User talk:Nyttend

Craig, Alaska

The effect of a Wiki article linking to itself is bold-facing, I updated the (2) self-links to Craig, Alaska instead.

I see you are a "destructive" rather than "constructive" Wiki?

If you took the time to go to the official City of Craig, Alaska website, (which was a link you deleted) most of the article contents you deleted (like their mayor, etc.) come directly from their official web site. Some others items (transportation/utilities) come from the other Wiki Prince of Wales island and South-East Alaska airports articles.

It is my understanding that if you have an issue with an article or any specific contents, that you are supposed to "flag" or "tag" specific items appropriately, rather than mass deletes?

What is your "point" or intent? LeheckaG (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cost me a lot of time (a few hours). I was in the process of updating, and received edit conflicts because you went back in a couple of times and "un-did" what I was working on. Personally, I do not believe in deleting or over-writing other peoples' contributions, so it then takes a long time to manually go through different versions and manually merge content from different versions together. Because of your actions you are fostering an environment where other people will not take the time either and I am reaching the limit of my patience to take the time to carefully go through manual merges. FYI - I had added "Founded" as a placeholder while I was looking the date and reference up, should be "Settled" and 1907. Why do people insist on deleting information rather than either looking it up or corroborating a reference? LeheckaG (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official State of Alaska Boroughs (including the official "Unorganized Borough") versus U.S. Census Bureau Areas:

The Census page you cited is titled "Significant Changes to Counties and County Equivalent Entities: 1970-Present"

So the Census Bureau has published that Alaskan Boroughs (including the officially named "Unorganized" one) are indeed "Counties" from their view.

If you search through Alaska Statutes 2007, there are (24) references to "Census",

and (in general) Alaska has been intentionally careful to only say "census" when referring to counting people.

The few mentions of census geography are only when required by federal law (election/legislative redistricting and federal economic assistance).

Not to say "Census Area" or "Census Designated Area", instead saying "Census Division" or "Census District",

again ONLY when referring to the geography of the people the Census Bureau counted.

To say otherwise would be to transfer some of Alaska's powers, rights and sovereignty to a branch of the federal government

which has no such rights by law (either federal or Alaska state).

If you go the other way around:

Google site:Census.Gov +"Unorganized Borough"

you receive 14 results where the Census Bureau acknowledges that the "Unorganized Borough" is an official legal entity found only in Alaska,

and Alaskan Boroughs are equivalent to U.S. Counties elsewhere.

If you search through United States Code, Title--13 Census

   * CHAPTER 1--ADMINISTRATION
   * CHAPTER 3--COLLECTION AND PUBLICATION OF STATISTICS
   * CHAPTER 5--CENSUSES
   * CHAPTER 7--OFFENSES AND PENALTIES
   * CHAPTER 9--COLLECTION AND PUBLICATION OF FOREIGN COMMERCE AND TRADE STATISTICS
   * CHAPTER 10--EXCHANGE OF CENSUS INFORMATION

for "area", you will find no legal authority or basis for such an "area" in United States Code.

Other Title 13--Census sections refer back to:

Chapter 5--CENSUSES, SUBCHAPTER V--GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE, PRELIMINARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL STATISTICS, AND USE OF SAMPLING,

Sec. 191. Geographic scope of censuses.

for any issues regarding area, geography, scope ...

Census (designated) Areas are an "abstract invention" of the U.S. Census Bureau and have NO legal basis in United States Code or Alaska Statutes.

I agree that "Census (designated) Areas" are useful in terms of understanding population or other legal statistics,

but they are not a legal/official civil-subdivision.

Regarding placing Census "abstract inventions" (Census Areas, Metropolitan Statistical Areas, ...) in an InfoBox:

All OTHER official U.S., State, County/Borough, Township, Municipality should be placed in the InfoBox.

Provided that it is properly footnoted, A Census "abstraction" item (CA/CDP/MSA...) can be placed among them

at the appropriate level (In Craig's case, Unorganized Borough completely contains the CA, and the CA contains City of Craig)

Census abstractions typically only affect local (State/Borough-County/Township/Municipality) law for either federal electoral redistricting

or for federal financial assistance.

I agree that the Census is a valuable source of information, but Wiki contributors are giving too much of their sovereignty to the Census Bureau.

LeheckaG (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington, Ohio

Goodness what a mess. Looks like a POV fork to me. I agree that it makes no sense to have two articles on the place and would suggest either asking for a Third Opinion or opening an RFC. My strong hunch is that either process would agree that there should be one article, the CDP. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington Elementary School address,

per "Burlington Elementary School" (HTML). South Point Local School District.

Burlington Elementary School

8781 County Road 1

South Point, OH 45680

Yes, checking it now, I realize that it is on the "other side" of Burlington.

