicans trying to sneak through the customs building with some sort of fake identification. The last time I was in Nogales, the Wednesday before last, an all black helicopter patroled back and forth along the border line, this was just after the car bomb attack. I know that like a year ago, a large armes cache was found in a house in Tucson, my hometown and the closest American city to Nogales. 50 caliber sniper rifles, assualt rifles, pistols and ammo were found. Wow, I quess I got of topic but who cares I like to write about Arizona. Thanks for the messagem sorry I couldn't answere the first of your questions.--Az81964444 (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes Per Wikipedia:Orphan, this page is no longer an orphan. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
10th Cavalry Regiment (United States)
Hello, Jrcrin001. You have new messages at Ejosse1's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your recent change to 35th Infantry Regiment (United States) to 35th Infantry Regiment has caused problems. Apparently you have done this in the past to another military related article. That has been reverted. FYI the British and Indian Armies have a 35th Infantry Regiment and it is likely there will be an article eventually on one of them. The format you changed has been painstakingly set and agreed upon by many in Wikipedia. It is an agreed upon format.
If you wish to change this standardized format for military related units then you need to get permission and agreement from other administrators to do so.
I request that you change the above mentioned article back to the way it was. This way it can be found in the accepted search formats in Wikipedia and not be listed as an ORPHAN article because of your recent naming change.
Thank you in advance. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I hope that you'll consider my hatnote proposal, which I believe would improve the articles' format for everyone.
To clarify, the article has not actually been "orphaned"; the tag was incorrectly added by another editor (and I've just removed it).
Thank you! —David Levy 08:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
David, Thank you for the information. The hatnote is not needed if the accepted format from 2006 continues. To be honest, I believe in KISS - Keep it simple Simmon. The hatnote is neat but is more complicated than it needs to be. No offensive, but I vote to maintain the format maintained since 2006 for military naming formats. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Preemptive disambiguation for my different points. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
1. As noted in the discussion, the naming format fails to convey the intended information to most users. A hatnote would be far more helpful.
2. I agree that things should be kept simple. Using a hatnote—as we do throughout Wikipedia—is much less complicated than maintaining a special, directly contradictory guideline for one subject area (without any practical means of conveying this to users not involved in the WikiProject). —David Levy 08:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
copy violation. Book reviews from Amazon.
Copyright problem: David Rosenfelt (author)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as David Rosenfelt (author), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from www.amazon.com, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:David Rosenfelt (author) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Dmol (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Issue resolved by removing the questionable material. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Request for review of Carpenter article series
Hey there,
I've reviewed the list of articles left on my talk page and found that one of them was what I considered to be B class, all the C class ones were borderline, probably with a little expansion they'd make B class easily. On a complete side track, having just had a brief read through of Louis H. Carpenter, it might be worth reviewing it against the Featured Article criteria. Miyagawa(talk) 18:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Lat year I tried to get it to A class but it failed the review. See discussion notes. If you think it is worth the review, that would be nice. I think the article has matured nicely since then. Thank you! Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Carpenter House changes
This is wrong on several levels. First, per WP:DABNAME, "the title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term." Second, the proper way to do this (if it were correct) would be to move the page, per WP:MOVE, to preserve the edit history. You've also blanked the original page without at least providing a redirect to the new page. Third, you've added entries and the "Other Carpenter uses" that don't belong on the page, per WP:DAB#Partial title matches. Since you don't value my judgment, I suggest you start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation to get a second opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I get a message regarding DAB error regarding Carpenter House. Another person suggests the easy solution is changing Carpenter House to Carpenter House (disambiguation) because of the abiguous term "Carpenter House." Okay, I admit I messed the move. And I should not have blanked the page. I changed it back and restored Carpenter House.
Okay, so because of WP:DAB#Partial title matchesCarpenter House IS NOT a disambiguation page, it is a list. Thus I am removing {DisambigProject}. I am also removing {WikiProject NRHP|class=dab} for the same reason. This means I will have to remove/delete Carpenter House (disambiguation) and the related links. Why? Because of DAB links, suggestions to fix it one way then another were wrong when the page is a LIST.
