User talk:Polaron

Old messages here

---

List of metropolitan areas by population

Hello Polaron! Why did you remove the change I made on the page "List of metropolitan areas by population"? The metropolitan area of Paris (see the article about Paris on Wikipedia) actually has 12,672,000 (2007 data) habitants. So, Paris should be included in the list of metropolitan areas by population! See there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris

SSR 441

SSR 441 is an important road in Windsor Locks. It should have its own articl with an exit list.Amlnet49 (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Took out Image on New Haven (Skyline)

I think the image looks fine and should be added somewhere in the article. Is there a place that you think it would look good in the article? Lookinforahome (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You reverted an edit on "Larger Urban Zones"

Turkey is not within the Eurozone. You have not explained why it should be included in an article on Eurozone cities. It looks like a very tacky article as it stands: Eurozone + Turkey. It would make more sense to add non-Eurozone European cities. 90.202.140.209 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrangell, Alaska

I just noticed that Wrangell, Alaska has changed to a borough, like Skagway did last year. Do you have any sources to see if the Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area has had its name changed, like you pulled up for Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon? Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a new feature id has been assigned yet. It usually takes about 6-12 months before the GNIS database gets updated. --Polaron | Talk 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter, Issue 6 (FINAL ISSUE)

—Rschen7754bot (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to Al Anbar Governorate

Please see my request for a checkuser here. Thanks. Lawrencema (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Hello!

Here you used rollback feature in a content dispute. According to rules, such use of a rollback feature is inappropriate and you may get it revoked in case of further abuse. Thanks — VasilievV ² 17:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, please see this. Any further reverts in this dispute will result in a block. Although the warning there states 24 hours, if you have other 3RR blocks in your logs, the duration will be longer. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for warning me but not the other user who did actually violate 3RR. --Polaron | Talk 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:GAME. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 18:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Who did I miss? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being even-handed four minutes after I posted my comment. --Polaron | Talk 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• 14:20, September 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Belgian man ‎ (→Note: new section)
• 14:16, September 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Kintetsubuffalo ‎ (→Note: new section)
• 14:13, September 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Polaron ‎ (→Warning: also)
• 14:12, September 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:SkyBon ‎ (→September 2008: new section)

Polaron, I warned SkyBon before you. The other two had not violated 3RR, yet I still left them a note considering at this point, it's a block regardless for anyone. Your note came at 14:18 (my time), I was in the process of getting to Belgian man's talk page at that time. I read your note at 14:22, during my correction of the link to each talk page I posted to. So what, exactly, are you referring to? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your're right. I'm stupid. Thanks for clarifying. In any case, don't worry about this issue. This happens to this and related country lists every few months (check the archives). It will all be sorted out in the end. --Polaron | Talk 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I-287

Yep, I can fix that. Thought the article was just the NJ portion. NY Interstates are next, so I will pick it up then. 25or6to4 (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

\

GO TO HELL

I live in Weston, CT and we're a suburb of NYC because we all go to work there, and have fun there,and root for the teams there. We're not TOURISTS LIKE THE SCUM FROM THE REST OF THE FUCKING COUNTRY!

Good for you. Although nothing in my edit contradicts that. Thanks for playing. --Polaron | Talk 01:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

YOU'RE MAKING IT SEEM LIKE WESTON IS NOT A SUBURB OF NYC...IT IS! YOU MAKE US SEEM LIKE WE'RE PART OF NEW ENGLAND AND WE COMMUTE TO BOSTON, LIKE THE STUPID RED SOX AND HAVE STUPID ACCENTS ("CHOWDAHHHH!!") WE'RE NOT PART OF NEW ENGLAND! WE ARE MORE A PART OF NY STATE THAN CONNECTICUT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.122.109 (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when did the Red Sox enter this? You have serious issues, man. --Polaron | Talk 01:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Truman Bradley

Hi - I see that you mentioned there was a claim to notability in one of the external links when you removed the PROD tag. Which link is this? I've checked them, but I'm missing what you're referring to. Thanks! BWH76 (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bureau of Indian Affairs finding of fact seems to imply membership in the Schagticoke tribe as linked to being a descendant of Truman Bradley. While notability is not stated in the article, a wider discussion might bring in people more familiar with this topic to provide a more informed comment. AFD is a better venue for to attract that discussion. --Polaron | Talk 15:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Largest European cities and metropolitan areas - Manchester

Hi,

The page has been altered to reflect official statistics regarding greater Manchester yet you reverted twice the information produced despite links to the references.

Can you please explain how the governement figures can be ignored in favor of a dubious source of information? Ghaag (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be right but you provided no source for a metropolitan area figure (and not urban area or agglomeration). It shouldn't be a problem to link directly to a source since Statistics UK has all their basic population data online for various geographies online. --Polaron | Talk 13:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is the very point. The metropolitan area of Manchester is called "greater" Manchester as defined by the reference to the office of national statistic cited in the reverted edit. As expressed by other contributors on the article talk page, there is NO source anywhere linking Liverpool and Manchester even as "multicentric urban area" unlike the wealth of ressources related to the metropolitan area of Greater Manchester. Ghaag (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Interstate and U.S. Highways in Connecticut

Why should this not be left as its own page? See List of Interstate Highways in New York, List of Interstate Highways in Pennsylvania, etc. There is also a List of State Routes in Pennsylvania and List of State Routes in New York. I'm pretty sure you shouldn't have deleted the other page. They are different lists. The one you deleted has different information. Deigo (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because a few states have such lists does not mean Connecticut has to do it in the same way. There are probably more states that don't have separated lists. --Polaron | Talk 23:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on a couple of them. I got Pennsylvania's done and was going to start another one. Why not add them? It doesn't hurt anything. They are smaller and can give more detail. Aren't there some guidelines to deleting pages? Deigo (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For one, I think splitting out the Interstates and U.S. highways is not a good idea. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I did it is because I saw that the list for Texas was a featured list and figured it was a good idea. If not, fine. Delete it. Deigo (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox road/IA/shield Interstate

Why you erase the state-name from the shield of IA of 20px? IA still specifiy state-name specific in sign drawing. The source of modify sign drawing is shown on Image:I-280 (IA).svg.--Freeway91 20:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this--Freeway91 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

AFD notification

IN TEXAS THEY DON'T LIKE THE STUPID RED SOX AND SAY CHOWDAHHHH — oops, wrong subject: given your interest in CDPs, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Bliss, Texas. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

CT National Historic Districts

I noticed that you redirected a couple National Historic District stubs to town names. I was thinking it might be better to leave them as separate articles...what do you think? Swampyank (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If there comes a time that someone actually does expand them into full-fledged articles, it may be suitable to split them off. In most cases, the histories of these areas are directly tied to the history of the town they're in and it is more appropriate for these to be described as a section of the town article. Until such a time that the town article becomes too large to contain descriptions of what are essentially neighborhoods of a town, these are better merged. --Polaron | Talk 00:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

U.S. 163 truncated?

