Talk:List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut

Why we have a section on people who did NOT live in Ridgefield

Because some famous people have been widely thought to have lived in Ridgefield. In a book of short stories by Flannery O'Connor, for instance, Sally Fitzgerald states in the introduction that O'Connor rented a room above the garage from, Sally and her husband, Robert Fitzgerald. The introduction further states that the Fitzgerald's lived in Ridgefield. However, the fact is that they lived in Redding, according to Jack Sanders, editor of the Ridgefield Press. This should be footnoted so that it won't cause confusion (such as the edit war that's already started over this section). I'll provide a footnote for the O'Connor book and try to find something suitable to footnote from Sanders' research. It was Sanders himself who made the change. This is worth noting in this particular list because the assertion has been made that O'Connor and Fitzgerald lived in Ridgefield, and this is an ideal spot on Wikipedia in which to clear up that misconception. I have no idea why Sally Fitzgerald said she lived in Redding. The David Manning item should also have a footnote. Noroton 17:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The explanation is valid and makes sense. But I have no personal investment beyond the fact that when I see an anon IP address blank valid content and enterting into a revert war, that is not a good thing. If the anon IP would like to discuss this, then hey. All is good. But otherwise, their unexplained blankings should be treated as vandalism and the IP address page should get a warning. It also falls into the territory of the 3 revert rule. It happens one more time, and official notice will be made on the administrator notice board to end this once and for all. BaseballDetective 21:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The section is garbage and makes no sense whatsoever. No one is going to be confused because three relative nobodies incorrectly stated their address as being in Ridgefield as opposed to Redding in a rather obscure text. I have viewed many other "resident lists" on Wikipedia yet never before have I seen this ridiculous and laughable section. People don't need to know who didn't live in a town, I suggest you drop this issue now and let the section stay deleted unless you're willing to engage in an all out edit war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.129.76 (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Please see WP:CIV. Fitzgerald and O'Connor are not relative nobodies. Fitzgerald was one of the top translators of Ancient Greek in the 20th century and O'Connor's work has been republished in the "Library of America" series and is recognized as one of the top American authors of the 20th century. They would be prominent in people lists for nearly any town in America, although Ridgefield has an unusual number of big names, in part because it attracted a lot of famous people and in part because Jack Sanders, editor of the local paper, put a lot of the names into this particular article, and identified these two people as actually living in Redding. Since there's such prominence in all three names, and since it's been widely and incorrectly noted that they live in Ridgefield, it makes enormous sense to keep them on the list in just this way. Wikipedians are supposed to try to come to a consensus. What effort have you put into doing so? Noroton 19:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:IAR. How many people do you think are honestly confused as to the aforementioned writers places of residence? If someone wanted to find out where these individuals lived they'd simply search their name and clearly see that they resided in Redding. People who view the Ridgefield residents list are not interested in which individuals once erroneously claimed to live in town, no one checks residency lists to find out who wasn't a resident. The section is a total waste and will be removed whenever added. 69.118.129.76 19:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was confused and I initially put O'Connor and Fitzgerald on the list (if I remember right). Why do you want to make things difficult for readers? This is also good for readers who are browsing and who are interested in their town. If you edit war you will be reported. Noroton 19:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion, and 69.118.129.76's abusive and destructive behavior have been reported to admins. BaseballDetective 20:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You're a hero, but that still doesn't make the section any less ridiculous and unnecessary. It's two versus one, yes, but does that mean I can't remove a section of an article I deem to be a waste of bandwidth? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.129.76 (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia content is preffered to reflect consensus, not what is necessarily fact. If the majority of people believe it should be there, it should be there. Also, please do not worry about things such as bandwidth and speed, unless you are told to by a Sysop or dev. These things are not to be worried about to the average user. Also, best idea is to keep, its not doing any damage and a few spare bytes isn't going to do any damage - probably a few milliseconds extra load time on a dialup users connection, but I doubt they notice. If in doubt, don't remove. If it's contested by the majority, leave it be unless you want a major edit war (which I belive is starting, so let this be a warning to both parties involved) Thanks. TheFearow 09:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: Please be careful of WP:3RR when reverting, you have come close and this rule is taken seriously. Thanks! TheFearow 09:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(redent) I'd like to observe that the entire "argument" of 69.118.129.76 consists of abuse of other editors, threats to conduct an edit war (which he then followed through on) and assertions (rudely) made without backing them up with any reasoning or facts. These words, in turn, he has used to say that he's given his good-faith effort at stating his reasons for conducting an edit war. He is the only editor who has been deleting that section, and several editors have been restoring his deletions. Noroton 15:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (add link Noroton 15:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