I'm just noticing this discussion now. I don't follow about what happened with some moves and blanking before. The correct basic setup is to have a disambiguation page at Carpenter House, since there is no one place having wp:primaryusage for the term, and also to have a redirect from Carpenter House (disambiguation). Those are currently in place. No lasting harm done by any previous pagemoves, AFAIK, and no one is or should be mad about anything AFAIK.
I have commented at Talk:Carpenter House and believe productive discussion is going on there. One suggestion mentioned above is approaching the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation to get input of more dab-focussed editors. I don't oppose that, but I would prefer to work through some lesser issues with the dab page (like fixing up MOS:DABRL-related issues) first. Also perhaps any other questions might be addressed more easily at Talk:Carpenter House. Then, there is already an open discussion section at the Wikiproject, specifically at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#feedback requested on NRHP dab pages, where any remaining issues can be brought up, perhaps in a new subsection of that discussion. That keeps similar questions together. I myself have created and/or developed a lot of dab pages like Carpenter House and I have done a lot of consulting with other editors already. The guidelines are sort of complicated, and there are issues brought up by pages like Carpenter House that aren't addressed real well in the guidelines. It is certainly fine for you or anyone to question anything. I just ask that we try to keep it organized and try to handle any questions efficiently. Thanks for your interest! --doncram (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
About how to rename a page, literally all you do is go to the page and select the Move tab above, next to the History tab. You give the new name of the page, give an edit summary explanation, and select the Move button. And then the move usually goes through. The move will not happen, and you'll get some error message, if there have been previous moves of the page and/or there is a page occupying the target name. That is for making really non-controversial moves, e.g. if you wished to move a page of your own within your own userspace. If there is likely to be any disagreement whatsoever, as would be the case now about this one, the correct general procedure is to propose a move using the Requested Move service, at wp:RM. You basically post a simple proposal at the top of the page to be moved, and notice to other editors is automatically given, and there is an organized discussion, and then an administrator eventually closes the discussion and implements the move, if that is the consensus. Here, you could go ahead and open such a requested move process, but I would currently oppose that. I think it's at the right name, and we are talking about it productively at Talk:Carpenter House. We should talk more there i think before more editors need be involved by a Requested Move and/or by posting at the Disambiguation WikiProject. But it is your right to ask using those approaches, too. Hope this helps! --doncram (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I finished up the other cleanups that i felt were needed in the Carpenter House dab page, by the way. Please do follow up at Talk:Carpenter House if you like. I might possibly bring up the topic of partial name matches at the Wikiproject discussion, with reference to the Carpenter House example, myself. --doncram (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Doncram,
Thanks for the clarification. I am happy with the way it is now. Hopefully others will be also. This all started when over cleanup of Carpenter (surname) followed by a DAB error report. See the the associated lists and disambig pages listed at Carpenter (surname). Some of the discussions on those pages were interesting. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Got your note about "Carpenter list and disambig". Hey, i am sorry you're having an unpleasant experience. It is difficult in the disambiguation area, where indeed there seems to be a "crowd", whom i have referred to as "disambiguation-focused editors". They are different individuals who do have different perspectives among them, but sometimes it seems there are many in lockstep on some point or another. It can seem like a gang at work; i have been on both ends of being ganged up on and being one in the middle of what seems like a gang before, about other matters. They are all individuals, and we are all volunteers here, you have to try to remember. :)
About the List of Carpenter related articles, i do think that is rather a mish-mash and mainly agree with Propaniac's comment at Talk:Carpenter (disambiguation). You seem legitimately confused about partial matches not being allowed in Carpenter (disambiguation) but being allowed in Carpenter House (disambiguation). I think the difference is indeed the reasoning, which i tried to explain out at Talk:Carpenter House (disambiguation), i.e. that all places on it are likely to be known as Carpenter House (including John Carpenter House and Carpenter Homestead, etc.) Like Propaniac suggests, Carpenter ant is easily enough found in the search box and having it in a Carpenter disambiguation page would be more surprising than helpful to most readers. I do suggest walking away from that, mainly, and working on more basic contributions of material in regular articles, rather than disambiguation pages or list-articles that are very much like them. Weren't you working on some Carpenter family stuff in CT or RI or MA or somewhere? That seemed more directly helpful. I would be glad to try to help on some of the Carpenter House ones that are NRHP-listed, if you wanted to develop one or more of those for a DYK or something. I dunno if this helps. Hang in there! :) --doncram (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
About repetitive insertion of links to a publication
