User talk:Nyttend

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

Barnesville Petroglyph

I think I simply sent the following response to my User talk rather than to you. As indicated I am not yet comfortable with the Talk process:

Thanks for the additional help and I will try re-editing the Barnesville Petroglyph article. It is not so much Swauger whose conclusions were incorrect but he did complicate matters by including the designs on the second ("lost") rock, which he later found. The 113 number (he also uses 114 on one of his diagrams), for example, actually includes the designs on both rocks. I think this is clarified in the Ohio Archaeologist article, which is, incidentally, available on the web, if you google on "Murphy lost Barnesville."

Yes, that is my COS profile and I certainly don't mind identifying myself. I am still somewhat perplexed by how the Talk function works but gather that "editing" is "replying."

One question: when I am prepared to re-edit the Barnesville Petroglyph article, it would be simpler to Undo your edit and re-edit my previous version, since you essentially restored the original. This this considered acceptable?

Jim Jlmurphyosu (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlmurphyosu (talk • contribs)

Thanks for restoring the Barnesville Petroglyph edit. There are a few things I will add/change. The confusion over the number of carvings on each rock remains. Also the "charcoal" vs. black paint. And I will indicate ownership by the Archaeological Conservancy. Thanks for your help with this. Jim Jlmurphyosu (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy of tsunami article

G'day from Oz; regardless of the usefulness of the article, the creator is one of about two dozen sockpuppets of User:Ryan kirkpatrick. Another admin has deleted two other just-as-useful articles created by BriitshNO1. As far as I can tell, deleting such articles is WP policy; don't you think that it's time to get tough on this guy? YSSYguy (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you declined the speedy deletion, the only editors of the article apart from your good self have been IP socks of Ryan. YSSYguy (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fraunhofer diffraction calculations

I have twice tried to create a subuser page in which to develop this article. It was deleted first time before I got a chance to put anything in (I had to rush away for my dinner!!). I did put an explanation in the talk page hoping it would be undeleted, but got no reply.

I then created it with a slightly different (corrected) name and added the stuff I've written so far. But now I find it has been converted to a full article, which I certainly did not want as there is much work to be done,and I haven't fully checked the mathematics. I have put a note to that effect on the page, but would really much prefer if it existed as one of my sub-pages, as I don't want anyone to waste their time going through mathematical derivations which are wrong.

I obviously have not got this sub-page business! Though I have created two without any problems, so is this jsut down to minor errors on my part?

I'm not sure who did the conversion as it appears that you deleted it.

I don't want to commit a Wiki-sin but what I would really like is to have my sub user-page back. Can you help.

The new page is at link to the live page

ThanksEpzcaw (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Obviously all my fault - I intended to create a sub-user page, but didn't.

I see that you have now put it in its proper place - thanks.

I need to find out again how to create a sub-user pages. Not always easy to get information on Wikepedia, I find. But will try harder....... Epzcaw (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell County Citys

Hi, I have edited the Mitchell County Municipalities again. I live in the area and have great understanding of the countie's geography, as well as Mitchell County's Historical Records. Sales City is a incorporated city in norntern Mitchell County. It is self governing. Meigs is not shared with Mitchell County at all, however Vada is shared with Decatur County. All other locations are unincorporated and clearly identified by road markers on the major Georgia highways. --Violeta123321 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell County considers Sales City to be a city such as Camilla and Pelham. Upon entering the area it has a 'city limits' sign, but if the census considers it a town I understand. Vada is most definatly in Mitchell County if Meigs is, half of Vada is in Mitchell County. The county doesn't consider Meigs to be a part of Mitchell County. I find it odd that the census would, considering that if a part of it sits over the county line it is a very small part. Then again many rural areas of counties have out-of-county adresses. Anna, Baker County, for instance has a Leary, Ga adress...even though it's no where near Leary. Technically if the census deems it to be a part (a very small part) of the county it should be included. Thanks. --Violeta123321 (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If 'city' and 'town' are interchangeable, why does it matter if Sales City is considered a 'city' instead of a 'town'? I know that the Mitchell County part of Meigs isn't an unincorporated town. My example was of how out of county citys can have adresses in the area's home county. I've never seen this city limit sign, I'll have to investigate. I would trust the cenus with these matters, however, In many of my regional studies Google maps are highly incorect in South West Ga, as it seems to be in other rural areas. (Roads that no longer exist, county roads with wrong names/no names, incorect town location...ect.) --Violeta123321 (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Interesting, I'll have to ask the Mitchell County municipalities department why this is. (considering they themselves don't condsider it a part of the county) As far as the legality issue, I've always heard Sales City to be considered a city due to its incorporated status, but I'll put more research into it. (And I'll take your word for it. :) ) And it's no problem, sorry I missunderstood the 'unoffical terms'. It can be hard to keep up with the incorporation and unincorporation of our municipalities, as they cange ever so often. Towns dry up quickly and become unincorporated and city and town limits are always expanding and/or shrinking. If you drove into our area's largest city, Albany, from Gillionville unincorporated you would see three 'Albany City Limits' signs. Only one, however, is correct. (It is the last one, everything before it falls into the municipality of Gillionville) It isn't hard to tell that regional studies students and historical society workers as my self can get very confused! Thanks for the help. --Violeta123321 (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommonsNotificationBot issue