See discussion on the talk page Talk:U.S. Route 163. Thanks. DeFaultRyan (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Truncation of U.S. Route 163

Polaron, what is your source for the truncation? The route log on UDOT's homepage still shows the last change as the 2004 change.Dave (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Route 5

Using the word "following" does indeed imply to me, that the construction doing the following was there last. It implies poor history to people unfamiliar with the area. 5 followed the railroad, that is true and allowable, but 5 does not follow I-91 any more than the US Constitution followed France's (despite similarities). Student7 (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that there is no text in the current version that says "US 5 follows I-91". What is says is "US 5 closely parallels I-91", which makes no judgment on which came first. --Polaron | Talk 13:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Boundary changes

Since you give a source, I'm stopping immediately, but I'm not going to undo (and I ask that you stop for the moment) until I can see the proof: you accidentally gave me the wrong page :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction; I'm going to restore your format. I was doubtful, however, as you provided no sources; could you please link to the boundary changes page? Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And thanks, too, for simply finding this page: I can never seem to find new Census Bureau pages when they're issued, so I have to depend on others to find them for me. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've overridden what you put on for Ranson, West Virginia, by the way: as "Corporation" sounded like an odd term, I looked up the state law, which classifies it as a city. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you must. "Ranson corporation" is how it is currently listed in the 2007 estimates data. --Polaron | Talk 01:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the state law is up-to-date as of 2008. For the same reason, you have to be careful with Utah: Bear River City is still a town, as it has fewer than 1000 people. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Land Area of Baghdad

I was able to find an email address for the Baghdad Municipality, more specifically the mayors' office, and wrote them concerning the area of Baghdad. While I'm writing back to get more clarification, I got an answer back from their office, today, telling me that the city is "about 900 kilometres square", and this includes the 9-district city, so I guess the governorate and city aren't one and the same after all. What I was wondering is when or if I do get clarification, how exactly does one cite information from an email on wikipedia? --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to get an official source for this. I'm not quite sure how to properly cite an e-mail. Perhaps you can ask at WT:CITE. --Polaron | Talk 04:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the mayor's office is about as specific as it's going to get. Thanks for the link. I've asked the question over there. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

West Haven, CT

There may be more interest in West Haven now that it's been named one of the best places to raise kids in 2009 by Business Week. (http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/11/1110_best_places_for_kids/8.htm). I stumbled across the WH Wiki page while looking to see if the photo accompanying the blurb was really taken in WH or if it was a generic New England house photo. I was born in and lived in Waste Haven for 22 years (I left in 1979), and I can tell you that all the local adolescents called it that. I can also tell you that when I was growing up it had a sketchy reputation, and even to this day, when I meet other folks who have lived in Connecticut and tell them I grew up in West Haven, they check to see if I have a cigarette pack rolled up in my T-shirt sleeve. There is an actual rock, called Savin Rock, that still exists to this day, near Jimmie's, at Bradley Point. The community I grew up in, West Shore, was predominantly Italian, and lower class. Benham Hills was one socioeconomic step up. I remember well when the first black family moved into Benham Hills, and the uproar *that* caused - especially when considering that the family moved into the outer edge of Benham Hills. My grandmother worked at the Savin Rock Amusement Park, and there's a great video on YouTube that could be linked: A pretty good video taken at Savin Rock in 1949: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b38RuEHBx3M --Sgreenhouse (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)sgreenhouse

Edit war

Just a friendly reminder: you and Kotosb are definitely in an edit war at {{Fairfield County, Connecticut}}, and it seems like you're in a violation of the three-revert rule. I don't want to get involved more than necessary, but I'd like you to remember that "Users violating the rule may warrant a block from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance." Since nobody seems to have brought this up before me, I'll not block you now; but if you continue, I'll have to block for a short time to make sure that the template can stay stable. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that I have only reverted once. Subsequent edits have actually accomodated the other user's changes. Please be more careful before accusing someone. --Polaron | Talk 04:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lima Population

Please check out my post in Talk:List of cities proper by population. I'd think we'd use the latest official estimate as opposed to the Findland Statistics number, no? --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Another problem, now, with Lima on the list. You have the area listed at 800 sq km. The 7.6 million is for the whole of Lima Province, which is 2,672.3 km². I'm not sure if there is any exact population number ever given for the actual urbanized portion of the province. So, the area of Lima on the page needs to be changed to the area of the province. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New tabular layout for the list of countries

Very good - see also my comment on the list's talk page. A reason for French Guyana to be included is that it got an ISO code and the mention 'overseas department' could possibly be moved in column 3, as well as 'constituent country' for E/W/S/NI.

