User talk:Wickifrank

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for writing Oliver Bridge. There is a strong and productive group of Minnesotans contributing to articles related to our corner of the world and I would encourage you to formally join Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota and add the WikiProject Minnesota tag to the talk page of any Minnesota-related articles you work on. We have a long list of existing articles that could be improved with pictures listed at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Minnesota if you like to take pictures. We have had a few meetups (Wikipedia:Meetup/Minneapolis) to get to know each other too. User:AlexNewArtBot/MinnesotaSearchResult is a good place to find the newest articles related to Minnesota. And several of us are working to write articles for the large number of historical properties in Minnesota. So, again, welcome!--Appraiser (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: US rail lines schematic maps.

Most of the diagram schematics are separated off into templates to keep from bloating up the articles themselves. For example, the diagram for Amtrak's Heartland Flyer is transcluded into the infobox through the use of the {{infobox rdt}} template, which in turn transcludes the diagram itself from {{Amtrak Heartland Flyer}}. This diagram is a good one to read for learning purposes as the route described is fairly simple and short. Another good diagram to read is {{Coast Starlight}}; this one is longer and includes a discontinued route section and a few note explanations at the end. The full explanation of how these diagrams are created is at Wikipedia:Route diagram template. Slambo (Speak) 11:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chatsworth Collision

Saying that one thing could have prevented the accident is a bit to simplistic, especially since there are multiple things that could have prevented it. Unless investigators have cited this in there investigation I think there's no reason to bring it up. – Zntrip 20:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AMA

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to American Medical Association appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.Fuzbaby (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Waupaca Electric Light and Railway Company

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 Waupaca Electric Light and Railway Company requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 19:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Whats the beef with this?. This system is referenced on several Wikipedia pages but has no page with proper details. If you can delete this you should delete thousands of other pages describing defunct railroad lines and companies. Please reinstate now I did not keep a copy of the text.--Wickifrank (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

First off all, please remain civil. Second, I am not an administrator, so I did not actually delete it (which means an administrator agreed that the speedy deletion criterion was met). Third, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. And lastly, please read the text above. It tells you how to request a copy. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains

A place where you both can learn about working on train articles and get some help with yours from other editors experienced with work them is Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. I suggest you join there, and post a message at the talk page about your draft that had been deleted as well as the other articles you want to start. LadyofShalott 01:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Waupaca Streetcar System

Good morning. I have just received you message concerning the deletion of the aforementioned page, and have checked with LadyofShalott (talk · contribs) for the background. I gather that the page was deleted without you having any chance to come to its defense, and that is in part why you left me a message.

Allow me to state first off that I tend to be an inclusionist, so I make an honest and good faith effort to find reasons not to delete content on site if it appears that the material could stay within the sites established policy and guideline criteria.

When I happened across your page it was tagged as being eligible for speedy deletion because the tagger felt that the page did not meet notability guidelines to remain here. Before pages tagged for csd deletion can be deleted admins are supposed to check the history, the links, the log, and at an admin's discretion Google to ascertain if the article being tagged for csd deletion should be axed. When I got to the article I checked the links to the page, and there were hardly any from actual articles. I checked the log and there was nothing in it concerning a previous deletion debate or page move. I checked the history and saw the article was new, and that you had created it, and that someone else had tagged it for speedy deletion on notability grounds. I checked the internet and found only a few sites concerning the system. Lastly, when I looked at the article's references/bibliography/external link section I found only 1 reference. Taking all this into account I concurred with the tagger that the article showed insufficient notability to remain here as a stand alone article, which made the page eligible for deletion under the criteria for speedy deletion point 7.

I would offer to restore the page and move a copy into your user space if you would like to continue to work on the material, but I see that Lady of Shalott has already done that. The other thing I can offer you is a few suggestions/observations that may help you get the material on Wikipedia without it being deleted. For starters, these defunct streetcar systems may do best if created on a single list page, such as List of Wisconsin Streetcar and Interurban systems. If the page you create is a list like this then the single systems that individually may not be notable may collectively demonstrate notability, in essence a position of "united we stand, divided we fall" (or in this case, "divided we are deleted"). Another suggestion to avoid have pages like this deleted is to create the pages in your userspace and seek input on the content from veteran editors before moving the material to the main article space, this way you can move to address anything that could be problematic before the page goes live. If you would like to see the street car systems remain in stand alone articles then I would recommend that you work a little hard to get more information into the articles before creating them, preferably enough for them to be rated as start class. This should help better establish the notability of the material since start class articles usually have a few paragraphs of information for editors to read and judge notability on rather than having to judge notability on one or two lines of information.