I'm not certain how comfortable I am with this sort of insertion, especially at the end of campaign or theater pagespaces, which while certainly covered in the magazine from time to time are themselves not related to the publication. I appreciate you were linking to a already created page, dealing with an orphan issue. You may not have intended this, but your repetitive insertion looks spammy, and appears intended to bring links to the magazine's webpage. While I'll choose not to revert any of your links at this time, assuming good faith, I'd ask you to avoid further repetitive insertions, and await further discussion. Other editors might not be as accepting as I. BusterD (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is called spam-linking. See WP:LINKSPAM. I suggest you stop now and revert them as soon as possible. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I am either removing or citing them properly. This is taking longer than the first method I used. But, it will be more accurate. Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for being so receptive to feedback. BusterD (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It is legitimate to use magazine articles as references to articles as you have started to do, but when you do so you should be citing the author and title of the article along with the relevant page numbers. If you want to have a link to online text, please use a link to the article in question, not to a one-page PDF of the table of contents of the magazine. That will be interpreted as merely advertising for the magazine. My advice about editing in Wikipedia is to make a few edits and see what feedback results over a few days, avoiding dozens of similar edits in a concentrated period of time. That reduces your chance of making stylistic or procedural errors and also avoids annoying people who are monitoring large watch lists. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, adding citations or links to an article is not considered a "minor edit," so please do not use that checkbox. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello -- The explanation about being part of the Upriver district makes sense, I guess. I was just really puzzled that I couldn't find anything at all in the database about "Carpenter," and even putting in the "reference number" from the Infobox gave me no results at all. I see someone else has already changed the infoboxes again and I'm not inclined to object or deal with it further. (Although I really don't think you should be including a citation that goes to a database that doesn't actually include the information.) I will point out that the reason I had changed the infobox to that particular template is because that's the one the NRHP WikiProject said should be used; I don't know if you and/or the other editor have any reason why you're using that other infobox instead of the recommended one. To be honest I don't like dealing with NRHP articles at all, I don't understand any of the NRHP intricacies, and I would rather avoid them, so as long as the issue with having two separate identical articles is resolved, I'm not inclined to persist in trying to edit the article. Propaniac (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I have also noticed that the two schools are in different locations with different cor-ord locations and different reference numbers. Do you think we should separate them they way they were because of this? Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
They're in the same town (probably not more than a few blocks from each other) and we have very little information that's specific to either one of them. There's no need at all for separate articles, and there definitely should not be separate articles that contain many many paragraphs of the same information. The reason I originally noticed the articles was because I was cleaning up the Carpenter (disambiguation) page and saw that both schools were listed with the exact same description (something like "a historic site in Natchez, MS"), which obviously isn't helpful to anyone trying to figure out which of the two articles they're looking for. But after looking at the articles, there's very little information that COULD be used to distinguish the two topics, and there's also very little indication that a user would be likely to be interested in one of the schools but not the other. It doesn't make sense to split them up. There's nothing wrong with an article covering one topic that happens to include multiple physical items. Propaniac (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem. The remaining question is how to list the different NRHP and cor-ord location numbers in one article when the Infobox only allow 1 set instead of 2. Any ideas? Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
What I did (before it was un-done) was to include two infoboxes, one for each school, which I thought worked pretty well. I couldn't see any other way to combine them. Propaniac (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Social justice, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Jrcrin, I would not put up with another editor removing my comments from a talk page. Mandsford (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Carpenter named articles, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Carpenter named articles. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
File source problem with File:SCTitlePage.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:SCTitlePage.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: help request
Hi,
You posted the following message to my talk page:
Hello,
Who is the best person to talk to regarding "Lists" and the differences compared to "Disambiguation" pages? I am trying to understand what is going on at: List of Carpenter named articles. For example: Why is duplication prohibited or frowned on here? Why are partial listings or linking to "Carpenter" in an article is bad for a "List of" page is bad? Any help is appreciated. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm fairly knowledgeable about lists and list-related guidelines. I've been developing and defending outlines (a type of list) for several years. (See WP:OOK, WT:Outlines, and WP:WPOOK). And I've built hundreds of topic lists - lists of items associated with a particular topic.