PS: I hesitated posting this on your own talk page, the (empty) talk page of the demonstration page or create a new sub-section about this on the list's talk page. Feel free to move the lot on the place you find most appropriate. Clpda (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting this [1], I only reverted the latest user and did not notice the earlier problems. JdeJ (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Brighton Plantation

Thanks for finding another source for the plantation name. How I wish that they were all named "_____" or "_____ Plantation"...it's so confusing the way that the state has it now! Grrr... Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the naming is inconsistent. If you're interested, there was a long discussion that included this as a topic in Talk:List of New England towns. --Polaron | Talk 05:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Little community advice

I saw an IP modify {{Dane County, Wisconsin}} to change "Ashton Corners" to "Ashton". Looking at the GNIS, I found a really confusing situation: BOTH have entries! Look at Ashton and Ashton Corners. Looking at Google Maps, it seems that they're about a mile away from each other, along the same road. Are they really big enough to warrant separate articles, or should they be merged; and if they're merged, under which title do you think we should list the combined communities' article? Because the article is now entitled AC, I'm putting the notes back to AC for the moment, but we really need to get this decided at some point :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Union City, New Jersey

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Union City, New Jersey, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. (Diff) Nightscream (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, that's funny. --Polaron | Talk 12:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

EU entry in statiscal lists

Your reverts breach a longstanding thoroughly discussed compromise. Lear 21 (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Polaron, I appreciate the effort you go through in maintaining a high quality level for the List of countries and outlying territories by total area. Thanks! - However, we disagree about the positioning of the EU entry. I content myself with the standing compromise, but not with the recently pushed move of the EU entry from the initial section to the very end of the article. If you choose to revert the standing article's structure to your preferred structure, I would at least ask you to give a correct and complete edit summary. Your last edit could be seen as kind of sneaky ... All the best and take care, MikeZ (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing NRHP stubs

I know we disagreed earlier about merging my historic district stubs, but hopefully we could let them stay independent. The National Register of Historic Places project has been stubbing various articles with the hope that the stubs will grow into lengthier articles as people who know about the area read them and add to them. I'd prefer to leave the stubs because the historic districts are independently notable from the various towns and there is a wikilink to the town in the stub. It is a bit of a hassle to go back and create the infobox or reenter basic information for the district at a later date, and readers are less likely to add to the stubs if they do not exist. Swampyank (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not removing them. I have merged the ones that are essentially neighborhoods to their town article. All the information in the body of the articles are have been merged in so no information has been removed. How likely would these be expanded to full-fledged articles anyway? Would they have a history that's independent of the town? --Polaron | Talk 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your revert regarding addition of Ruhr Area into World's largest urban agglomerations

Hi Polaron,

you revered my addition of the Ruhr Area into the list of World's largest urban agglomerations. Would you like to state your rationale to do so? - Thanks and take care, MikeZ (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A contest you may be interested in

Hello, Polaron. There is a new contest for U.S. and Canada roads that you may be interested in. To sign up or for more information, please visit User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup. The contest begins Saturday at 00:00 UTC. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 04:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 18th, Columbia University area Last: 11/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Norwalk Wiki

Greetings, great work on Norwalk related stuff. I recently created the Norwalk Wiki for everything that would not otherwise be notable enough for Wikipedia. Its brand new, so we (ahem, really just "I" right now) need to get the word out about it. I invite your correspondence. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Delhi land area

Where you ever able to do any more research into the land area of Delhi? I'm convinced that the 1,397.3 km2 is the correct area for the municipal corporation, and the 1,484 sq km is the more correct number for the state. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for U.S. Route 20 in Massachusetts

On 18 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U.S. Route 20 in Massachusetts, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Palmer, Massachusetts

Palmer's article says that it's a town, governed by an "elected town council". Can you provide a source for it being a city? Searching the article for "city" gave no significant results. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because nobody seems to have updated the article. The legal distinction between a town and a city in Mass. is the form of government. Since 2004, Palmer has adopted a home rule charter with a council-manager form of government (one of the two city forms of government). However, it is one of several municipalities that prefer to be known as a town. See Template talk:Massachusetts for additional information and sources. --Polaron | Talk 22:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Braintree

Another city with a CDP...I do admit that I'm annoyed by this happening. As far as you know, does the state have any official list of cities that we could check to ensure that there aren't any other CDPs within cities? Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that what the Census Bureau considers a city in Massachusetts seems to lag by several years from what the state considers a city. This is further complicated by the fact that several municipalities that are legally cities call themselves as towns. This seems to be the most recent semi-reliable source on the forms of government for each Mass. city/town. --Polaron | Talk 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Shanghai

Hi, I just wonder why you defined the city proper of Shanghai by the listed districts in your recent update of List of cities proper by population? Source for this definition?--Pjred (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was well-known since the figures tabulated by say the National Geographic and Statistics Finland match that grouping. See also the groupings at List of administrative divisions of Shanghai. Anyway, if you feel it is incorrect, please revert. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 16:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just curious if a more authoritative Chinese source can be found for a.o. the numbers found at Statistics Finland. Definitions of Chinese city propers are problematic. Myself, I find both the 'street level' (jiedao) and the city districts (shixiaqu) to be useful definitions of Chinese city propers, but it's all about chosing which one to use and to reach consensus - which seems almost impossible for Chinese cities. So, I am not changing anything at the moment.--Pjred (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You might try asking at the talk pages of the articles for the Chinese cities as regular editors there may be aware of better sources. --Polaron | Talk 17:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bradley Airport Connector

On January 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bradley Airport Connector, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum Last: 01//2008

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for U.S. Route 2 in Vermont

On February 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U.S. Route 2 in Vermont, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

NY 23

Thanks for the quick turn around on the map! --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Daytonnati

Thanks for checking the references: I was confident that all the data mentioned was supported by the reference, so I'd not checked the source itself. Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hartford Meetup: We need your help!

The next Connecticut Wikipedia meetup will take place sometime during April 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please list on the meetup page whether or not you can go. Also please contribute ideas for topics and dates! Hope to see you there!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You have won Round 1 of the USRD-CRWP WikiCup!

Congratulations! You have been declared a winner of Round 1. This is just to let you know that Round 2 will be starting Sunday night. Please note the point value changes for Round 2 as well. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Shanghai Population...

