User talk:Markvs88

Holy Land

Ill just come back, I can't be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.23.91 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Historic washington bridge.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Historic washington bridge.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please let me know if you need more information. All postcard images pre-1923 are in the public domain and are free to be used. http://reviews.ebay.com/COPYRIGHT-INFO-for-POSTCARDS-in-The-Public-Domain_W0QQugidZ10000000004222864 Markvs88 (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

CT ratings

Hi Markvs88, thanks for doing the many ratings of CT articles that are showing up on my watchlist, such as this re-rating for the Prospect Hill Historic District in New Haven. Hey, you should feel free to update the ratings for other wikiprojects at the same time, such as for WikiProject NRHP. Perhaps there would be wikiprojects that would quibble if you were revising very high ratings like A-class ones, but if you're changing from stub to start to C or b class I think it is always a help to the other wikiprojects to just go ahead and make the change. As an active NRHP wikiproject member, i certainly welcome your help. Cheers, and keep up the good work! --doncram (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Don. I try not to edit any projects I'm not a member of since they might have different opinions. :-) However going forward I'll at least match NHRP quality to CT if there is a delta. The CT project is pretty neglected, it'll keep me busy for months/years alone! Markvs88 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

what's up

What's up with this reversion with a cryptic edit summary? It comes across to me as obviously dismissive, possibly rude or insulting, or i don't know what. You also reverted a photo move i did there earlier, which was because the small photo you had added was down off the bottom right of the page, out of sight to me at least using the browser i am using. Obviously in my subsequent edits i was adding some good sources and allowing for development of the Housatonic River Railroad Bridge article. If you have a question or a comment, it might work better to post that at the Talk page, okay? Please. --doncram (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put it up in Talk already. Markvs88 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks for that barnstar. Happy to help out. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!!! Morrowlong

Hey, thanks for the Barnstar award! I appreciate it. I have several other Connecticut hiking trail pages under development and may add some biking and multi-use trails as well or even branch out to Massachusetts, NY or RI. Saw you are a comp sci grad and have the CompTIA Security+ cert -- I worked in the Yale Computer Science department for ten years and have been in the Yale Information Security/Assurance group for the past fourteen. Morrow (MS, CISSP, CISM, CEH) Morrowlong (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You more than earned it... I've been rating CT project articles [1] for awhile now, so I've seen a lot of your work. It's great, keep it up! Cool. Yeah, I've worked in New Haven myself (under contract) for 4 years before going back to corporate life. (S+, CCNA, VCP). Markvs88 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

re List of Governors of Connecticut

Consistency with the territorial state governor articles. (That's a lot of adjectives) For example, List of Governors of Colorado specifies territory and state... I thought, maybe for consistency across the lot, since the featured lists are all 100% consistent otherwise (save minor table formatting issues), to make the states that were never territories (13 colonies, Vermont, Kentucky, Maine, Texas, West Virginia, California) the same way. A trial balloon. Now that I've explained it better, do you still think it's a poor idea? If so, I'll revert the others (I think Delaware and California were the others I put it on so far). --Golbez (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but no it doesn't... I see "Governors" not "Governors of Colorado" in List of Governors of Colorado. Ditto List of Governors of Maryland. CT is the only state that counts its colonials in the numbering system, which is why the List of Governors of Connecticut starts at #16. I see it as redundant -- if you're in the article, you know you're looking at a list of governors of that state. If you want to see what I'm getting at, please look at [[2]]. As you can see, List of Governors of Connecticut just broke off any possible confusion by putting its colonial governors in another article. I don't think it's a poor idea, I just don't see the point as it doesn't really add anything to the article. (For what it's worth, the people that feel the need to swap categories from "Connecticut Rivers" to "Rivers in Connecticut" drive me batty as well.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't see anything of value on the Maryland article, seeing as how it's pretty far away from featured quality. As for Colorado, note the subheaders "Governors of the Territory of Colorado" and "Governors of the State of Colorado". This has nothing to do with numbering and more to do with just standardizing the headers... if the states that include territorial governors speak the whole name of the entity in a header, then why not the states without them? As I said, it was just something I was floating. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, and that's the point I'm making: you didn't change a subheader but the header! If the CT colonials were in the article (as the CO territorials are in theirs), then it would be the same level, but even then CO's header still says "Governors". If you do want CT to be the same as CO, you'd leave it just as "Governors", otherwise it's saying "These are the Connecticut Governors in the list of Connecticut Governors"... ergo, redundant. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Questions from Discussion pages?