If the common theme or reason that ties the items in a list together is not notable, or that the most notable thing about them is that they are all Wikipedia articles, then the list might violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
Maybe the easiest solution to your problem would be be to move the page to the Wikipedia namespace. It is home to some purely reference-oriented or navigational pages. See:
Disambiguation pages are specifically for helping readers who are looking for things called a particular name. When a reader arrives at a page that matches the subject name he was looking for but it isn't it, he or she can click on the disambiguation link to see if it is included there. See WP:D.
Clogging a disambiguation page up with other related things that are not synonymous obscures the intended results (synonyms), confuses the reader, and wastes valuable search time.
Duplication is bad when it violates WP:Cfork. That is, when an editor creates a duplicate page to provide a place for him to push his own point of view, this violates WP:NPOV.
Partial listings (matches?) are not necessarily bad. See:
The list you've created looks like it contains search engine results. Lists that merely duplicate the results of a search are probably a waste of time. You can find almost all of the articles on Wikipedia that include the word "carpenter" in them by using Google's advanced search feature. You can even create links for such searches, such as:
Unfortunately, Google only works on whole words, not parts of words, including its wildcard feature.
If you know of a search engine that can return results that match parts of words, and/or search for phrases with punctuation marks in them, please PLEASE let me know!
Or if you discover a search engine that's more useful than Google for searching Wikipedia, be sure to tell me about it!
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
UMD Research directions
WTF was that research directions edit made to UMD? It made no sense, but then again, perhaps it was good enough for government work, eh, brownie? 76.21.250.12 (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd certainly say that it's worthwhile putting it through a Peer review and seeing what they have to say before putting it up for a FA. I'm not very experienced with the FA guidelines, but in my opinion it's nearly there as far as I'm concerned. Miyagawa(talk) 11:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me tagging my reply on to this thread. My personal advice would be for you to renominate the article at Milhist A-Class review before trying for FA. Taking the article through a successful A-Class review would be a very good dry run for Featured Article Candidacy, and passing a Milhist ACR is usually looked upon favourably by FA reviewers. However, Miyagawa makes a very good suggestion and one that's worth seriously considering.