With the exception of the elementary school,

The South Point school district improvements are more appropriately moved to the South Point article,

and cited by reference. LeheckaG (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communities in New Jersey

As you continue creating NJ community articles, you might find this page useful: a list of all redlinked New Jersey communities with ZIP Codes. Nyttend (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created articles using Census Bureau ZCTA for these communities as I find them redlinked in articles. I went through the redlinked ZIP coes on your page and found that the there is Census data for the 08011, 08032, 08038, 08073, 08089, 08245, 08313, 08340, 08341, 08346, 08514, 08535, 08735, 08835, 08887 ZIP codes. This will help in future article creation. Thanks for reaching out. Alansohn (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zipinfo.com

In removing several links to fizber.com, I came across and deleted several similar-looking links to zipinfo.com, only to find there were quite a few of them. I don't get their notability in being added to so many articles...is the website from the USPS or some other government website? Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 08:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation CA, CDP, MSA ... from other historical-legal-official entities

In my view, if a page is primarily relying on a Census abstraction,

then it needs to be titled such:

"Burlington CDP, Ohio"

which is what the Census Bureau officially calls it (from FactFinder.Census.Gov, search "Burlington" and "Ohio").

CA, CDP, MSA, ... need to be REQUIRED in such census-derived Wiki long-official article names/titles.
Shorter "common" Wiki redirects can redirect to such a "Census abstraction" page.

Like I do NOT object to "Burlington, Ohio" redirecting to "Burlington CDP, Ohio";

But I do STRONGLY object to a "Census"-derived article being "officially" titled "Burlington, Ohio"

If or when such a Census abstraction article mentions a particular place, like town of "Burlington",

then it should at least list the other such "places" within the CA, CDP, or MSA.

I am still "digging" but it appears Burlington CDP also includes: town of Brookdale, town of Walnut Park;

not sure whether town of Brayfield (I am guessing that it does, but still researching ...)

or any portions of either: Village of South Point, or Sybene fall inside the Burlington CDP?

Yes, it is not "easy" to check County/State/Township records against the Census,

but that is the point...

I can confidently say that "Burlington CDP, Ohio" is NOT the same as "Burlington, Ohio",

I do not dispute that "Burlington, Ohio" is probably completely contained within the "Burlington CDP, Ohio".

(unless local/Ohio records later turn up something to the contrary).

Similarly, I have do NOT have any issue with any article citing Census data, or

Infoboxes including Census CA, CDP, MSA, ... but they need to "Footnote" Cnote/Cref such inclusions.

I updated Craig, Alaska so that the Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area is in the Infobox (after the Borough).

I understand that "Towns" (Populated Places) are an extremely fuzzy area.

The official source for any information about them are old County and Township Recorder archives (mostly paper/microfiche/film).
My concern is that any article clearly disambiguate what they are referring to, and

when areas represent distinct sets (in the mathematical graph sense),

whether they are disjoint/subsets/supersets,

every reference then needs to clearly and unambiguously state which it is referring to.

Every statement needs to be clear which it refers to: Census or historical/local "government/organization".

The issue I see is that it is "easy" to cut and paste Census statistics,

while it is more difficult to research the County Recorder and (state) Secretary of State official archives.

I agree that the Census is authoritative for population and demographics, and

that Census boundaries need to be stated/taken into account when quoting population and demographics.

But it is flat out "wrong" to go the other way around:

citing a Census "boundary" and then citing other statistics (other than population/demographics).

It is more proper to cite something relative to something else within the CDP boundaries.

Like if a populated place was/is within a CA, CDP, or MSA; then you can cite appropriate references relative to it,

but to attribute something to the Census abstraction (other than population/demographics) is inaccurate.

I do not have a problem with taking a Census boundary, and then finding out what is inside of it,

then clearly and properly attributing it to a historical/legal/official entity within the boundary.

What I object to is attributing something, other than population/demographic statistics, to the CDP abstraction;

Unless they are identically the same, it is wrong to loosely intermix "Name" and "Name CDP" information

without clearly disambiguating which "entity" you are referring to.

LeheckaG (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LeheckaG, Wikipedia works by consensus. There are articles on virtually every CDP in the United States and all of them I am aware of do not include "CDP" in the article title. See for example the listing for Ohio at Category:Census-designated places in Ohio or the much broader Category:Census-designated places in the United States. Just because you do not like it, does not change the consensus. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some CDPs with (CDP) in their names, but (except for Covedale, which needs to be changed) all are in Wisconsin, New York, or New England, where the towns within which the CDPs are located can also have the same name. In this case, the (CDP) is included only because there's another entity (village [only in WI, NY, or VT], city, or town) in the same county with the same name, and it needs to be distinguished. It's not like here in Ohio, where the only time we need to disambiguate is between counties, and where the townships have "Township" in their names. Nyttend (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. LeheckaG also posted on my page, but I will point out here too that by LeheckaG's logic (following the Census name) then, for example, Ironton, Ohio should be renamed to Ironton city, Ohio - see here and all city, village, and borough articles should be renamed as well. There is also the Wiki principle that an article should be listed under the most common name. Adding CDP to everything does not make sense. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have issues with Census abstractions not being clearly named and ambiguously mixing Census abstractions with "real life" data.

Ohio also has an "Ironton Junction" (Populated Place) in Jackson County.
For "Ironton, Ohio", I do not object to the article being titled "Ironton, Ohio".