Hi there, what definitional reasons are behind your revert of my edit? I used the number from Gazetteer, which has been updated for 2009, and now has Shanghai ranked as more populous than Mumbai. Since the article's figure for Mumbai also comes from the same source, shouldn't this article be updated according to the latest figures from Gazetteer? By78 (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See the talk page of the article for a previous discussion. --Polaron | Talk 03:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I Already did. Having lived in Shanghai for 16 months and stayed in Mumbai for two weeks, I think I can offer something to the discussion here. First, let's start from the root: the definition of city proper. I checked out the wiki article on this term, and it seems to define it as the territory falling under the control of a municipal government. If we apply this definition, then why when it comes to Shanghai, we have to stick to the core districts and some adjoining urban areas? My only guess is that some believe that beyond the urban core, Shanghai is mostly idyllic farms, with pigs running around, and with satellite towns dotting the landscape here and there, unconnected to Shanghai's urban core. My experience in Shanghai tells me that this notion is simply silly. Surely that many of the outlaying districts are mostly farm lands, but what most people have not had the chance to see with their own eyes is how expansive the urban area of Shanghai is from its Pudong and Puxi core. Unlike NYC-Newark, where one can discern where NYC ends and where Newark begins, Shanghai's urban area is contiguous, without break. One cannot discern any "satellite" towns or districts at all. It is an eyeball-to-eyeball jungle of concrete buildings. At the urban core, you have the CBDs, with their obligatory skyscrapers, and further out, the height of the buildings gradually decrease, until miles and miles out, to become four story buildings. This massive swath of civilization (no farmland here to break up the urban jungle) is where the vast, vast majority of Shanghai residents live. It is only after you get beyond this outer limit of four-story houses, that you encounter farm land, which runs continuous out to the municipal boundary of Shanghai. This "outer-belt" of arm land is indeed sparsely populated, but even if you are to exclude it from the population count, Shanghai at most would lose one million residents. In fact, the latest Chinese figure has Shanghai's population at around 19 million. Gazetteer's number is much lower, and I believe this is because Gazetteer had already cut out the "rural" and the "floating" population. In fact, Gazetteer's figures is pretty close to the number of Shanghai residents who registered with the Hukou system.

Another reason people might be confused about how to define Shanghai is that the Chinese call it a provincial-level city. This term has nothing to do with Shanghai's size or population. It simply denotes Shanghai's status as a priority for economic development, and as such, it is purely an economic term, denoting its importance to be on-par with that of a province, with equal priority for securing funds and subsidies as the provinces. One should not get the impression that the Chinese turned a province arbitrarily into a city and decided to call it Shanghai.

I'd be more worried about the actual population in Mumbai. My experience informed me that more than 60% of Mumbai's population live in slums, and more than half of the slum population are residing in Mumbai illegally, meaning that their places of residence has been acquired illegally through squatting. If we take this into consideration, then Mumbai's population should drop by at least three million.

I hope I had expressed clearly my justifications for moving Shanghai to the top of the table.

By78 (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut Meetup: You are invited!

The 2nd Connecticute Meetup will take place on April 18th, 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please state whether or not you can attend on the meetup page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) because your name was on the invite list. 16:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Largest European cities and metropolitan areas - Manchester - Again

Hi,

I am concerned regarding the validity of the data regarding the so-called Manchester-Liverpool area. A number of users have expressed the same concern and I would like you to shade some light on those contested figures. Please do engage in one of the discussion #9, #18 or even on this very page.

Kind regards, Ghaag (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Given your substantial involvement in this article I though you might be interested to participate in the mediation cabal about a disputed fact.

Ghaag (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually let me tell you that I quite like the way the article is going.

Thanks,

Ghaag (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

I'm a little confused with your edits. Redirects are fine in the short term since they work, but they are also slow and it doesn't hurt to fix any if they are found. I fixed the one on the wikiproject because it encourages people to use them, which it shouldn't; this is the while reason for the piped links. What reason do you have to revert? If I want to be helpful and fix it, I can, if you want to leave the redirects that you find, then that's fine, but lets not be counterproductive. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My main goal was to fix the city names and that horrible template formatting that was there. I fixed the others because I was already editing. Reverting doesn't make it better either since that doubles the amount of work the server did with my original edit. Basically by fixing the city names on that example, we will be avoiding the creation of more unnecessary redirects. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

USRD-CRWP Cup

You have been eliminated from the USRD-CRWP Cup. Thanks for participating! I plan to have another contest within a few months; stay tuned to WP:USRD/B for updates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Fort Devens (CDP)

You proposed the merger, on which I've now commented; would you please explain your reasons for proposing it? Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Population of Moscow

Regarding your recent edits. The total population for the city and metro area, including legal residents and illegals, is over 15,000,000. Not 10,000,000 as FALSELY stated in the infobox. I have reverted your edit, as I have provided evidence for my claim (see Discussion page for the article). --142.33.70.202 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Metro etc

I noticed that treat these articles as your property [2], [3], [4]. Calm down, Wikipedia is not your property. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. LUCPOL (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to try and maintain a semblance of integrity in these lists that people seem to want to use the biggest definition possible without regard to the definition. --Polaron | Talk 01:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Exist great metropolitan area in Poland and Czech Republic (5 million). Lies in within Upper Silesian Coal Basin (pl: Górnośląskie Zagłębie Węglowe). A European source is given 5 294 000 (European Spatial Planning Observation Network). Please stop reverting. LUCPOL (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and according to that source the metropolitan area is onl7 3 million. The million figure is for a wider region consisting of five different metropolitan areas. Please do not blindly just use the largest figure you see without understanding what it means. --Polaron | Talk 12:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

---

I repeat: I noticed that treat these articles as your property [5], [6], [7]. Calm down, Wikipedia is not your property. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Any changes to these articles are your thoughts. You think that these articles (metro, urban etc) are your. You reverted teens editions of other users. The end of this. LUCPOL (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, leave articles about Silesia (Katowice, Ostrava, Upper Silesia area etc), I forget about the matter. If not I will be forced to react to your "monopol business". I should be restored the versions by others users [8], [9], [10]. This is final ultimatum. LUCPOL (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot that only you are allowed to edit these things. --Polaron | Talk 13:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I will undo your edits in the all articles about metro, urban etc. I asked, did not. You broke ultimatum, ok. I am able to function for long months. This is end your monopol in this articles. LUCPOL (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Without regard to whether the edits are undoing obvious vandalism? Good luck.