You've done an exceptional job with researching and preparing the article, but as with all articles there are one or two areas where a final polish would be useful. I think the main obstacle at the moment is likely to be the prose - not that your prose is bad in any way; simply that from past experience I know the folks at FA (and Milhist A-Class) expect it to conform to certain Wikipedia-specific style conventions. If it would be useful and you don't mind waiting a week or two (until I've finished studying for the most boring qualification I've ever undertaken) I'd be honoured to help out with a pre-review copyedit. Let me know what you think, and all the best with article's development. EyeSerenetalk 17:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Town Clerk of London
The Town Clerk is not, and has never been, elected in the normal sense. It is a term used in the City of London for when the Aldermen or the Common Council "elect" (i.e. appoint) someone to a post within the Corporation or to another post of the City, such as the Lord Mayor. David (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Now if I can get a cite on this, changes will be made. Any thoughts of a good cite for this? Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd keep "elected" where it means appointed (i.e. the "election" dates for the Town Clerks) - it's just an antiquated use of the word ("To choose or make a decision"/"eligere (“to pick out, choose, elect”)") but one still used in the City of London (and quite possibly other ancient organisations)! Can't help you with a cite otherwise, sorry. David (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll mull this over and maybe I can find something to use. In the mean time, "elected" it shall be. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi John. I've just restored your old, deleted article to User:Jrcrin001/Carpenter_sisters where you can read and update it as you like. If, at some stage, it's ready for deletion or mainspace, just let me know! Sorry for the delay replying - I'm not here that much anymore - Alison❤ 07:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Buffalo Soldier do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Several anons have been attempting to add that link for several months to this and other articles … the sole purpose of that site is to sell copies of the documentary, which apparently is not notable enough for an article of its own. 70.21.16.94 (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
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.
Hello, Jrcrin001. You have new messages at Jsfouche's talk page. Message added 22:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A discussion has begun about whether the article List of Lew Carpenter cites, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 02:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I've closed this discussion and deleted the article. If you need the list for improving Lew's article me know. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you not understand fair use?
Logos can be used for articles on the subject, but not just anywhere you please. Packers logos cannot be used on articles about anything but the Pack; not on articles about individual players. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Obviously not. Thank you for the clean up. And Thank you for the input on the List question. While blunt, you do give good advice. Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, it's all a learning experience. You see me as blunt but giving sound advice (a hippie Quaker drill instructor?); others see me as "biting the noobie" (a bad thing). My goal is a better Wikipedia. We have to be extra-careful when copyrights and trademarks are involved, as the next header below this one reminds you. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Amen! FYI, The Lew Carpenter under the sports genre is new to me. It is coming along, but far more detailed than I first thought. This guy played or coached football from 1949 to 1996 - 47 years - and that is what I can document. I am tracking down that he coached kids for several years, but the hard cites for that are harder to find. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violations
I have removed some obvious copyright violations from the text at Lew Carpenter. Copy-and-pasting text from other sources, even if you make minor changes to the wording, is still a violation. In the future, please write in your own voice. Instead of copy-and-pasting text, read it, put it away, and then try to create new prose from scratch which covers the information. Wikipedia takes copyright seriously, and the fact that you've been editing here regularly for over 2 years is worrysome, since these most recent copyright violations occured within the past few days. Please be careful. --Jayron32 07:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Dumb mistake on my part. I shall be better. Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
That way it skirts around the problem of not having things like the prefixes and so on in the individual articles.
Hope this helps, Miyagawa(talk) 09:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Marion Carpenter
I left comments for you (and anyone else) on the talk page. Here are some sources of information I found on the web that could possibly be used as references in the article:
Since typing has no tone this is going to sound rude but but I mean this in a constructive way. Please reread your articles prior to asking me to review (or re-rate) them. Marion Carpenter is still C-class because your references are still poor. Some of them are difficult to read/understand, some are poorly cited, others do not verify what is stated; WP:VERIFY is the biggest problem. Details are below (ref numbers tend to change, so for the purpose of this message I went off the Decemeber 30, 2010 version of the article because this was the last time it was updated):
Ref 1 and 3 - I never brought this up before because I hadn't read anything on Wikipedia that discouraged it but when I was looking up policy for using sources in biographical articles I ran into WP:BLPPRIMARY. According to this policy, it looks like you can't use census/population records as sources because they are public record and they contain personal information. Click the link for more info. The policy does not specifically mention census records but it does say "public record". However, I did some research and it may be okay to use census records because Marion is dead WP:BDP. Post a message at the reliable sources noticeboard if you want input and/or a clear answer from other editors/admins to see if you can in fact use those as sources. I don't know if using census/population records for an article about a dead person is bad or not. Either way, these references were not a factor in my decision not to upgrade this article to B-class. I had an issue with the rest of the refs/bullet below.