I'd like to observe that the entire "argument" comprised by those in favor of keeping this section is, frankly, nonexistent. Is it true that these people did not live in Ridgefield? Yes, but does that mean it needs mention in an article about notable Ridgefield residents? I'd love to list the number of shops selling ice cream found in Ridgefield under the Ridgefield, Connecticut "History" section... if my information is true am I somehow entitled to add it? Of course not. Wikipedia seems to enjoy adhering to a more or less set format for articles, can you find me some notable examples of this nonsensical section in other "List of people from ****" pages? Three people (one fictional, might I add, which is another issue in and of itself) who didn't live in town are not deserving of their own section, especially when none of them are overly noteworthy. Also, again, I would like to see examples of me abusing and harassing other users. I'm not about to argue that my words aren't caustic and slightly rude as that is clearly their intent... but you should certainly have something to back up claims of harassment. —23:43, 21 May 2007 69.118.129.76

You've given no proof of any sort that Flannery O'Connor or Robert Fitzgerald are not noteworthy. Do a Google search and educate yourself. No one but you has mentioned the word "harassment" on this page. Rudeness, which you admit to, is a form of abuse. The purpose of list articles is to help the readers. Readers who think O'Connor and Fitzgerald lived in town would be helped by discovering that they didn't, despite what these readers may have read elsewhere. Since these are notable people, that section is worthy of inclusion. At some point the fictional reviewer may be such an old story that it deserves deletion, but it may deserve inclusion simply because it becomes a part of Ridgefield history. Hoaxes are often fondly remembered for decades. For now, that name should stay because it was recently prominent enough. Calling an argument "nonexistent" doesn't make it so. Fulminating is not arguing either. We don't need some prior Wikipedia tradition in order to include a section on people who are said to have lived in Ridgefield but didn't because (as far as I know) we don't have that problem elsewhere. But if the same situation comes up elsewhere, we could create a similar section for that list. Wikipedia, by the way, has no obligation to be consistent -- there's actually a guideline about that somewhere. I find it interesting that you cite WP:IAR at one point, but then fall back on a rigid interpretation of rules that don't exist at another point. Noroton 19:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Flannery O'Connor, while certainly an established writer, died in 1964. I'm not certain that too many Wikipedia users come here with incorrect knowledge as to her place of residence, and those who are curious about where she lived would simply visit her own article to find his out. Robert Fitzgerald, on the other hand, is most certainly a nobody in the grand scheme of things. He was not the first or last person to offer translations of famous Greek text and he didn't accomplish anything groundbreaking in his other professional positions. Neither of these people are noteworthy enough to deserve mention for not living in Ridgefield in an article about Ridgefield residents. It would be difficult to prove this but I sincerely doubt that there are people viewing the Ridgefield, Connecticut residents list who are confused as to where either of the aforementioned people actually lived. This information would be far better suited on their personal article pages as opposed to being placed in an irrelevant subsection. Speaking of "proof"... have you provided a link to any actual source to substantiate your Redding vs. Ridgefield claims? Please refer to WP:REF, this is another avenue which I shall pursue in an effort to keep the "non-resident" subsection off of the Ridgefield, Connecticut residents list. I am challenging the credibility of your claims, please provide a proper and verifiable source ASAP. Again, this section is completely pointless and serves no purpose, a list of people who didn't live in Ridgefield has no place on a list of actual Ridgefield residents.

Proof: Do the Google search for "Flannery O'Connor" and "Ridgefield" (295 hits on the Web, although some must be Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirror Web pages). That took all of 20 seconds, including typing this. Note the rather "official" and respectable Web sites (such as the one for O'Connor's home in Georgia) that mention Ridgefield. Keep in mind that O'Connor's time in Connecticut turned out to be pretty important: Sally Fitzgerald, Robert's wife, became something of a literary executor for O'Connor, compiling "Habit of Being" (O'Connor's collected letters) in '79 or so, and "Mystery and Manners" (O'Connor's essays) in '69 or so. You could learn more about that [here http://www.womenscenter.emory.edu/Women_News_and_Narratives/WNN_SP01/mageesp01.html]. Oh, about O'Connor dying in '64: Melville, Dickinson, Whitman and, um, most other famous authors died even earlier. The best literature tends to work that way: Ars longa, vita brevis and all that. When your books are in print 40-plus years after you kick the bucket and when studies about you come out all the time, that tends to make you a more important literary figure. And as for setting up some notability standard that Robert Fitzgerald doesn't quite reach, the common notability standard for these lists is whether or not the person has a Wikipedia article, and often other people who might in the future have a Wikipedia article are included on these lists (see other lists linked to at the bottom of this list). If anyone reading down the list knows anything at all about Flannery O'Connor, they've probably heard she lives in Ridgefield since that's what most of the sources say about her. In fact, if we didn't have that section at the bottom of the page, we'd probably find people adding O'Connor again and again and again over time, perpetuating the inaccuracy. Oh, and by the way, for someone who's a poet, it kinda makes you pretty notable if you've been your country's poet laureate.