"Ironton, Ohio" should have an "other" template at the top mentioning "Ironton Junction, Ohio in Jackson County"

or referring to the "Ironton" article (disambiguation).

"Ironton, Ohio" in Lawrence County's official name is "City of Ironton"

(which should at least be in the Infobox "official name" field)

On the "Ironton, Ohio" article, the official city site is in links, but the official site link is not in the Infobox.

"Burlington, Ohio" is only 50 acres (0.078 sq mi), not 1.4 square miles (900 acres) as the Census states (about the Burlington CDP).

If you claim Burlington, Ohio is 1.4 square miles, then please provide a detailed accounting for the remaining 846 acres (1.322 sq mi).

My point is that your choice is either:

Create an article about the CDP "abstraction" using Census provided statistics, and Name it accordingly - CDP.
Do actual gathering of information from real Ohio archives and Name it "Burlington, Lawrence County, Ohio" (the 13 Burlington's issue)

What is the point of transcribing readily-available data (Census) without either providing added value by organizing it better,

or gathering information from obscure or difficult to locate official sources?

LeheckaG (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jm0371

Hi Nyttend, I just left a note on the talk page of a our new mutual friend. All of Jm0371's image uploads are listed here and the maps in question are of counties in West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. They remind me of maps I have seen before and the odd mottled dark red shade looks like a glitch with MS Paint, but I can't find them online. I think they may be maps colored by hand. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zips in the red

User:Nyttend/ZIP/NJ is an excellent list, are you from New Jersey? We used to have a Ukrainian Festival here each year, and last year it stopped. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creek question

Hi Nyttend, as I was reading your note I thought of the Cowanesque River as soon as I read "Conesque". I looked at some maps and think it makes the most sense. It is in the Susquehanna River watershed, although it is in the Chemung River subbasin and is not a direct tributary of the Susquehanna. The other thing is that back then the names were spelled many different ways, so creek and river were often interchanged and the "official" spelling might be quite odd back then too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choess seems to have found definite proof on my talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack

I've undone your edit here per WP:LEDE and MOS:BOLD: If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive, the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does. Also per Wikipedia:Stop bolding everything (an essay). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wagoner County, OK template

I just wanted to say thanks for reverting the Wagoner County, Oklahoma template back to the earlier version that included the multiple county footnote. --Acntx (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska native and homeowners corporations

Depends on what data the Census Bureau has:

Alexander Alaska is incorporated in Alaska as a "Native Village Corporation".

There are a handful of (13?) Nation Regional Corporations, and a "Native Village Corporation" for each Native Village which filed under the federal ANCSA.

Alexander is another variety of incorporated Community/Settlement in Alaska.

Alaska Natives a.k.a. American Indians and Eskimos have special status in Alaska.

Alexander is one of the "left-outs" communities where CIRI Cook Inlet Regional Corporation applied and got theirs first,

and communities like Alexander, are expected to get theirs through CIRI, and CIRI is unwilling to "share".

In South-Eastern, Alaska it is a little less of an issue,

because SEA Alaska Corporation (another native regional) had voted to "share" with their leftouts.

I saw a bunch of updates and have not gone through them, this was the first "glaring" thing I noticed.

Thank You, for deleting and redirecting Dinglishna Hills ... to Dinglishna Hills, Alaska. I tried to delete and redirect it before and someone else had put it back.

Dinglishna Hills is another (common?) example where Alaska Department of Natural Resources did in fact legally incorporate them in the form of a "Homeowner's Association", when it was surveyed, platted, and recorded with the Anchorage Recorder. Details are on file with Department of Natural Resources - Anchorage Recorder's office.

For Alaska, their are two Recorder's with jurisdiction:

the United States Government - which usually but not always uses the General Land Office of the BLM

(they also use other Government agencies depending on the Statute under which land transactions occur)

State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources acts as the "County Recorder" in each Borough

(which makes things a lot more organized and relatively simpler than other U.S. jurisdictions) LeheckaG (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South-East Alaska FYI

South-East Alaska is composed of many islands, and there are more miles of shoreline than roads.

"Water", the Inside Passage is the major road, so Nautical Charts and directions by water (or floatplane), are more important than Census data.

Please restore any nautical information and external links you deleted.

(From a South-East Alaskan, Former North-East Ohioan) LeheckaG (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We (South-Eastern Alaska) have 1,100 islands in the Alexander Archipelago

spread across about 300 miles.

Alaska between all the islands in the Aleutians (Alaska Peninsula) and Alexander Archipelago a.k.a. "Panhandle" has over 34,000 miles of shoreline and very few roads.

We take our aeronautical and nautical information seriously, so please do NOT delete it or links to it and restore what you deleted. LeheckaG (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Noble

May I ask you what makes him noteable? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaFayette Jackson Veterans Organization

The suggestion to delete this page by the challenger for the reason given is ludicrous.