Ref 2 - "The Author"... is not saying anything. If I was a random person trying to verify your information I would not know what this means. When you say "The Author" you're talking about the publisher, right? If the publisher is T.L. Carpenter then please put "T.L. Carpenter" or move "privately published" to this part of the citation. Do not put both "The Author" and "Privately published". This is redundant (and not formatted correctly).
Ref 5 does not say that "Carpenter first studied nursing" or that she "learned the basics of photography [at Saint Paul Camera Club] while working as a nurse from 1942 to 1944." It doesn't WP:VERIFY that sentence.
Ref 6...
currently is a citation for this sentence --> In 1944, she went to Washington D.C. and first landed a job with the Washington Times-Herald, then joined the International News Photo (INP) syndicate as a special assignment photographer. The link that ref 6 points to doesn't say anything about working for the Herald or going to D.C. in 1944. It also doesn't say she was a special assignment photographer. So this information isn't verified either.
does not say this at all --> A front-page photo of her, high on the ladder, was captioned: 'This picture ought to prove you never can tell what a woman photographer will do next.'
does not say this either --> "You have to be able to take the guff," she told a reporter for the Pioneer Press in 1946, after winning an award for a photo of Truman playing the piano for Lauren Bacall.
is plagiarism (for this specific citation, not for the other ones it points to) because you closely paraphrased it. Here is what is in the article. Here is the link ref 6 points to (scroll to the bottom of the page where the text was taken from). Here is an explanation of why this is plagiarism (read #3 then scroll down to the "Adapting sources: paraphrasing and summarizing" section for examples). Please be mindful when it comes to WP:COPYVIO. You have a habit of violating this policy as demonstrated by the various copyright messages on your talk page (sorry, I know that sounds rude but I don't know a nicer way to say it). This isn't just a Wikipedia policy, it's a legal issue so all editors have to be careful when it comes to paraphrasing.
Ref 7...
does not say this --> In 1944, she went to Washington D.C. and first landed a job with the Washington Times-Herald, then joined the International News Photo (INP) syndicate as a special assignment photographer.
or this --> Carpenter's later life is not well known. So both statements are not verified.
Ref 9 has the city inserted into the middle of the title of the newspaper --> The [Massillon, Ohio] Evening Independent. The location does not go here. The {{cite news}} template has a "location" parameter. You do not have to use citation templates for your references if you don't want to. You can use the citation templates or do it manually, but either way your sources need to be formatted correctly.
Ref 10 has a 23 digit long ISBN number. Use either the 10 digit ISBN number OR the 13 digit number. The link doesn't work when you use both.
Ref 12 - Not a major issue but you do not need to put "columnist" in parenthesis beside the author's name. It's obvious that he works for the paper he wrote the article for but even if he was a freelance writer, he's still the author and the author, not the columnist (or the freelancer), is really what the citation is identifying.
Ref 13 and Ref 15 are formatted wrong. Google Books is not the author of Life magazine and there is a parameter for "date" when using citation templates. These references need to be rewritten/formatted correctly with the volume, issue number, and publisher (Publisher is Time Inc., for ref 13 Volume 26, Number 14; found on the bottom of page 4 in small print). You should use {{cite journal}} instead of {{cite web}}. The "web" citation template does not have parameters for volume and issue number.
Ref 14 needs to be rewritten. See also "Columnist 'in the soup' with Lady Photog; Tris Coffin "bean souped" by photographer Marion Carpenter in the Senate restaurant" in The Tipton (Ind.) Tribute, Monday, March 28, 1949, p. 5. I don't know if this is a footnote or a citation. It seems like both put together. Is the article title "bean souped", "In the Soup", "Tris Coffin "bean souped" by photographer Marion Carpenter in the Senate restaurant" or "Columnist 'in the soup' with Lady Photog" or all of it put together? Is (Ind.) Indiana? If so, the location should not be inside the title of the publication. On a side note the abbreviation for Indiana is IN (that is if "Ind." is suppose to be for Indiana).