Unfortunately, due to rate limit issues I'm only monitoring the categories the deletion is placed in - getting the reason from the tag at this stage caused the bot to slow to a crawl (making it a bit useless). I am working on resolving this issue - but I will update the template it places to make this clear in the mean time. Thanks! --Errant ^(chat!) 12:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay; since this is what you meant it to do, no complaints. The bot is a great idea; thanks! Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) If you have any other ideas for improvement please do let me know. Sometime next week I hope to find a free hour to add some new bits. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnesville/Tower sites

The Barnesville Petroglyph site was purchased by the Archaeological Conservancy (I think in 1999). That is one of the things I want to add to the Barnesville Petroglyph entry but I am not sure how soon I'll get back to revising it; I may have to do it piece-meal. The site is readily accessible and often visited by local people without permission. I got permission kind of after the fact, at least after my first visit, from Josh McConaughy who is with the Conservancy's Columbus office. I remember chiding him somewhat about preserving the carvings but there is no practical way of doing so without inviting vandalism.

As for the Tower Site, I think it is still owned by a coal company. I believe it was R & F Coal but they went out of business. There actually aren't many coal companies left in southeastern Ohio but I will have to check into who owns it now.

Jim Jlmurphyosu (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forum User subpages at MFD

And tell me why you think this gets a free pass from WP:STALEDRAFT, particularly since Forum User hasn't edited since 2007. Oh wait, IT DOESN'T. Get your head on straight. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i'm sorry, that was over the line. But still, what makes you think the page circumvents WP:STALEDRAFT? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE:All your Franklin County photos

Thanks for the message! I was bored one weekend and I noticed how many NRHP locations in Franklin County were missing photos. It's become something of a scavenger hunt now. Thank you for fixing the title of the Galbreath mound. The Cannon and Galbreath are very close and I got them backwards. Hopefully I'll have some photos of the Cannon Mound soon. I also have photos and information on the Coe Mound but it's one of the few on the NRHP that's really not been publicly identified so I was wrestling with if I should release that information or not.

PS let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. I'm very new to contributing to Wikipedia and it's got a little bit of a learning curve. :) - wdzinc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdzinc (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres in Libya

I find a list with one item rather useless: List of massacres in Libya. The only item in the list lacks a source, and the number is actually a very broad estimate that's based mostly on the account of a single former detainee. Also, I doubt that people will be able to come up with more credible items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StopWarCrimes (talk • contribs) 12:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying! StopWarCrimes (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of William Van Wagoner

Hello! Your submission of William Van Wagoner at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Drmies (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you seriously think that all that Midwestern editing could keep anyone awake? But I'm sleepy too, and I'll look in more detail at y'all's comments later. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP Wade Park

Look, I understand what you and EurekaLott are both saying, but the fact of the matter is that A)Wade Park doesn't have a separate article right now, and B)The NRHP Infobox clearly states that it is Wade Park. I don't know how much time you've spent in Cleveland, but I'm from there, and the museum is located in Wade Park -- the park itself essentially serves as the museum campus, not unlike the section of Grant and Burnham Parks do here in Chicago. Wade Park's historic status owes as much to the museums that occupy it as it does anything else (Jeptha Wade gave the city the park property to build a museum on it).