""The LaFayette Jackson-Veterans Organization is incorporated in the State of Ohio as the "LaFayette-Jackson Veterans Organization" signed by the Ohio Secretary of State. LaFayette, Ohio has changed dramatically because of the items cited in this article. The suggestion that article should be removed because there are no noteworthy resources validated our existence is alarming. LaFayette, Ohio is a very small village of only about 300 people. Our veterans organization has about 25 members, with 7 to 8 very active. Considering the size of the village, that is is a large percentage. The veterans organization is a very integral part of this village. In order to have a complete profile of the village of LaFayette, Ohio, The activities and history of the LaFayette Jackson Veterans Organization and the LaFayette Jackson Historical Society must be recorded here. Wikipedia Editors have also challenged the spelling of LaFayette based on research which does not include the official records of the village. (Yes Properly Spelled with a capital "F") They are also challenging and denying that the village nickname is Patriot City USA, again based on arbitrary reasons without checking into the villages records. It is time for wikipedia to examine LaFayette, Ohio Village documents before making these statements based on research that does not include official village documents. I challenge you to contact the village council at 225 E Sugar Lafayette, OH 45854 (419) 649-8801 to get the information you need to verify what I have been saying here is true before you delete this page. Ljvo (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carter

Carter's typical pronunciation was /ˌnukjuˈliər/, rather than /ˈnukjulər/. —SlamDiego_←T 07:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Census boundaries (Burlington, OH)

Let me apologize for just getting to your message. I have had serious computer problems over the last few days. I did attempt to check your reference, but was unable to access it. I wish I could have been of more assistance. --Acntx (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas counties

Some counties had the template, most don't. Admittedly I don't know how to edit the template, but if it's still gathering and displaying 2006 estimates instead of 2007, the template should be changed (or just leave my '07 updates in place and the estimates can be updated manually). Normal View (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Orphans

Wow -- Thanks for clearing all those up. Yes, please feel free to delete that user subpage. -- Avocado (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winnebago County, Wisconsin template

Hi- I started an article-Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin. I tried adding it to the Winnebago County, Wisconsin template and it did not take hold. My apologies. I goof! Thanks- RFD (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it-RFD (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lake County, Oregon

Thank's, Nyttend! The county templates of English Wikipedia are much goods. Greetings! Felipe P 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Summersville, Kentucky

What is the purpose of this article?--WillC 08:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was just wondering because I live in that town and I was surprised that a article about a very small town was even made.--WillC 21:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have a picture but I'm not sure exactly what kind would be best. It is easy for me to take the picture since I live right in the middle of town. Mainly the only things that would be alright to take a picture of is the Summersville Elementary School and maybe the Summersville Baptist Church. The best time would be during the big parade day that we have down here. It is called Summersville Days. We have a parade, a cook out, games, alot of stuff. It is in a few weeks. I believe the the 19th or 26th. I can take a picture just need to know what would need to be captured.--WillC 05:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a good spot to take a picture of would be what I think is the town square. It is where the main road that goes through town meets the Bank, the School, and the gas station where everyone is always at. The only other place would be a small goods store and the Church I spoke of earlier.--WillC 05:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Birthday!

Thanks, much appreciated! ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Towns/cities

Thanks for the heads up. I get a bit bleary-eyed when doing semi-repetivitve work, and brackets sneak in. On the towns vs. cities issue, I completely understand your viewpoint. My rationale is that the articles should have as much up-to-date information as possible. While the 2000 census is the last official count, and I agree that the yearly census estimates should be left out, the census change list does indicate that these town have officially been upgraded/downgraded, which is why i was trying to add the ref link to each article. I would like to continue on this, but have no problem leaving it alone, but I'm not too keen on having to leave it until 2010/11 for the next census. Is there a policy on this or has this been discussed elsewhere I might have missed?

Thanks again! 25or6to4 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense and clears up a lot. I didn't realize I had done that. That will make things easier so I won't have to change as much. I will keep working at it, probably one state at a time. Thanks again! 25or6to4 (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Painesville twp

my grandparents live there , painesville city is seperate from painesville twp. By my understanding and others i have talked to it sounds like you are saying painesville is in painesville twp. Cedarpointohio2 (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia communities

What, and write a whole extra three words? You have to be kidding me ;)

I'd be happy to...but only 'cause you asked nice. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and it's my pleasure. Once I got into it I was amazed at how many places were missing - I added all of the towns in Madison County, Virginia, save two, for instance. Hell, I've been to Criglersville and Banco. I know they're there. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Iowa historical populations

Yes it is :). Psych less 14:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zip Codes, Post Offices, and such

I’m inspired by your New Jersey Community efforts. I’m trying to do the same for unicorporated communities in North Dakota. I have a few thoughts or observations I wanted your opinion on.

First, I understand User:Alansohn above commenting on using Census Zip Code Tabulation Areas as a source for community demographic data. That’s a good rough estimate, but it probably shouldn’t be the only source. The data covers the entire zip code, which often exceeds the city boundaries. For example, Lefor, North Dakota, 58641, is listed has having an area of 82 square miles if you base it off just the ZCTA. As someone who has driven through Lefor, I guarantee it isn’t 82 square miles. We would need to be cautious in how we word it so we aren’t implying that “population of zip code = population of city.” Also, the ZCTA does not always equal the exact boundaries of the corresponding USPS zip code[ http://www.census.gov/geo/ZCTA/zctafaq.html#Q14]. ZCTA’s are census inventions based on actual zip codes, but aren’t equal.