Ref 16 is a bad ref primarily because it doesn't exist (the pdf the citation refers to, not the website). It may have been there last year but it's not there now.
Ref 17 - Another long ISBN and there are two references combined into one, they need to be separated --> (1) Commire, Anne; Klezmer, Deborah (eds.) (2007). Dictionary of Women Worldwide: 25,000 Women Through The Ages. Farmington Hills, Michigan: Thomson Gale (Waterford, Connecticut: Yorkin Publications). ISBN0787675857 978-0787675851. (2) See also: Carpenter, Marion (1920–2002). HighBeam Research. Accessed December 7, 2010.
Ref 19 does not say this --> The photo credit reads: "Marion Carpenter, St. Paul, Minn"WP:VERIFY.
Ref 20 is formatted incorrectly. The quote goes at the end. There's a quote parameter in {{cite web}}. The state of location is inserted in the middle of the newspaper title.
Ref 21 has the wrong title. This ref is serving as a citation for the sentence about women being allowed to attend the annual dinner and this is verified on the web page that the ref points to. So, unlike the other refs above, this one actually is verifying the information like it's suppose it. The problem is that the title for this citation ("Harry S. Truman Presidential Library, unidentified members of the White House press corps on the south lawn, c. 1950s. (picture) AND History of the WHCA") is referring to the photo at the bottom of the web page that has nothing to do with the dinner. I understand that Marion is in this photo but her name is no where on the web page and her name is not mentioned in connection with that dinner. The title should just be "History of the WHCA", which is the title of the text on the web page.
Ref 25 does not say that Marion Carpenter entered the magnolia picture into a contest or that she took the picture. It doesn't WP:VERIFY your sentence.
In summary, the problems with your references are the formatting, WP:VERIFY, and WP:COPYVIO. This is why the article according to the quality scale, is still C-class; It doesn't meet criteria #1 for B-class: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. A lot of the sources you have are not WP:RELIABLE because they don't WP:VERIFY the statements they're serving as citations for. From the reliable policy page --> Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. A lot of your sources don't do this. Until they do, the article doesn't meet B-class criteria. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: Just to clarify, it does not say in the B-class row on the quality scale that you have to have correct ref formatting in order to meet B-Class criteria. What's more important, and what's necessary to upgrade the article, is that your sources are reliable so that the information presented can be verified. //Gbern3 (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for adding a project banner to a talk page of n article you created - many editors can't be bothered although it should be done for each new creation. However, do remember that many subjects can also be be covered by multiple Wikipedia projects, so don't hesitate to add their banners too if you know, or can guess what they are. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Large Family History Centers (LDS Church) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
New comments about this have been added, so your input is requested.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Michael Bardot
Hi, no, I haven't seen it yet. I know he was planning on finishing it last year, so maybe it will be published some time this year. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Links
Hi, just wanted to let you know that the two links you posted on the Carpenter talk page do not work. I would have fixed them if I'd known where you were aiming for, but barring that, I wanted to let you know. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Rough Riders
You added the {{editsemiprotected}} template to Rough Riders; however, I think you meant to do something else. That template is for use by new/IP editors, if they want to make an edit to a page that is already semi-protected. If you want to request that a page be protected, you need to go to WP:RPP and file a request there. However, I can tell you that, based on my experience, Rough Riders does not qualify for semi-protection. In the past week, there's only been 2 vandalism edits, and maybe three more than that in the prior month. That's not enough to justify semi-protection. SP is usually applied either to articles receiving lots of sudden vandalism (like, 3 or more vandalizing edits per day), or to articles which have frequent vandalism on a long-term basis (say, one every day or two for a week or more). Generally, SP is only applied for short periods of time at first, so protecting this article wouldn't have a significant effect. However, you are still welcome to take the request there, and an admin (which I am not) will make the final call. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Social justice, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