I have a question - why do you that? Do not have a better peace? I give you one more chance. Please, leave articles about Silesia (Katowice, Ostrava, Upper Silesia area etc), I forget about the matter. LUCPOL (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We should use statistical figures carefully. You're mxing up various things. --Polaron | Talk 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Violations of copyright

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Violations of copyright [11], [12]. You can only to move the article with the history of changes from original article. There is no other option. Do not move the content without the history of changes. This is vandalism. Please, read license of Wikipedia - GNU Free Documentation License or you ask one of the administrators. LUCPOL (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The metro area article is a new article. Since the new article mentions the urban area, the redirect from the urban area article is appropriate. You're still mixing up concepts and using statistics inappropriately. --Polaron | Talk 15:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

LUCPOL edit warring

Just now I'm discussing with LUCPOL at this question. He claims his poor English is the reason, but I don't think so. I'm talking with him in Polish (his native language but his mothers tongue he claims Silesian). I'm trying to mediate between you and LUCPOL.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hello, tell the idiot in Talk:List of cities proper by population why we use "Greater London" as a city proper. Better yet, tell him what I already told him, that after much consideration, this is a decided issue. We're using London's regional government as its "city proper" and that's the end of that. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Annual growth

Hi, according to the same source the province had an annual growth of 9.08%. doesn't this explain the reason of such a population growth? Ellipi (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

World Gazetteer appears to have simply used the difference between the 1997 census and a 2003 estimate and calculated a growth rate extrapolated to 2009. You're saying that the province has been growing at a sustained rate of 9.1% every year for 12 years now. Also, the total population listed there for the country is way over most other reliable estimates. Find an official source for your figure. --Polaron | Talk 15:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no updated official source; a census is going to take place later this year. I personally have no idea if the figures given in Gazetteer are right or wrong. Thanks. Ellipi (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

Dont take all the credit for the Bradley airport Connector DYK. I created the SSR 441 article which you changed into the B.A.C! Amlnet49 —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

Area of Karachi

I'll make you a deal - i wont revert the (probably) erroneous info on the List of metropolitan areas by population page, if you will please respond to the questions and irregularities on the talk page for the same article. The info on Karachi is evidently wrong - A metro area cannot be smaller than the city proper. The note in the article says dont make changes without discussing on the talk page, so i put this and several other questions there. I noted in the Summary section that the reason for the edit was described on the talk page. I got no response to good faith questions. Help me out - Thanks! Nothingofwater (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Naugatuck, Connecticut

Hi. Please do not add or re-add unsourced material to Wikipedia articles, as you did with this edit to Naugatuck, Connecticut. WP:Verifiability requires all material in articles to supported by verifiable, reliable sources cited explicitly in the text of the article, and not in a different article. As indicated here, other articles cannot be used as sources. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Polaron, please read WP:V. All material added to articles must be supported by reliable, verifiable third party sources cited explicitly in the text. It does not matter if the material is "well known" or if it's in a history book. The source must be given in the article. Adding or re-adding material without a source is a violation of WP:V. When we say "Unsourced" we do not mean that the material is untrue, or that no sources exists anywhere to corroborate. We mean that that source(s) in question are not in the article. Please do not revert it without a source. Nightscream (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Polaron. The Goodyear article itself did not have a source for his emigration to Naugatuck, so I went and added the sources you found to that article too. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of New York

I appreciate your contributions to this article, however having a post office inside a hamlet and the USPS using a hamlet name for that ZIP code does not mean the USPS recognizes certain hamlets, same with the census bureau and CDPs. You may want to read ZIP code, there is an entire section on that article dealing with this very issue and will explain in detail the USPS's stance. You may want to read other relevant articles on CDP's and post offices, they will illuminate more clearly the difference and why ZIP codes and CDP's are specifically NOT endorsements of hamlets or boundaries or recognition. I hope this helps and if you have further questions feel free to ask. I think reading those articles and checking their sources may be of great use to you. Thank you and I hope there is no hard feelings on my revert on your edit.Camelbinky (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

MD 295 on Capital Beltway article

There's a common ground, but I couldn't fit it in the edit description, and I'm sorry but I have 0 time to talk about it right now. I'll shoot you a message later. I don't agree with how it looks right now on the article though. Google "Maryland Route 295" and just take a look at some of the things that give directions "From the Capital Beltway, take the B-W Parkway (Maryland Route 295) north..." etc. Until later, --MPD ^{T / C} 01:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Lock out By78

Can you lock out By78 from vandalizing the city propers' page? He keeps changing the Mumbai pic, and I'm not sure how to lock him out, or even if I'm able to do that. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of New York

I dont think you read my edit summary before reverting my edit. I agree that by definition a CDP can not be a part of an incorporated area (though technically that is not true, because towns in New York ARE incorporated, properly put you should state "by definition a CDP can not be a part of a municipality recognized by the census bureau"). The reason I removed that sentence is that it is already repeated AND cited a few sentences later in the article by the statement that a CDP can not be within a city or a village. And since everything in New York (except Indian Reservations) is within a town or a city the statement that a CDP cant be in a city or a village leaves only areas in a town outside a village. My edit preserves only statements that can be verified and sourced and allows the reader to make that leap for themselves, whereas your version keeps a statement that can be considered OR since it is synthesis of the later sourced sentence and the facts I stated above concerning NY being broken into towns and cities with no land outside it (except Indian Reservations).148.78.249.31 (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Mianus (neighborhood)

It looks like you had removed an AfD template that I had placed at this article, as well as another template (see diff). I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some other reason that you'd removed the AfD template...looks like it was on accident? thanks, _scootey^talk 09:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-consolidated cities

Your solution for the non-consolidated cities is unusual, but the situation is too, so thanks for being innovative :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not the most elegant way but it just nags me to have subtown cities being on the same level as town-cities. I have no strong feelings about it though since the template is mainly to aid navigation and not necessarily to describe the municipal hierarchy. If it is reverted, I won't really object. --Polaron | Talk 01:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read what a sock puppet is before you accuse people of it