Secondly, many communities share a zip code. This is more common for unincorporated communities, but it is true even for incorporated cities. Gascoyne, ND and Scranton, ND both are zip code 58653. That’s the primary zip for Scranton, but Gascoyne is a valid city for addressing purposes. Gascoyne used to be 58629, but its post office closed in 1982 with mail to Scranton. Using zip code data from the census would give population for both the cities and the surrounding countryside. Third, many articles on communities state “even though it’s unincorporated, it has a post office with a zip code of XXXXX.” Again, Gascoyne doesn’t have its own separate zip code or a post office. Lefor, on the other hand, does have its own zip, but its post office closed in 2002. People either have rural route mail service, but has to drive to Gladstone 12 miles north to visit a physical post office. A zip code does not automatically mean a post office exists. The lede of these articles should probably be rewritten as such.

Finally, I found the details on old zip codes from the U.S. Postal Service’s Postmaster Finder. It has good information on historical post offices and zip codes. Thought it would help you out.

Cheers.Dcmacnut (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorchester

Hi, I didn't know whether the information I added was of any use, but I put it on anyway. Thanks for removing it. About the township, do you know which on it is exactly. My thought was the Waterloo township, based on the township maps provided. Cedarvale1965-08 (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what township it is; I would guess Waterloo, but I've not seen any maps showing Dorchester's location and the township lines, and I don't have any detailed IA atlas like I do for IN, OH, PA, and WV. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5th Infantry Regiment (United States)

Now that you've become my personal editor (lol). Please see the referenced page. I've added some data to this page, and noticed the references are messed up. I'm not sure how to fix them... RickH86 (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought references were supposed to be numbered. The reference tagged as [1] in the text is the third one listed under references, and the references list is not numbered at all. RickH86 (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waycross, Georgia

I'm not exactly sure why you went to Waycross, Georgia page and added that is in Pierce County, and went to the Pierce County page and added that Waycross is a city in it. But for whatever reason you were misinformed. The city limits of Waycross ends within Ware county, about 2 miles away from where Ware County and Pierce County border each other. I reverted.Swampfire (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can tell you without a doubt that map is wrong. For starters I live in that section that the maps shows as on the line. And I am in Ware County not Waycross. The map also shows Deenwood as being very close to the Pierce line and in the city. When in fact it is on the westside, outside of the city, in the county. That map is wrong. Also especially in theat area. The counties of Pierce and Ware are divided by the Satilla river. The entire city of Waycross is surrounded by Ware county on the outside of it. Please supply documention(not a map) stating that Waycross is in Pierce. ThanksSwampfire (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now I am providing you with Pierce County's page on the georgia government website.[1] First off on the map on the main page it shows you the bottom left side boundry is the river as I stated. Secondly on their page it clearly states all the cities and towns within Pierce County(which are Blackshear (County Seat), Bristol, Mershon, Offerman, and Patterson. As I stated make sure you have proper information before making such an accusation. Also try calling the number on the page an asking them about Waycross being in Pierce County. I will be removing it all again. Please do not add it back unless you can provide valid citations that refute What Pierce County itself states.Swampfire (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this link [2] would be of any help in the discussion, but it shows that on January 1, 1990, there was a boundary change between Ware and Pierce counties. Since Census Bureau's latest population estimates [3] show that 9 people live in the Pierce County portion of Waycross, I think that it should be noted. --Acntx (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Waycross is a City, and what I pointed out about the Pierce county site is Cities and Towns of which The CITY of Waycross, Ga is not a part, not small communities within the cities or towns, these are all small communties within the cities and towns (Hacklebarney is a small community in Blackshear), (Jot Em Down Store is a small community in Bristol), (Otter Creek is a small community in Patterson), (Sandy Bottom is a small community in Bristol), (Walkerville is a small community in Blackshear). The portion in question by the census bureau is a small area that pays their bills in Waycross and get their mail from Waycross post office. Because running their stuff over the bridge from Waycross was alot closer than running it from Blackshear. So they were given Waycross mailing address' but they pay all taxes as Blackshear and Pierce County. There is also an area in Brantley County that has Waycross mailing address' for the same reason. But the area not in Waycross. This article is about The City of Waycross, Ga. And the city of Waycross falls completely within Ware County. If you would like to make a small paragraph on the descrepency and place it in the article feel free(with valid citations). I am telling you this because I know for a fact that other people from this area will remove it all the time. But we know where the city limits area, and county lines. And this would be considered controversial material, not to you but to people in both Pierce and Ware Counties. But they way you are trying to include makes it seem as though Waycross is a City that is shared by both counties. Which it is not.Swampfire (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Nyttend knows, I'm a bit of a geography buff and self-proclaimed expert on all this Census-related, so I thought I'd weigh in. I'm all for relying on local knowledge when discrepancies crop up, but official, reliable sources clearly indicate part of the city extends into Pierce County (whether not residents pay Pierce taxes, vote in Pierce elections, etc). The Census Bureau gets its boundary data from annual boundary surveys of state, county, and local governments, which is based on official information provided by the local government officials. Someone in the local government must have submitted the information on Waycross, being partially in Pierce County to the Census Bureau. Otherwise, the Census Bureau wouldn't be showing it. Below are some reliable sources on this matter.