You're making points that I've already answered: (1) The point is not to help people looking up Flannery O'Connor or the others, but to help people browsing about or researching Ridgefield. Those are the people who would come to this list. When some Ridgefielder who hears someone say "Didn't Flannery O'Connor live in your town?" he or she can respond, "Actually, she didn't ..." and even say why. (2) "this section is completely pointless and serves no purpose": You're just ignoring what I've already said. The purpose is to serve the readers: that's the point of all Wikipedia articles. The subject of the article is who lives in Ridgefield. When there's widespread misinformation on that point, one of the best two spots in Wikipedia to clear that up is exactly where that section now is (the other is in the biography article). You can continue to repeat yourself. In the future, I'll just reply by pointing out where I've already refuted your point. Noroton 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: Proof that the Fitzgeralds, and therefore O'Connor, lived in Redding: http://www.historyofredding.com/HRfamouspeople.htm Noroton 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are actual references to the two of them living in Ridgefield then perhaps you are mistaken in saying that they are Redding residents? Your link is to a website that takes user submissions about famous Redding residents, who is to say that they aren't incorrect/you didn't just submit that yourself? Yes, you're right, the subject of the article is who lives/lived in Ridgefield. The article is not about people who didn't live in town, just because something may be true (and, in this case, that's debatable) doesn't mean that it is worthy of mention, listing the author under their proper place of residence and making note of where they lived in their article (and, perhaps, this admittedly interesting bugaboo) is enough. You are not serving readers by providing information which they did not search for. Melville, Dickenson and the like are on a totally different level than O'Connor... no one is saying that she's not established enough to have a Wikipedia article, but O'Connor isn't a large enough name to warrant a section devoted to her non-residence and neither is Fitzgerald. 69.118.129.76

No, I'm not mistaken in saying that they're Redding residents. I'll try to get even better sourcing for it, but we already have the editor of the Ridgefield Press, who's written books on Ridgefield, saying it. He even knows the road they lived on: Seventy Acres Road. He's the one who corrected me on it. A city directory from the period should confirm it.

"You are not serving readers by providing information which they did not search for." What possesses you to make such a statement? Have you ever heard of the word "browse"? Look at the left side of your screen. Under "Navigation" see the words "Random article"? Look down just a bit further under "Interaction". See the words "Recent changes"? Look at the main Wikipedia page. See the words "featured article"? People browse. Wikipedia is here, in part, to help them do it. In the context of articles, we serve them when we give them related information close to the subject area they're looking for. Ever hear of "See also" sections? You either don't get the point that people will read down the list because they're interested in RIDGEFIELD or you refuse to get it. If they're interested in Ridgefield, that's one of the places to correct erroneous information about Ridgefield.

I've shown you that the nation's past poet laureate along with one of the significant authors of the 20th century are on that short list at the bottom of a relatively insignificant Wikipedia article. I've shown you that, in the context of that article there is a significant inaccuracy about those people in that they did not live in Ridgefield as so many think. Your response, such as the last sentence in your response just above, is to go back to making assertions. Noroton 03:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the random and featured article portions of this website, that doesn't relate to the issue at hand. Someone who randomly stumbles upon the list of Ridgefield residents does not need a list of people who did not live in town, that list is in fact the exact opposite of what they either searched for or stumbled upon. You have yet to make a case for this list other than the information being factual and related to a common misconception, not all true information has a place on Wikipedia. People who did not live in Ridgefield did not live in Ridgefield and, as such, do not belong on a list of actual residents. You have shown me that Fitzgerald was the nation's poet laureate and that O'Connor was a relatively significant author of the 20th century... and I certainly do see that you care about keeping this short list on the article. You have not, however, given any truly strong reasoning for keeping this list. Ridgefield residents ≠ Ridgefield non-residents. 69.118.129.76