As the founding member of WikiProject Cleveland, I'm asking you to leave the infobox in place for the time being at very least - until a Wade Park article can be constructed (I don't want it to just be some token stub). Thank you Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of James R. Wigginton

The article James R. Wigginton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability never established.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 01:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I dream of horses @ 01:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Park

The whole point is that the park is much more than the museum (it's more than 10% of a square mile), so it's a significantly different entity from the museum itself. Because there's no article on the HD, we shouldn't have its infobox anywhere at all. Granted, we shouldn't have a stub for the sole purpose of filling a hole, but we also shouldn't pretend that another article fills that hole either. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are partially correct in your assertion made in the edit summary for the Wade Park article - the park isn't the entire district, but you are also partially incorrect. You're saying: The park itself is not the district, and the National Register database indicates that the park isn't even part of the district where that I underlined is where you're erring. The NRHP website lists this: Roughly bounded by E. 105 St., East Blvd., Chester and Euclid Aves. , Cleveland ('650 acres, 7 buildings, 1 structure)'^[1]^[2] Unless we are looking at different NRHP websites, and you haven't either spent time in Cleveland or ,at the very least, looked at trhe area in question on the map, then you're not taking into account two three things: 1) the 650 acres includes Wade Park (Google Map it). 2) The name Wade Park District explicitly (and even implicitly if you're familiar firsthand with the history of Cleveland). 3) (and this is related to my second point regarding a familiarity with the history of Cleveland) Jeptha Wade's property, which is where Wade Park is and the heart of the district in question, was the seed from where all the buildings in the district sprung from. The CMA, Botanical Gardens, Natural History Museum and Severance Hall, which all are part of the district, would not be there if Wade Park wasn't set aside to be the cultural epicenter that garnered it's NRHP entry.

Lastly, given that any one of the buildings listed on the registry are technically part of the WPHD, there would be no false information by including the NRHP infobox on any of those articles -- which was my entire point of putting it on the CMA article in the first place. The infobox being clearly labelled as Wade Park District is not misleading by including it on a building that is part of the district. We could argue about this ad nauseam. But what's the point?

Of course I can make an entire article that covers the district specifically. But why just regurgitate the same stuff found in each individual Wikipedia article that exists for every building that is in the HD (including the Wade Park itself)? Bandwdith pollution notwithstanding, it is simply redundant. Or we could make it less redundant by simply putting the infobox in one of the articles already out there... and the Wade Park article being the namesake for the HD would make the most sense (the article is hardly complete, and could be expanded to include an entire section specifically about the HD and relationship bewteen the two)... and if not that article than the CMA which is the largest building in the HD, and the reason I put it there in the first. Either way, the underlying question in this argument that I have for you is this: how is it productive in our task as Wikipedians, and moreover as members of Ohio-specific Wikprojects, to keep adding and removing factual info from articles with direct relationships to the subject of our debate? Are we trying to make Wikpedia a more informative user-based encyclopedia, or are we nitpicking over how to make a piece of factual information, that is an important part of a large US City, available to those who are looking at Wikipedia for information? Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Martin Wines

On 10 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Martin Wines, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Martin Wines was the first state representative from Greene County, Indiana? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at 1972

Hi Nyttend, admittedly I didn't even try to check all the recent edits of 24.209.198.223, but the one you reverted at 1972 was a good edit – the anonymous user removed two red-linked names. Therefore I've reverted your edit to that page. Graham87 14:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's edits seem more like a mix of good and bad edits to me ... which makes things more frustrating. Either that or I'm not thinking straight. :-) Graham87 14:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized discussion of some census-related issues

Hi. With the 2010 Census data becoming a focus for a lot of editing activity, I think we need a US-wide discussion of editing conventions -- in lieu of the localized edit warring that's been happening in various articles and templates. I've started this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, which I think is an appropriate venue for it. First topic there is Describing/naming census designated places. Please participate in that discussion, if you see fit, and add more topics. --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request

I semi-protected for 2 weeks. Although it is not listed at GNIS, it may be that it does meet notability (have not had much time to look at refs). I also heard from and replied in some detail at User talk:Keizers#Re_Buford_Highway. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re; Barnhill picture

Thanks for the kind words. I was in Dover on vacation with my camera and had some free time, so thought I'd look to see if there were any pics needed in the area. It was a bit of a challenge, since I expected there to be a central business district; I drove through twice before spotting apparently the only public building (aside from a church and a storage business), and I was about to use a photo of the village limit sign instead.