Lastly, if you feel this deletion was an error or that my actions were somehow against policy, you could raise the matter at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This process serves as a check against bad deletions, and can overturn my deletion of your page IF the consensus of the users commenting is that I acted inappropriately in deleting the page. This will allow your page to be reinstated to the article space, and the action noted in the log would help serve as a check against another speedy deletion.

In any case, I hope this helps explain why the article was deleted. If you have anymore questions, or if you would like clarification on any of the above points, feel free to drop me a line and I will get back you. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the Deletion Review request and fix the formatting for you. Otherwise, it appears at first glance that everything was done correctly. I wish you luck with your petition. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Merrill Railway & Lighting Co.

I'll keep your request in mind, but at this point my inclination is to not spend any time on that page, because I'm not at all convinced it meets Wikipedia's notability standards for inclusion. And that was my thought even before I checked your talk page (this page) for the first time, whereupon I found evidence that other editors felt the same way, about a similar article you created for Waupaca. I am a trolleybus fan (and a tram/streetcar fan), but that doesn't mean I support any and all content related to trolleybuses on Wikipedia. I've never nominated an article for deletion, and I don't want to start doing that, but I'm also not interested in spending time working on articles that I believe are of interest to only a very small number of people and likely to remain so (an article such as this one seems likely to receive only 0-5 page views per day). I contributed to this similar article relating to my own city, to improve its accuracy and referencing, but frankly I was surprised that anyone had created it in the first place, and I wouldn't have created it myself. However, at least Portland, Oregon is a large city (and PRL&P lasted for 18 years), whereas Merrill, WI is a tiny place, even today; that difference alone is enough to make PRL&P significantly more notable than Merrill R&L. I recommend you follow the advice of TomStar81, above, and create an article with much broader coverage instead of creating articles such as the Merrill and Waupaca ones. And, even then, such an article needs a clearer lead section and a lot more references, and at least some references from better sources, such as newspapers, books, national magazines. (You've not indicated what "Badger Traction" is: a book? an article? If the latter, an article within what? and so on.) I don't want to discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia, but just wanted to make it clear that even some trolleybus enthusiasts such as myself support Wikipedia's quality guidelines and are troubled by the large number of poor-quality (this includes absence of citations) articles about trams and trolleybuses on Wikipedia. SJ Morg (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Rail line articles

I saw your message at WP:Trains. The best thing you can do, in my opinion, is simply to write the articles and not worry about formatting. We have plenty of people who are more than happy to whip up infoboxes and navboxes and templates; indeed, the project has an enormous backlog of articles on individual stations that say almost nothing, because people are much more willing to add formatting and decoration than to create meaningful content. Having looked at your two articles on electric railways, I would advance a few suggestions:

1. Follow WP:MOSINTRO. Your articles launch into their subject as if everyone reading them already knew exactly what the subject of the article was. You should start off with a sort of abstract, or introductory summary, before launching into the little details. This also serves as a sort of chance to make the case for the importance or notability of the subject, so people read the first paragraph and understand that this was a significant piece of infrastructure.
2. Make sure to add references. If possible, reference different sentences and paragraphs in your article to particular pages in your source. But absolutely have some sort of reference, or your page is likely to be deleted.
3. When you're done writing the article, go to the talk page and add the WikiProject Trains template. See Template:WikiProject Trains/doc for the instructions on how to use it.

If you have more specific questions about formatting or article improvement, feel free to post at WikiProject Trains or drop me a line. Choess (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

One follow-up: I would also look at Category:Citation templates, particularly Template:Cite book. These make it much easier to format the references you use. In fact, I keep a page in my userspace with these templates filled out for books I commonly use, so I can just cut from that page and paste into articles I'm writing. Choess (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to ask at WP:Trains about the route templates; I'm not familiar with their use, and they seem achingly complicated. I'm sure there's someone on the project who loves creating them, though. Choess (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

transparency international

...

Just a note to say thanks for defending criticism of Transparency International > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transparency_International

I lack technical skills here, so cannot contribute much, but just to let you know your efforts are appreciated.

Avaiki (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)