The 1990 Census, under "Geographic Changes" on Page 15 of this Population and Housing Unit Counts document says "Annexed into Pierce County: Waycross city"
This table, for Pierce County, indicates that Waycross is indeed part of Pierce County. However, the 2000 Census indicates no population in that portion of the city. As User:Acntx indicated above, it now has a population of 9.
The Census 2007 Tiger-line shapefiles still show part of Waycross as being in Pierce County, Blackshear CCD (Census County Division).
The Geographic Names Information System, the official arbiter of place names in the U.S., shows the City of Waycross in both counties.
The Georgia Municipal Association also has indicates, indirectly, that Waycross is in both counties. The page for Waycross only mentions Ware County, but under State House Districts, it says the city lies within Districts 177 and 178, which according to the map of current Georgia State House Districts places the city in Ware County (District 177) and Pierce County (District 178).

Given this information, I think it the article merits mention of Waycross extending into Pierce County, however it should be worded to respect local tradition and common use.Dcmacnut (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point I do not mind it making that point say in a section. But as he has it worded it makes seem as The City of Waycross is split between Ware County and Pierce County. There is one little piece of land in between That has Waycross/Ware Co. mailing address because it was easier to supply everything from the Waycross side. While they still have to pay all thee taxes as Blackshear and Pierce County. That causes this discrepency. However the same thing happens on the Brantley County border. Just over into Brantley County everyone has Waycross mailing address' and gets their utilities from Waycross, even though that community is about 5 miles from the city of Waycross, and in another county. So I say again I don't mind that portion being included but it should not be considered a city in Pierce it is more of a community, And on the Waycross page it should not read like the city is split between the counties. So I agree with you Dcmacnut. If he insists on it being there it should be worded better. Or just included in a seperate section on the page.Swampfire (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The city is split between the counties: although it's primarily in Ware, of course, the city limits do extend into Pierce. It's not just that locals in Pierce County have Waycross mailing addresses. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Swampfire's concerns, but Nyttend is correct about the standard way we describe for multi-county cities. It also doesn't matter that the resident's pay taxes to Pierce County. If they reside in Waycross on the Pierce side, than it is Waycross. Take a look at the Pierce County Assessor's website. Click on Search Records, accept the terms of use, and then click on "Search by Parcel Number." Enter Parcel number "025007," which is a parcel of land around 133 acres in Pierce County owned by the City of Waycross (Click "Show Parcel Map". Several other properties in the immediate vicinity are also in Pierce County's "Waycross Taxing District." The site won't provide a direct URL to the page. I was trying to provide reliable evidence that Waycross is in Pierce County as well as Ware, but additional exposition would is necessary to describe the situation better. That would tone down the "in your face" reception of "city in Pierce and Ware counties." Setting that aside for the moment, I've posted compromise language for the lede on the Talk:Waycross, Georgia It doesn't match exactly with the standard for other two-county communities, but I think there is room for flexibility in this case given the lack of consensus.Dcmacnut (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorchester Iowa

Can you explain exactly what was wrong with what I added to Dorchester, IA? --Cedarvale1965-08 (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabina, Ohio

I took off the village website because it was a blog, and the author deleted it. Village Website I saw that the population in 2003 was 2,819. Village Profile Please tell me if my information is not correct, or if you made a mistake. :)

--Robbie (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Dorchester, IA

Thank you. --Cedarvale1965-08 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCartney Library Edits

Concerning your recent edits to the McCartney Library Page: I am currently working at the library and compiling research and documentation to merge some semblance of a cohesive history for the public. As a part of this, I noticed that Wikipedia’s focus on the library was more than considerably sparse and that it still contains gaps in information; therefore, I am currently uploading some of the information released by Archives, as well as my own personal research. When I obtained photographs from Archives as well as Public Relations (again, to build up the comprehensive accounts), I was given permission to use them as well as permit commercial reuse and derivative works. Obviously, they were deleted in your last two edits. I am not sure of your reasoning, but I deduce that it is the cause of either the licensing or the release.

I tried two different ways of licensing (and you can tell me which one, if any, are correct). First, I tried to make use of a free creative commons license (

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. In short: you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute its author(s) or licensor(s). Official license

). Second, I tried a General Public domain license for works released by the creator {

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

If this is not legally possible:

I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

). Also, (as I try to cover all the bases) I own a high resolution camera, and can reshoot all the pictures myself.