Per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry it is ok to have multiple accounts or edit under IP address only, I am not doing any of the things listed on wp: sock puppetry that are against wikipedia official policy. I have retired the user: Camelbinky account, at least temporarily, as Daniel Case (an admin) is on wiki-vacation and out of the country, he has agreed to look into harrassment against me on that account when he returns which is why I am editing under an IP address and did not wish for you or anyone else to harrass me so I did not advertise who I am, nor was I required to do so. I suggest you keep your comments on discussion pages to the relevant discussion topic per wikipedia rules on discussion page talk. Other people at my work and home do edit using these computers so do not put any sock puppet templates on any IP address of "mine" again please. I do not have to tell you who I am when I edit, I can have multiple accounts if I want, I am not making disruptive edits, vandalizing, or having a "good" account and a "bad" account, I am not making multiple votes in any polls, I am not making multiple supporting comments under different accounts or IP's, in fact since retiring Camelbinky I have made sure to mention that each of my IP accounts are all the same person when it is personally me talking. The fact I did not say they are also the same person (some of the time) as Camelbinky is not relevant nor needed nor required. You handled yourself poorly and I now get "attacked" or harrassed again because of this, I will add you to my complaint. I suggest you allow me to peacefully edit and contribute to wikipedia, you argue with me at every chance you have and somehow dont think the facts I give are truly facts, I dont know what you have against me, but I truly suggest you leave me alone.24.182.142.254 (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, I know it was obvious but as long as I was an IP address that person probably had a tougher time deciding to contact me at an IP address talk page or be as rude or anything to an IP address at any article talk page even if they suspected it was me. Unfortunately, now that my "cover" has been blown the person Daniel will be looking into for harrassment has contacted me again on my camelbinky talk page disregarding multiple requests by me to stay off my talk page, though this time to "apologize", I will probably just go back to using Camelbinky anyways now, and hope when Daniel can look into it the editor can be warned to stay off my talk page. I know there was no malice involved. I just had no way of contacting you privately so I too apologize for not being fully forthcoming.Camelbinky (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would again like to thank you for your understand and apology and to apologize to you again myself. You appear to be the only one who understood and treated me with good-faith after I explained my situation and I admit I was unduly rude to you, I hope you accept my apology, I truly just want to do what I love, having Asbergers I have been since I can remember obsessed with learning geography and history of the area in which I live and love so much. I just want to be left alone to edit and make these articles better and factual. I have no social skills (I know what a surpise, I bet you didnt notice). Thank you for your understanding and patience. If there is any way in which I may make this up to you dont hesitate to ask for a favor.Camelbinky (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Westminster

Thanks for catching the error at Westminster, Texas. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Naugatuck River Valley

Could you please explain to User:Gary.farrar on his talk page what he is doing wrong, using as simple language as possible? Simply reversing his edits without giving him some clearer instructions is leaving him puzzled and unenlightened (he even created his own content fork version), and he is driving the rest of us crazy on the Help Desk. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback is only for blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense

Hi Polaron. After answering a question at the help desk I happened upon a revert you had done in relation to the question and noticed you had used rollback for an edit that was not clearly vandalism, nonsense, or otherwise clearly unproductive. Please don't use rollback for reverts of any possibly good faith additions that don't meet that standard. Taking a look at your contributions over the last ten days here are some of the reverts edits that do not appear to me to be proper use of the rollback tool: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. I do not mean to imply that you shouldn't have reverted these edits, just that a different method was in order, at best, with an explanatory edit summary.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(City, State) vs. (State) for disambiguation

I noticed your move of West Hill Historic District (West Hartford, Connecticut) to West Hill Historic District (Connecticut). I don't care much about just one article, but there are many thousands of NRHP articles using (City, State) form of disambiguation, which I happen to think works better. Among other things, it is awkward to refer to the article, say in a DAB page like West Hill. With the former approach, it can just be listed as "West Hill Historic District (West Hartford, Connecticut)", listed on the NRHP in Connecticut. With the latter, you have to explain where it is, because (Connecticut) isn't good enough, so: "West Hill Historic District (Connecticut), in West Hartford, Connecticut, listed on the NRHP in Connecticut". I think i have more reasons too. Actually there does need to be a big discussion, somewhere, about these approaches vs. using commas instead of the parentheses, as has been done for many historic places articles in England and elsewhere. Let me know if you want to be involved in a big discussion about it. If you don't, that's fine, but then please don't move others. doncram (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would the dab page be required to identify the town it is in? The purpose of a dabe page is to choose between different entities with the same name. What's wrong with saying "West Hill Historic District (Connecticut), listed on the NRHP in Connecticut". The disambiguator should be a term that distinguishes the different entities and be as simple as possible. In this case, the state name is sufficient. For a similar situation, it might be worth looking at how high school articles in the United States are named, especially those that have a unique name in a given state. --Polaron | Talk 01:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Several similar moves were unnecessarily completed also. Several (Warren Harding High School, St. Paul, St. Bernard, Notre Dame) should NOT have eliminated the state in the title since those school names exist in other states. To make matters worse, NO effort seems to have been made to click on the "What links here" link and so pretty much all internal links still point to the originl page. I would suggest moving the articles back. There are more pressing needs on Wikipedia for editors to take care of.EagleFan (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:R2D. It probably makes more sense to actually link to the redirect anyway. Unless there is an article of the same name, there is no need for disambiguation. A disambiguation page is for article name conflicts. --Polaron | Talk 14:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, and this may or may not be different from what you mean, but diambiguation pages sometimes are built more to help prevent future article name conflicts, rather than current ones. There are many disambiguation pages having just one actual wikipedia article linked, but many probable-future-articles as redlinks now.

To underline a point that EagleFan is making, moving any of these pages does necessitate changes elsewhere. The (West Hartford, Connecticut) to (Connecticut) move would also require updating the disambiguation page West Hill Historic District, because disambiguation pages are supposed to show the actual, full wikipedia article names, not names hidden by redirects or pipelinks. I agree with EagleFan that moves merely to "simplify" using a less specific name seem low priority and/or unhelpful. doncram (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I found it amusing to encounter another editor advocating use of (City) rather than (City, State) disambiguation, at Talk:Saenger Theatre (New Orleans, Louisiana). There are 5+ entries on the Saenger Theatre disambiguation pages, two being in one state, so that probably drove his idea to use City alone, instead. doncram (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, city alone would probably work as well. This is already in use for a lot of neighborhood articles already. This is especially useful if the unqualified city name redirects or is the title of the city article. --Polaron | Talk 01:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Braintree

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Braintree, Massachusetts. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. .