It isn't that I haven't given you strong reasoning. You just don't want to accept it. Your disagreement about the significance of O'Connor isn't with me, it's with the rest of the world, most prominently The Library of America. As I made crystal clear, Wikipedia supports browsing. As I also made crystal clear, there needs to be a spot in Wikipedia for people interested in Ridgefield to be told that that town is not connected to O'Connor and Fitzgerald, contrary to numerous erroneous reports. This seems to be the best spot. The case is airtight. Noroton 06:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The "best spot" for a list about non residents of a town is not in the same article dedicated to residents. Just because something is true does not mean that it is worthy of being mentioned on Wikipedia. The significance of both O'Connor and Fitzgerald is not of a level that most people (how many other poet laureates can you name, without looking?) would even know who they are (more so Fitzegerald), let alone have a misunderstanding as to their place of residence. Again, you have yet to give any strong reasoning for keeping the list other than that the information contained in it is allegedly true. 69.118.129.76

Summary

I've gone round and round long enough with this. Here's a summary of my argument. I'm asking other editors to comment so that we can come to an obvious consensus:

The section on well-known people who don't live in Ridgefield but have been said to have lived in town should be kept. On a list of people associated with Ridgefield, Connecticut it is worth having a small section at the bottom to mention well-known names erroneously associated with the town. The names should be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article (if they don't already have an article, there should be a pretty good case that one could be written in the future). In fact, the criteria for being included on the list should be the same criteria normally used for "List of people from ____" articles or sections used elsewhere. Flannery O'Connor and Robert Fitzgerald are prominent enough to be included. For instance, Fitzgerald was the equivalent of poet laureate of the United States and O'Connor's works were included in the Library of America in 1988. The nonexistant film reviewer made up by Sony publicists also received enough attention that, at least at present, makes that name another worthy addition. Since the list is about people from Ridgefield, the three-item sublist of people erroneously thought to be from Ridgefield is an appropriate addition to the article.

This is a paragraph I would like to add above or below O'Connor's and Fitzgerald's names: Although most reports state that Flannery O'Connor lived in Ridgefield from 1949 to 1951 when she was a boarder with Robert and Sally Fitzgerald, the Fitzgerald's in fact lived on Seventy Acre Road in Redding. The Redding Pilot weekly newspaper in Redding has reported more than once that O'Connor lived with the Fitzgerald's in Redding.

Notes

Request for other comments

Do you support keeping this section or deleting it? Please state one, the other or some other option and state your reason so that we can come to a consensus.

• Keep for reasons given above. Noroton 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since the idea of the section is to clear up confusion about people who have been atributed as being there in other venues, but are in actuallity not from there. It's not long and has proper context and references. --BaseballDetective 04:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, with caveat Don't see any major problems, except that footnotes shouldn't be used to elaborate on articles. MER-C 10:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see any problems. --Random ^{Say it here!} 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons listed above, and shame on Noroton for soliciting votes. I'd suggest a strawpole that would allow independent opinion in. Intransigent wikipedians should not call others 'intransigent'. —131.96.170.135 20:43, 25 May 2007
  • — 131.96.170.135 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jouster  (whisper) 22:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, neither of the cases are overly compelling but listing people who didn't live in a town under a page dedicated to residents doesn't seem like the most sensible route. —12.160.192.2 14:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • — 12.160.192.2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jouster  (whisper) 22:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment How interesting that of the two users supporting "Delete", this is the first or second Wikipedia edit for each of them. Informing people already interested in an article, based on the fact that they have edited it or related articles, is acceptable under WP:Canvas. Noroton 15:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but as a footnote A section seems to give too much emphasis to this info which seems better suited to being a footnote. I recommend trying to pare down the text to a sentence or two. --Zippy 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Where would you put the footnote? It seems to me that the people are prominent enough and the misinformation widespread enough that it deserves more than a footnote that people might not see. Noroton 16:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it's not reasonable to list all people who are incorrectly attributed to a particular town in a single source. If multiple sources, or popular culture, is incorrect, a section may then be appropriate. Also, please observe WP:!vote, WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, and WP:CCC. Jouster  (whisper) 23:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, although so far, all three of the guidelines, etc. that you've referenced have been observed. As the discussion above has demonstrated, there are plenty of citations that can be given showing that O'Connor and Fitzgerald have been called Ridgefield residents. If it can be shown elsewhere that famous people have been incorrectly called residents of a town and it can be proven otherwise, why not put that in a small section of a "List of people from..." article? If the misinformation is widespread (and we can verify that it is, as we can here), what is wrong with correcting it? You mention "multiple sources" -- but we have multiple sources. I don't understand your objection. Is it your objection that we don't have more sources to show that O'Connor and Fitzgerald have been linked to Ridgefield. Those can be provided. If they are provided, would that overcome your objection? Noroton 16:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A Google search shows that there are many, many, many sources that connect O'Connor and the Fitzgeralds to Ridgefield. I'm sure they all ultimately stem from the fact that the Fitzgeralds called their home a place in Ridgefield. The editor of the Ridgefield Press has written that the error probably came because the postal service delivered the mail to that part of Redding, Conn., through the Ridgefield Post Office. In the book Letters of Flannery O'Connor: The Habit of Being for instance, one letter is labeled "70 Acre Road/Ridgefield, Conn./October 6, '49" (selected and edited by Sally Fitzgerald, 1979, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, page 15). It is beyond dispute that Seventy Acre Road is only in Redding, not in Ridgefield. Here are sources showing widespread misinformation. Each one states that O'Connor lived in Ridgefield with the Fitzgeralds (found through a Google search of the terms "Flannery O'Connor" [in quotes] and "Ridgefield"):