I know that it usually is not considered good etiquette for an employee of an institution to publish information, as it may contain bias. However, I am not “selling opinion” but merely trying to publish fact. I live in Beaver Falls and have been doing research on the library long before I ever worked there and find myself fascinated by the depth of the relationship between the building and its religious roots as well as the community and international aspects of its historical journey. If you could offer me an explanation over the photograph edits or if you want to extend assistance or offer an alternative means of publishing images, it would be much appreciated. Thanks HSnodgrass (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glidden, Wisconsin

Hi- I came acrosse an article about Glidden, Wisconsin. I had to do a major revision. The article had Glidden as a city but it is an unincorporated community; the Ashland County, Wisconsin does not listed Glidden as a municipality as such and DeLorme's Wisconsin Atlas &Gazetteer has Glidden located within the town of Peeksville, Wisconsin. Would you please take a look at the article.I am not sureif the statistics are right. Also according to the log, the article had been deleted at least twice. Thanks-RFD (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Oklahoma City

In response to your question regarding the Oklahoma City MSA map, that will be fine. Thanks. --Acntx (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Small articles on Illinois settlements

If you want to, go ahead and format all of the one's I did, that way I can be bored to death next week. I had hoped that I would be able to have something to write, and those articles were going to be my busy work. Oh well. Have fun finding the references!! JLG 27 01 01:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Safford micropolitan area

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I added the demographics section to the article. --Acntx (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should link to the basic titles in the image description. As long as the basic title redirects to the principal city page when there is no micropolitan area article, then I think its okay. Hope that helps. --Acntx (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey local government

Seeing you adding the link to City (New Jersey), I wondered: is there any article on a topic similar to Local government of New Jersey? I know New York and Wisconsin have such articles; they're the only states besides New Jersey that I know have detailed articles on their local governments. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth thinking about. The big pro is that you would see all of the five options (Borough, City, Town, Township and Village) in one article. The advantage of the current format is that I can link to City (New Jersey) and not have to use "Local government of New Jersey#City". It's worth a thought. I know your efforts are not just tied to New Jersey, and any suggestions coming from your exposure to the best practices in the other 49 states is most helpful. Alansohn (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to mock up an article like you're proposing and run it past WT:NJ and see what the thoughts are there among the participants. I will take a look at the articles you mentioned. Is tehre anything else I should look at? Alansohn (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a stab at it on my end, as well. Let me know if you want me to look at something. Alansohn (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wandering through... Having researched this general subject for one state in order to write the text portion of List of cities and towns in Tennessee, I caution both of you that the quality of sources available varies tremendously from state to state. It can be very difficult to find good information -- the fact that a good article can be written for one specific state does not mean that similar content can be found for each of the other states... --Orlady (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recognized that New Jersey has good information on this topic. My caveat applied to the "other 49 states" referred to in this conversation. --Orlady (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NJ has been a bit quiet and folks may not be tuned in to a question. Let me try to rouse the usual suspects. Alansohn (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disc golf in Burlington

I sort of went along with it after taking out anything that might have been construed as "advertising." It is a public park and free (I guess). It seemed different. I saw you had deleted it once but it was re-added by someone else so I edited it. Not a top priority for me if you want to delete it again. May have to explain it to the editors to keep it out. Student7 (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mason County, Kentucky

Hi, Nyttend. I am working on a stub for the small community of Shannon in Mason County, Kentucky for which I have a source and a photograph. I noticed that the Template:Mason County, Kentucky calls the tiny villages of Dover, Germantown, and Sardis "cities". Are these places actually incorporated or do they belong under a section entitled "Communities", like at Template:Madison County, Kentucky? I had changed the designations of these places but decided to defer to your greater experience in this area. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. Would you mind checking Template:Madison County, Kentucky also. I have added several small communities over the past year and have no idea which are incorporated places. Better still, could you tell me where I can find this information myself? Aramgar (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Aramgar (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dunwoody, Georgia

Hi
Can you check out Talk:Dunwoody, Georgia, I think the message there is directed at you.
Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Española, New Mexico

The town has a tilde ever since I moved here there is a tilde on everything about Española if you go the City Website they have a tilde, on my Utility Bill it even has a tilde. Factfinder is not right all the time. Colorado Lover (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry to Be Rude but I like articles to not be wrong so if you would'nt mind moving it back to Española!!! Colorado Lover (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Lover is correct. It is Española. Omission of accents and aprostrophes is a matter of convenience only. However, the custom on English Wikipedia is to leave accents off the link name but use them in the article. Hence Espanola, New Mexico is correct but on the page the correct name is Española. --Una Smith (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's only a simplification of what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use English says:

Frequently, English usage does include the local diacritics, as with Besançon.