I do have one semi-newbie question: I made some edits under my IP before registering ([1]) and would like to "claim" them now that I have registered. Do you know if that's possible, and if so, how to go about it? Floatjon (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was actually very helpful -- the redirects were good enough to do what I needed. Floatjon (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shakhtar Donetsk.png

Hi!Please,stop deleting this file.This image is not much larger(only 10 KB). Alex (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the file's size.(42 KB).Can i upload it???(you will not delete it???) Alex (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete File:Shakhtar Donetsk.png. I uploaded smaller one. Alex (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Alex95-Ukraine (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:FC_Dynamo_Kyiv_logo.png

Can you delete this file from Commons?? I uploaded on Commons smaller one. Alex (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elmendorf Air Force Base

I was trying to get the article renamed to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, which is now a #redirect, not move it into talk space :) The instructions were to put that notice on the talk page. Sorry if there were any confusion.

Regards Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

90% illustrated lists

If you know of any 90%+ completed lists, please add them to the list just below the fully illustrated NRHP lists. BTW, if you've noticed me recently spending more time BSing than adding content, I'm coming off the injured reserve list tomorrow. Smallbones (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jean Thurel

On 14 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean Thurel, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Jean Thurel (pictured) was a soldier in the French Régiment de Touraine for more than 90 years? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TDright.svg

Thanks for the delete and the tip on db-g7. Vanisaac (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next Children's Museum Backstage Pass

Hello! I wanted to personally invite you to The Children's Museum of Indianapolis' 2nd Backstage Pass and Edit-a-Thon, which will occur on Saturday, August 20. The Wikipedian in Residence project is coming up on one year and is going strong. While the first year focused on garnering institutional enthusiasm among staff, organizing multiple content donations, and guiding teens in research and article creation, the next year will focus on establishing an E-Volunteer program and more deliberately connecting with local Wikipedians and WikiProjects around the world. You can read a summary of our projects on the museum's blog, or visit the project page.

We hope you're able to attend the upcoming Backstage Pass! If you're not able to attend, but are interested in remaining involved and up to date on the museum's Wikipedia project, please sign up on our E-Volunteer page. There will also be an opportunity to participate in the Edit-a-Thon online, if you cannot attend on-site. If you'd like to make a request for images or research content from our curators, you can add to the Requests page. Let me know if you have any questions and I hope to be in touch! LoriLee (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry I did not reply sooner; I see that you did go ahead and sign up, which was going to be my suggestion. I will be checking in to confirm about a week prior, so it's no big deal if you have to decline. Though I hope that you are able to make it! If you have any questions in the meantime let me know. I will, however, be at Wikimania for the first week and a half of August, so will be less reliable at that point in time. Thanks for touching base! LoriLee (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understand. I'm thrilled that the event is on a Saturday this time so that more people can likely attend, though I knew that a summer weekend could pose its own problems. Safe travels in the meantime! LoriLee (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen that we got the Broad Ripple Park Carousel article to Featured Article? (Though only with User:Ealdgyth's help taking the project on! I'm pretty thrilled by that. We also have a QRpedia code up in that exhibit now. Glad you'll get to see it! LoriLee (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Van Wagoner

On 16 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Van Wagoner, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that bicycle racing champion William Van Wagoner (pictured) founded a namesake automobile manufacturing company? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

EncycloPetey (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopewell template Osborn Site

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

He iro 15:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell County, Georgia-Historical Towns

Hi,

I changed the 'ghost towns' back to 'historical towns' on the Mitchell County, Ga template. These areas are still populated, therefore not ghost towns. The areas were once vastly populated incorporated places, but now have dropped below incorporated and unincorporated. Saco, for instance relies on the nearest unincorporated town to vote (Cotton), although if asked the resident will say he/she is from Saco. The county considers them historically important and have published histories in the Mitchell County History Book...which I will add as soon as I get my hands on a copy! Anyway, I would consider 'historical town' to be more accurate, but I'm willing to listen to your reasoning if you think otherwise.

regards, v. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violeta123321 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, next time I'll add those into unincorporated communities. Thanks! :) --Violeta123321 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of residences in Emmerdale

You are receiving this notice because you are a significant contributor (at least two edits) this year to this article. The article has been tagged for months now as suffering from a number of problems. Fixing these is crucial to the very existence of the article. Notice of this was placed on the article's talk page in March of this year without subsequent response. Notice of this was placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Emmerdale at the same time, without subsequent response. This is a last ditch effort to get those people most interested in the existence of this article to fix the extant problems before it is placed for deletion. If you can, please address the article failings as highlighted in the warning boxes at the top of the article within the near future. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion

Hey buddy ... working on West Virginia. Glad to see the pics you added for the Wellsburg listings. While preparing Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion, it seemed to me that the pic posted on the list did not match the description since it doesn't look to be Spanish Colonial in style. See the pic included near the end of the NRHP nom form. From what I can tell, the pic you have on the Brooke County list page, File:Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion from the northwest.jpg looks more like the Lewis Hall Mansion, see pic in NRHP nom form Are you able to confirm this? Thanks in advance.--Pubdog (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Glad you had a fun trip! I see the "1312" on the front and agree you have the right address. Please take a moment to compare File:Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion front.jpg with the pic at the end of the Lewis Hall NRHP nom form. Now compare that with the Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion pic included near the end of the NRHP nom form. I think you'll agree something is messed up. Perhaps the addresses in the nomination forms, or perhaps they renumbered since 1985? I'm reluctant to include the pic you recommend in the Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion article.--Pubdog (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your File:Lewis Hall Mansion.jpg, that is the Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion. I can tell it is a Spanish Colonial and from what I can see from your pic, I can tell it has the tile roof, etc. It also looks very much to be like the Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion pic included near the end of the NRHP nom form. Please advise--Pubdog (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up on this. I posted a second look request at all this on WP:NRHP. I haven't run across anything else that seems awry.--Pubdog (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the pic category changes. I will refrain from doing more. Thanks for pointing me to the additional images of the Lucy Tarr Mansion. Added as Gallery to article. Cheers--Pubdog (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous behaviour

Blocking someone for 3RR without bothering to examine the content is lazy at best and malicious at worst. It is also desperately irresponsible and extremely stupid. I see that your userpage doesn't mark you as eligible for admin recall, and I must say I don't blame you for that decision if you're going to behave so foolishly: you'd be having recall requests every other week if your decision to block without checking out the situation was typical, and nobody would want that now, would they!
I'm very serious: don't ever block someone again unless you're willing to take the 90 seconds necessary to look into the facts.
As you will shortly notice from my userpage, I am leaving Wikipedia over this. Over your block. So when my various stalkers turn up to congratulate you, I hope that you at least will have the decency to look over my contributions to articles, to look over what I've done, and conclude that you are the individual who is responsible for my departure.
That's all, and now you may get back to whatever you're doing. ╟─Treasury Tag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 14:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked...

So,

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

:) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of residents

As far as I know, lists of people, be it alumni, residents, or members of a club, all follow WP:NLIST. As that guidelines says "every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group." {{alumni}} is simply a template used to mark all lists of people which don't follow WP:NLIST. You mentioned a "different process" for lists of residents, but I am not aware of such. Can you please point me to the guideline that says that lists of residents do not need to be sourced? Or maybe to the guideline that explains that process you mentioned? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nationwide, we base these lists on the content in the individuals' articles: their residency is verified there. Since the standard for alumni lists appears to be that citations are desired there, this template is inappropriate, since that's not the standard for lists of residents embedded in community articles. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand this standard. Can you please point me to relevant guideline? It seems to me that it goes directly against the very basic verifiability policy. I challange the entire list, so according to policy it "must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation" (my emphasis). The policy does not allow for another article as a source.

Practically speaking, I started going over the list, and Johnny Blatnik is a completely unsourced article, and specifically has no source that he ever lived in Bridgeport. Should I remove it from the list according to the standard? John Todd Zimmer is also completely unsourced. Charlie Wilson is sourced, but has no source that he lived in Bridgeport. Several of the other in the list don't have footnotes but may have sources, I did not check. Should I remove them all from the list?