Reverting others' changes more than once is not known as being a good way to 'gauge consensus.' EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors may warn anyone who has reverted a particular change more than once. 'Revert while discuss' is not recommended. Per WP:BRD it is better to treat the first revert as a sign that discussion is needed. The data is not very convincing, yet, so I don't see either party winning this argument without more references. The city vs. town issue must surely have been covered in Braintree newspapers, and to answer the question it should not require our readers to understand the subtleties of primary sources (like the charter). EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

List of countries by population silliness

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Izzedine (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? --Polaron | Talk 03:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You asked for the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs report to be used as a source after repeatedly erasing the IMF source, then after I added it, you reverted it again. That is bad faith behaviour and you are wasting my time. Izzedine (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You do not understand. The entire list is already mostly sourced to that report, an explanation of which I moved from the Reference subsection to the lead so that casual editors of the list would not be confused and assume the figures were unsourced. --Polaron | Talk 03:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The figures for Iraq don't match the report, I am now reporting you to administrators. Izzedine (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? It does match (30,747,000) p. 17. What are you talking about? --Polaron | Talk 04:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I included that figure [13], you kept reverting to a false figure [14]. Now why don't you explain why the IMF source shouldn't be used. Izzedine (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be misleading. That was before you changed it to the UN figure. All my subsequent edits did not change the 30,747,000 figure. Look at the article, it's still there now. --Polaron | Talk 04:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Up until my inclusion of the source you insisted on, you had already reverted my edits countless times. You didn't even bother responding on my talk page when I agreed to change the source. Izzedine (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not countless, I can count it quite easily :) Also, I didn't realize I was required to respond to your talk page for every edit you make. Anyway, I think we're all good now, right? The article is back to its original state. --Polaron | Talk 04:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

One can be forgiven for not checking on the 5th and 6th reverts. When you leave a note on my talk page rejecting my source and proposing another source, then I agree to use that source, a concensus is formed following your acknowledgement of my concession. Izzedine (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You're being misleading again. I did not revert that many times. After you restored the UN source, I only moved a chunk of text from a bottom section to the lead. You were the one inexplicably reverting any change that I did to make the general sourcing clearer. It was clear you simply reverted blindly. --Polaron | Talk 11:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

1: [15], 2: [16], 3: [17], 4: [18]. I'm not interested in bickering about it. We found a concensus in the end. Izzedine (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Again you're being misleading. Those were all restorations of the long-standing UN data, which you finally agreed to. But even after you yourself put in the UN data, you still reverted my clarifications blindly saying that what I was doing was vandalism without even checking my changes. I don't know why you say that I keep reverting to a false figure. --Polaron | Talk 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Conversation over. Izzedine (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute

Hi there! Just a small note; I've left a note here pertaining to you, if you'd like to comment. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback ability disabled

Hello again Polaron. I have removed your ability to rollback edits. Following my post higher on this page I was hoping you would take the clear provisions of rollback use to heart. Yet your revert here is another instance of improper use. Not only could you not know from that edit whether it was vandalism or nonsense, but it turns out that not only was it made in good faith, but it was apparently correct. Again, this is not to say that you definitely should not have removed that edit—it was an unsourced addition with no edit summary—but it wasn't vandalism or nonsense or anything even close. Your two reversions before that look like test edits and not vandalism. The one immediately before those, here may be wrong but looks like good faith to me. The one before that is another reverted good faith edit, and here's another, and another. I'll arbitrarily stop there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area Last: 03/29/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Check this out

[19] It's the 1920 report of the New York state highway commissioner to (apparently) the remainder of the state government. I'm still reading through it, but it appears any route that has an internal state highway designation under 5000 was initially a "county-maintained state highway". It also appears that the legislative routes—one of which, Route 3 (US 9W), is referenced in a section on a bridge over Rondout Creek—were all assigned SH designations in the 5000s.

What seems to back this up is the text describing Route 43 (32 and 29 between Stillwater and Schuylerville) in the 1919 highway law. Its northern end west of Schuylerville is given as a junction "with county highway number two hundred and forty-four". I checked the DOT topo of Schuylerville; sure enough, the internal SH designation of NY 29 from the western Schuylerville village line to the Saratoga Springs city line is 244. So I guess sometime between 1920 and the 1930 renumbering, the state took control of all of these roads? That's how it seems, but I'm speculating heavily.

As for the legislative routes, I took quick samplings of legislative Routes 43, 25 (50 and US 9), and 37 (29) on the Schuylerville, Quaker Springs, and Saratoga Springs quads. Route 43 is SH 5205, 5230 and 5277 from the vicinity of the modern 32/423 junction through Schuylerville to the eastern terminus of SH 244. Route 25 is 5062 inside Ballston Spa but has sub-5000 designations everywhere else. Route 37 is 5711 and 5713. A visible portion of Route 37-a (67) is 5534. However, the sub-5000 parts of 25 are noted as being part of Route 25 in the log for Saratoga County in the back of the report as "county highways" (county-maintained portion of a legislative route?).

I posted a lot of this on IRC, but I wanted to post it here as well to ensure that you saw this as I think this could be a pretty big development. It definitely brings us one step closer to a "history of state highways in New York" article and could explain why so few highways were numbered in 1924. – TMF 04:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, credit to finding this report goes to Mitchazenia - I saw the report linked on NY 321 earlier tonight as I was doing article cleanup. – TMF 05:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

More that I've found: after reading on, I'm not sure who maintained the "county highways" - the state appears to handled and coordinated all construction work on them, but on another note Appendix A explicitly lists eight roads that were constructed by counties then transferred from the county to the state. These have SH numbers of 9000-7. This still appears to be the practice to this day: NY 444 (transferred in 1996) is SH 9557 north of Bloomfield and NY 317 (2003) is SH 9544 (why 444 has a higher number I have no idea). Three other highways were built with "special appropriations" and given SH designations in the 9100s. Federal aid highways were given designations in the 8000s and appear to have been state-maintained.