If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name. Non-English names should be used only if there are no established names in English;

It seems obvious that the "widely accepted" English name is "Española" in this case. --Amalthea (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also: {{Foreignchar}}. --Amalthea (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of notables

You deleted Fairbanks and Morse in the tiny town of St. Johnsbury, Vermont because they were non-notable, even though I had a footnote referencing the fact that they had founded Winter Park, Florida. Consistency here means that you are forcing articles on people I can create a stub on but would rather defer it because I am lazy. May have this problems with schools as well. People are known outside of school (county commissioner for example. mayor maybe) might not have an article but would be notable outside of the school. While Morse and Fairbanks are candidates for stubs, I suppose, I don't know about my local mayor! Still a plus for the school though. Student7 (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox question

See my comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Wikipedians_in_Iowa#Users_from_Iowa_aren.27t_necessarily_in_Iowa I'm not sure how the categories work from userboxes, as I just added them to my page, but if you know the fix, or someone else who does, I'd appreciate it. RickH86 (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micropolitan Area articles

Hi. I am planning to create separate articles for some of the Georgia Micropolitan Areas. Do you think I should move your maps to the newly created page and remove it from the principal city article or just add it to the new page and leave it on the principal city page as well?

Also, by the time I logged in this morning, it looked like the whole situation with the Dunwoody, Georgia page had been resolved. Is that the case or is my input still needed? Thanks. --Acntx (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Wayne Metropolitan Statistical Area map

Hi Nyttend, I originally made a three county map for the Ft Wayne MSA - it is still on Commons here but it is the old version. When the article was to 7 counties I made the newer map without checking. If you want I can re-upload the original 3 county version so it can be used in the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is just the US Census Factfinder map cropped and following the odd Census labels, many of the cities are not labeled. I would be fine omitting it. I will see if they can delete the 7 county version on Commons just in case someone else finds it and wants to add it in somewhere. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troy, Vermont - Bride of the Year

You're just jealous 'cause you'll never make it!

a) fairly notable for this section of the country. There were 2000 or so other candidates. b) when I compare this to most places who have obscure athletes and musicians (all with articles of course!) that I never heard of, Bride of the Year seems a welcome distraction. Student7 (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Map request

I just tagged the Salisbury-Ocean Pines CSA Wikipedia Image for deletion. --Acntx (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you find it easier to create new maps under the same name at the commons, I am fine with that. --Acntx (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which tag is the proper one to use for an author-requested deletion? I have searched through the pages about deletion and I am thoroughly confused. Once that is cleared up, I would be glad to work with you. Thanks. --Acntx (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm still watching you since I was waiting to see if anyone'd respond to User talk:Nyttend#Española, New Mexico, but I guess I'll take it to the article talk page. :)
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 07:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small Town Q

Hi, just so you know I'm not upset that you undid my population thing on Wikieup Arizona, I'm just curious if you are a big "tiny town" or "ghost town" studier like I am. I live in Las Vegas and am about to embark on a trip to some tiny towns with barely any population at the end of this month, was wondering if you'd been to any places like Essex, Goffs, or Cima California? Or maybe Nipton, Ca. OR Nelson, Nevada? I'm hoping to have enough info to post some stuff online here when I get back. Would like to hear from ya! Meet Me Outside (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC) (Jeff)[reply]

Response

Sorry for the late response. I was taking a nap. Anyways, a block does not seem too bad as it is clear that it is the same person and they falsely warned an admin of all people of vandalism and made a clear vandalism reversion. Which was after a personal and final warning from an admin. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin} 01:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My talk page

And just like that you'll loose my presence on your talk page. ;)
BTW, I don't think the google hits can really give you the most common spelling since both searches find both spellings (I have no idea why the number-of-hits differ), and the Census Bureau website itself couldn't call it Española if it wanted to, since it can't cope with non-Latin-1. But if no one can prove that Española is the official name (in which case I'd definitely think it should also be the page title) none of that really matters.
Cheers, and see you around, Amalthea^Talk 12:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bend, Oregon population

Re: diff, I didn't know that in general we don't accept partners of the U.S. census as reliable sources (though if you could provide a link to the specific guideline about official partners at WP:CITY, that would be helpful, all I can see is "This section provides a demographic profile of the community, and usually relies on census data. Do NOT include population projections past present time per WP:CRYSTAL. Again, US Census figures only"), but FYI the consensus at WikiProject Oregon is that the PSU Population Center is a fine source for population updates. We'd rather people use PSU than pull a number out of thin air! Feel free to change the refs, but note that many Oregon articles use the PSU link, and I think this would be a fine time to IAR. Katr67 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swanton, Ohio

Please explain in what way listing comunity entertanment for the family is wrong.

Anything you list could be construde as advertising...example... Swanton Corn Festival, Swanton Parks...

Isn't there a section for Nintendo? Sony? McDonalds? Whay in the heck would putting community entertainment be wrong??!!

"House Of Games is a console gaming center located within city limits. 131 B E. Airport Hwy. • Swanton, OH 43558. They off gaming in a family friendly environment.

Swanton Coliseum is a skating Rink located at 12725 Airport Hwy • Swanton, OH 43558

Swanton Sports Center is a Bowling alley located at 610 North Main Street • Swanton, Ohio 43558"

You have now deleted appropriate additions 3 times, please find something else to do besides following me. Leave the post as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoachEqualizer (talk • contribs) 04:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete my additions because you think it is spam. I have the right to add something I think is useful and entertainment venues in the city are important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoachEqualizer (talk • contribs) 04:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]