Please don't take this as argument for the sake of argument. I really want to understand how this standard works. --Muhandes (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the way that we've always done it, and remember that policy is based on common practice: common practice is that we verify residency on the biographical articles. There's no reason to treat this article differently from the thousands of other communities with such sections. Of course, if you want to add citations to this section, I'll not complain :-) However, don't remove anything unless you challenge and remove information from the individuals' articles first. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say "common practice is that we verify residency", well, no one verified the residency, since the articles have zero sources for verifying with. They could be totally made-up. I still don't understand how this so called "standard" works, if the individual's article may be crap (and some of these are, no offense) and a community article can use the individual's article as evidence of residency, without even an iota of checking. I find it even stranger that there are facts in Wikipedia that cannot be challenged. That's not how I thought Wikipedia works. I don't see this "standard" documented anywhere, and I think if it went to RFC it would never stand. It seems to me like bad practice protected by people too lazy to fix it. On the other hand I'm not sure I care enough about articles dealing with US communities to go RFC or do something radical about it. If I did want to discuss it, where would suggest be the place? WP:USA? I may challenge the facts on individuals' articles in this case and remove them from the list, if I find myself bored. --Muhandes (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the way Wikipedia works is that we base our policies on the way we do things. It's not documented everywhere because essentially everyone except vandals (e.g. those adding themselves to lists or removing people for the fun of it; this is not a comment on you) follows it. As I said already, the place to challenge this is at the biographical articles, not at the community articles. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was quite a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people sections and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#References for Notable people among others. When I took the Kent, Ohio article through the FAC process, I had to have citations for notable people even when the article on that person also had a citation. Why? Because each article in Wikipedia should stand on its own. Many of the "citation needed" tags in city articles are because the article on the individual does not have a valid citation connecting the city to the person. If it does, that citation can (and should) be used in the city article too. Rather than just removing the citation needed tag, replace it with the proper citation. Just because something is common practice doesn't mean it's the best way. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers JonRidinger. Reading these discussions it seems (to me) like consensus was actually that citations are required, and citation needed tags should not be removed. Am I reading this correctly? I don't intend to remove any person from the list. I'll also add citations where I can do that easily. I think one {{alumni}} tag is better (aesthetically) than 11 {{Citation needed}}, but I can go either way. --Muhandes (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: seems like the discussion was mostly academic. In all cases where the article claimed residency, I could easily find a source. For the remaining four the individual's article does not claim residency. I removed one which appeared to be an error and left three that played for Bridgeport High School, but there is no evidence they ever resided in Bridgeport, and their article doesn't claim in either, because I was not sure what practice is in this case. --Muhandes (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's common practice, it's the consensus of those who are involved, so one or two people shouldn't go against it. FA reviewers will also chastise you for using hyphens in names such as "Firstname-Secondname House": it's definitely not the consensus of the large majority of people who work with these articles. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)I deal with alumni lists a lot (mostly at schools and tv stations), and Nyttend is correct in that verification at the target article is acceptable. WP:V does not require that everything be verified by an inline citation. However, having said that, if the target article does not have a citation for the residence, then the name should be removed from the list. It's not just that the name has to be bluelinked, its that it has to be verified somewhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have said anything if there were sources in the individual articles, I would have probably just copied them. The problem arose when Nyttend refused to even have a citation needed tag equivalent, ({{alumni}} in this case, which I prefer aesthetically, but would not mind replacing with 11 tags) when no source was available in the target article. If I understand correctly, JonRidinger above says a citation needed tag is appropriate in such a case and Qwyrxian now says even completely removing the individual is appropriate. Nyttend refuses to even show a tag, saying everything should be done in the target article. Are you sure there is a "standard" involved? --Muhandes (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is quite clear in two respects: 1) It requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material and 2) the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. In short, if an editor questions unsourced entries on such a list, the burden is on those who desire to include the entries to ensure that they are properly referenced. Practically speaking though, so long as each person's article contains a clear and sourced statement linking the person to the place, there is little cause for concern unless you are preparing the article for FAC or other such rigmarole. However, such list sections tend to accumulate much cruft and do need regular cleaning so it is perfectly reasonable for an editor to insist on inline citations for such a list. older ≠ wiser 13:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Former communities that aren't really ghost towns