What's the point in having a DISCUSSION page for an article if questions get deleted before anyone has had a chance to read them? Don't delete the question - contribute to the discussion! 86.136.89.48 (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, if your post at Talk:Carrier Corporation was worded as a question it would have stayed. The fact that you've never heard of a major company (Carrier is a sister company of Otis, Pratt & Whitney, Sikorsky Aircraft, et al at United Technologies) is not a valid talking point, but the new phraseology you've used works. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Markvs88. You have new messages at AbbyKelleyite's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category Question

Should I leave the Bridgeport Mayors in People from Bridgeport, too? I think that would almost certainly be right for Barnum, but it's probably duplicative having the others in both the top-level and sub-category. I could use some advice. Thanks. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I would put them in just the Mayors category. AFAIK any item/person should be in the most specific category of a type. (But it'd be fine if they were in Senators from Connecticut and Mayors of Bridgeport, as an example). Barnum makes it tough, though, since he was known for so much else. Thanks again for all the work you've done! Markvs88 (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Holy Land USA

I have started a discussion on the talk page of Holy Land USA to discuss the disagreement about the "Recent news" edit. This is the right place to resolve the issue. In the meantime, I will delete the content from the page, because there is clear disagreement about its content. The three edit rule doesn't just mean that the first person to insert something can keep it there if he/she reverts a change three times. it means that before reverting the change a third time, it should be properly discussed, with an aim to resolving the problem. Let's discuss it there and see whether we can get an agreement, or seek some further input from other parties. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! The editor in question has deleted this point more than 3 times, though the previous version of the event (by another editor) was far more NPOV/scathing. Note that all of the reverts that have been made are knee-jerk -- the editor has yet to provide any rational reason for the point not to be included other than he does not like it. I therefore request that the material be added back in since it is notable, verifiable and not POV. Markvs88 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Parkcityferry1898.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Parkcityferry1898.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 16:38, 6 August 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. Salavat (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! All postcard images prior to 1923 are considered public domain. It doesn't matter where they come from, they inherently have no copyright as there is no way to prove where they came from. Here is a link: [[3]]. Markvs88 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to specify that, though. - Denimadept (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that you did. - Denimadept (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, would you please remove the speedy deletion tags at your convenience? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't put them there. You can remove the tag in order to challenge it yourself. Check out the block the tag generates, which will explain what it means and how to challenge it. - Denimadept (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've modified the {{pd-author}} tag you used to correct it. It'd still help if you'd provide source information, likely on the back of the card. Just because the (c) has expired doesn't mean the card didn't have a publisher. - Denimadept (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not helpful. Doesn't the card have any maker information on the back? If you can't tell, please scan the back of the card and send the results to me, or point me where I can find them. - Denimadept (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's white. However, there is a copy at [[4]]. Markvs88 (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Well then, I suppose we've done what we can.

On a slightly different topic, it's best to upload files to Commons rather than directly to WP. That's the normal place. - Denimadept (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Red Dawn

Rp my talk - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Wow! Thanks for the award for the work on Holy Land USA - I really appreciate it! The interesting thing is that my initial reaction to the edit war was leaning towards the "remove" argument, on the basis that the murder only had a circumstantial relationship to the subject (the theme park itself). But in discussing it, I became convinced that it was relevant, becuase it has sparked renewed debate in the future of the park and also highlighted current problems with the park as a run-down, unmaintained property. Just goes to show that having an open mind is so important for successful collaboration! Thanks again!! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

New Canaan Fire Company edit:

There is a need to subdivide between the department and the company - and I am adding a page for the Fire Company itself. They are legally seperate organizations working together under the "Fire Department" as defined in the town charter. Please contact me at if you have questions as I am the Assistant Chief of the Department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmchummer (talk • contribs) 14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Removing my edit to New Canaan Fire Department/Company No. 1

There is a need to subdivide between the department and the company - and I am adding a page for the Fire Company itself. They are legally seperate organizations working together under the "Fire Department" as defined in the town charter. Please contact me at if you have questions as I am the Assistant Chief of the Department.