Sorry for dropping all of this on you, but I just felt the need to get some feedback on all of this. =) – TMF 06:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Massachusetts

I completed the main list with citations. I don't know if we still need the next list, "cities by official name", kill it if you think it's covered by the main list. It is a good source of city websites, so may be useful. There are some formatting tweaks that could be done, and the matter of now having merged the "list by population" into the main list cleared up. I'll get back to finalize the references for the main list with cite templates unless you can take care of that. This has been needed for quite some time, I'm grateful that you have taken it on. Sswonk (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for finishing the list. It is a bit tedious but the new format, I think, makes the list much better than before. I'll try to work on whatever needs to be cleaned up I can whenever I have some free time. --Polaron | Talk 11:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to do it. However, please ignore what I wrote above about "killing" the list by official name, as it is now being referenced by the Administrative divisions of Massachusetts article which I edited for agreement with the list of municipalities. Sswonk (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged changes

Stop claiming that these communities status' have changed without providing a source — you well know that nothing may be added without a cited source present. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See the U.S. Census Bureau Geographic Change Notes or the GNIS Database. You have this bad habit of reflexively rolling back my edits even after I've told you where to look. --Polaron | Talk 01:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to cite this source? Why should I place a facttag when there's already a source on the article saying what it is? So the source is outdated, but I don't have time to do this — that's your responsibility to cite it. Let me remind you that if an IP or a new user added information that contradicted all relevant sources on the article, you would revert the edits as long as they continued to be made. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if the information was wrong. But the thing is you know the information is correct and you know what the source is. So what if it is not currently in the article? I don't get why you prefer to have outdated information that you know is outdated just because the citation is not currently linked to within the article. The information is verifiable. --Polaron | Talk 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you verify it; I don't have the time. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It is verified - just look at the Census Bureau boundary changes list. Whether or not it's in the article is not a reason for reverting. You know the changes to be verifiable. If you can't stand it being uncited *in the article* then just add cite needed tags and someone with time will add them later. --Polaron | Talk 19:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And now you're retaliating, very classy. --Polaron | Talk 19:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that I'm done with my college semester, I finally have the time to do your work for you. And no, it's not verified unless there's a source present on the article. As far as facttags, they're inappropriate when there's already a source on the article that's contrary. What would you do if you saw an article that said something was one way and a source that said something contradictory? Be aware that continued addition of information without sources, especially that information that violates all sources present on the article, is disruptive and will receive the same reaction from me regardless of who posts it. Why don't you do the work next time instead of making me do it? Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As I begin the process, I observe that you didn't even change the infobox data for multicounty communities or the county template/category information where appropriate. Why didn't you do anything to support your own changes? Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'm a vandal. I never make constructive edits. Thanks for playing. --Polaron | Talk 03:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing practices

Polaron -- I reviewed a couple of Connecticut NRHP-listed historic district articles/redirects and judged that it is appropriate to change how a couple of them (Pomfret Street Historic District and Quinebaug Mill-Quebec Square Historic District) are handled. It dismays me somewhat to encounter seemingly instant reverting on your part to some of my changes. You might have different information, not yet shared, which might inform you differently than the information that I am basing my edits on. But I would appreciate your discussing and sharing such information. I am hopeful that you are not trigger-happy for an edit war based on minor differences in judgement, when getting more real information out in the open could better help settle matters. Could you please discuss the specific situations at Talk:Quinebaug Mill-Quebec Square Historic District and, i guess at Talk:Connecticut Route 169 (although it could be relevant to talk at Talk:Pomfret, Connecticut or at least link from there).

While editing this note, i think you are in fact commenting at one or the other. And now you seem to be making wholesale changes at Pomfret, Connecticut article. I will back off for a while and let you finish whatever you are trying to do now. But, I would ask that in the future that you allow me the similar courtesy, rather than butting in to revert and in effect mess up some edits in process. Let me know when you are done, and/or i'll wait a day.

And, let's just be decent about this, okay? doncram (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your issues as I have been discussing with you. I have even removed the NRHP infobox in the Route 169 article and improved the Pomfret town article structure. I simply moved the district description out of history as it doen't really relate to the history of the town. You are merely describing the town center so it is more appropriate to include it in Geography. Do you contest that logic? --Polaron | Talk 04:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Pepperidge Farm in Fairfield, CT

Hi - Pepperidge Farm had a small bakery in Fairfield over 60 years ago. Even though it says Former HQ on the Notable & Distinctive Companies of Fairfield, it seems misleading and out of place. They are linked to Norwalk. Let me know what you think. Thanks, eb carrier —Preceding unsigned comment added by EBCarrier (talk • contribs) 01:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Township No.

Thanks for the note; see my comment. Nyttend (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Polk County, Iowa

Thanks for noticing and fixing my error (I apparently didn't notice that a new reference had been supplied); but next time, would you please explain why you're reverting instead of simply hitting the undo button? Nyttend (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

CDP's

Hey!

Just was wondering, figured id collaborate with you on this instead of getting into a pointless edit war with each other, don't you think that Connecticut CDP's should be distinguished from other unincorporated villages in Connecticut's county templates? I know in the county templates of Wisconsin and all of the New England states (except for Maine) define CDP's from other unincorporated communities. Just saying. Oh, and the Fairfield County page is really excessive so im debating breaking it up some time this summer when I have some spare time into sub articles all linked together through a template just like with major cities on Wikipedia such as new york and LA, as to not discourage readers by the page's immense size, just wondering your input on that weather you think it is necessary or not?

Thanks, Kotosb (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dead references

FYI, I manually undid this change, per WP:DEADREF. I also checked web.archive.org, which wasn't terribly helpful. (and, that IP is, uh, interesting. Do you know where those numbers even come from?) Cheers, tedder (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Connecticut CDPs

I think ive got what your saying. But by "if the CDP and non-CDP distinction is locally significant in a state, then it might make sense to list them separately.", would that meen people in a community refer to their community as a CDP just like how people in Bridgeport, Connecticut for instance refer to their community as a City; or an unincorporated community such as Mysic, Connecticut is often distinguished by both residents and visitors as more of a town-like community apart form other unincorporated communities? Also, is what you are saying basically that only significant CDPs should be distinguished from other unincorporated communities, while other insignificant CDPs should just be listed as unincorporated communities?Kotosb (talk 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that whether a village happens to be also a CDP or part of a CDP is completely artificial, especially in New England. My stand is that CDPs do not need to be separated at all. Being a CDP just means the community participated in the statistical areas program and hence the Census Bureau tabulates data for it. It does not otherwise affect a village's local identity. Does the fact that Mystic is a CDP mean it is a more important community than say Southport, which is not? --Polaron | Talk 23:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)