Hey, I'm hoping you'll know the answer to a question. I just wrote an article on Choctaw Corner, Alabama and don't know to how it should be added (or if it should be added) to Template:Clarke County, Alabama. It is a former town that was abandoned (only a cemetery remained at the site), but it isn't really a ghost town because it was later absorbed by Thomasville and the site rebuilt with new subdivisions and the like. I added it to the county article simply as a "Former community." Any help appreciated. Altairisfar (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Talk page lurker here, speaking for myself, not Nyttend] There are myriad former places in the United States that aren't "ghost towns" (just look at a 19th century post office list!), so there are many potential opportunities to create lists of "Former communities." That's the term I recommend using in the county article. It seems odd to distinguish between two communities in Clarke County that are considered "ghost towns" and a third former place that is a "Former community." Why not list all three of them in the county article as "Former communities"?
As for the county template, I was not aware that anyone was using the county templates to list out-and-out ghost towns; I think of those templates as listing only places that have a recognizable (if not legally recognized) existence in our modern world. I am surprised to find that the template for my Tennessee county lists the forgotten community of Fork Mountain as an "unincorporated community," but there are other former communities (and communities whose current existence is debatable) in my local area (similar in many respects to Choctaw Corner) that aren't listed in the county templates. Examples include Blair, Tennessee, Cardiff, Tennessee, Elza, Tennessee, Loyston, Tennessee, Robertsville, Tennessee, and Wheat, Tennessee; I'd hate to clutter up the county templates with these kinds of places. --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Your line of thought makes perfect sense to me. I did change the arrangement in the county article, but I think I'll leave the template as is for now. Altairisfar (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That tells me what I needed to know. I'll leave it out of the template. This was the first time that I had come across this situation. If anyone thinks the county article needs rearranging or adjusting, I'll leave it to them. Thank you! Altairisfar (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Daker

Why was the John Daker page deleted? You seriously haven't heard of him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldizzle (talk • contribs) 01:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eynesbury Rovers

I've checked your comment about the second reference, but it seems all the info is there. The three claims are:

After World War II the club switched to the United Counties League.
In 1960–61 they failed to win a league match all season and gained only three points, finishing bottom of the league.
In 2000–01 they finished bottom of the Premier Division and were relegated to Division One.

The source states:

1946-47 Joined United Counties League
1960-61 EAST 32 0 [wins] 3 29 30 135 3 [points] 17/17 [position]
2000-01... 21/21 [position]... 2001 Relegated to Division One

Regarding the was/were situation, you can use both when referring to "the club", but if I was only to refer to "Eynesbury Rovers" I would have to use were. Cheers, Number 5 7 10:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On reading your comment on the T:TDYK page, have you assumed that all sentences prior to the ones referenced are also cited in that link? In order to clarfiy, I have cited the prior sentences to the first ref. Cheers, Number 5 7 10:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really a fan of referencing Honours sections as it somehow looks awkward, but I have now referenced every sentence in the prose that refers to trophy wins. I hope this is ok? Cheers, Number 5 7 12:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have cited the references section. Regarding page numbers, I do usually use them (see Cuban general election, 1924 as an example), but for some reason the Blakeman book does not have page numbers so I cannot on this occasion!! Number 5 7 12:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. There was a typo in the ISBN (it should be 9781908037022), but that doesn't show up either. However, you can see it here. I have also added the publisher (it is Progagator Press in Leeds, not ECFL as the library catalogue states). Number 5 7 13:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Number 5 7 13:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk back

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

Orphaned non-free image File:Emil Mihalik.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Emil Mihalik.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templat editprotect

Yes, what you did on editprotected {{IPA soundbox}} was as intended. Thank you. Was my request unclear? -DePiep (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Townships

A couple of years ago we standardized the naming of Pennsylvania's townships. There is a discussion to reverse this brewing at Talk:Horton Township, Elk County, Pennsylvania. I went back and found the original discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania. I just want to let you know since it seems you initiated the moves in the first place. Gerry D (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the personal attacks from Treasury Tag

Howdy,

I see you removed the personal attacks against you by Treasury Tag. As someone similarly slandered my view is that it would have been more appropriate to leave them - he's not (I think) going to cause Wikipedia any problems any more and perhaps as an act of mercy there's a certain dignity we can grant him by leaving that up.

While the analogy of the last meal on death row is a poor one in form, I feel in qualia it expresses what I mean.

Egg Centric 14:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DOON GROUP OF COLLEGES

hello.....i want help from u,because the article on DOON GROUP OF COLLEGES was copy/pasted by me from website of the college that is www.dpmc.in and that my college and i want that on wikipedia,i have tried 3 times but it is being deleted by diffrent persons can u please tell me how to overcome this situation,and create the page DOON GROUP OF COLLEGES by using the data from website..please

DOON GROUP OF COLLEGES

ok....can i now create the page DOON GROUP OF COLLEGES with my own information.....i am unable to create that page again..help

[1] ttp://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregsearchresult.do?fullresult=true&recordid=339

[2] ttp://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/oh/Cuyahoga/districts.html

[1]

[2]