• [1] From the "Flannery O'Connor-Andalusa Farm Foundation" web site. The foundation runs the home O'Connor lived in during her final years. Quote: "Afterwards she lived in New York City where she was introduced to Robert and Sally Fitzgerald, with whom she lived for over a year in Ridgefield, Connecticut. During this time she was writing her first novel Wise Blood." ([2] The Web page without the highlighting])

• [3] Web site of "The New Georgia Encyclopedia" article for "Flannery O'Connor" Quote: "O'Connor moved into the garage apartment of Sally and Robert Fitzgerald in Ridgefield, Connecticut, where she boarded for nearly two years. (the Web page without the highlighting)

• [4] The Literary Encyclopedia ("The Literary Encyclopedia is an expanding literary and cultural reference work written and owned by over 1550 specialists from universities around the world. In March 2007 we received over 500,000 visits and provided over 1.5m copies of our articles to our readers." Quoted from the home page.) Quote: "Later she settled at the Fitzgerald's home in Ridgefield, Connecticut, for a year" ([5] The Web page without the highlighting])

• An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education (which is not available to nonsubscribers, but can be found on the second page of the Google search described above) states: "Flannery O'Connor was an avid reader of newspapers, and she probably would ... N.Y., then to New York City, and finally to a garage apartment in Ridgefield, ..." From the article "The 'Mountain on the Landscape'of Flannery O'Connor", By William F. Monroe, December 15, 2000 issue.

• [6] From a "Sample text" of a book (the six-volume "Magill's Survey of Modern American Literature" Salem Press: 2006, Editor: Steven G. Kellman, University of Texas at San Antonio ISBN: 1-58765-285-4) at the Salem Press Web site: Quote: " she arranged to board with the Fitzgerald family at their home in Ridgefield, Connecticut." (Web page without the highlighting)

• [7] From the Web site of the PEN American Center. PEN is one of the most prestigious associations of authors in the world. The text of the speech ("This talk was originally presented at a Twentieth-Century Masters Tribute to Flannery O'Connor, sponsored by the PEN American Center and Lincoln Center") on this Web page was written by O'Connor's friend, the publisher Robert Giroux. Quote:The Fitzgeralds, I was delighted to hear from Lowell, had arranged for Flannery to live with them and work on her novel in Ridgefield, Connecticut" Giroux also talks about the importance of the Fitzgerald's to O'Connor's later reputation, including the making of director John Houston's movie "Wise Blood" from the novel O'Connor wrote while she was with the Fitzgeralds in Connecticut.(The Web page without the highlighting). This article

• [8] See #22 of this list of books at Amazon.com connected to Ridgefield, Connecticut. Quote: "22. Flannery O'Connor : Collected Works : Wise Blood / A Good Man Is Hard to Find / The Violent Bear It Away / Everything that Rises Must Converge / Essays & Letters (Library of America) by Flannery O'Connor (Hardcover - Sep 1, 1988)"

Are these eight sources enough? What would be a reasonable number to include in footnotes in the article? Noroton 17:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC) (Self edit Noroton 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep, though there may be a more-standardized form for this to take. Regardless, you've convinced me. Jouster  (whisper) 18:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, section serves no purpose in relation to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.81.2 (talk • contribs)
  • — 65.211.81.2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jouster  (whisper) 22:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Anonymous one-time (or two-time) Wikipedia user #3, and (surprise, surprise) also for deletion. Noroton 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Please WP:AGF, and if you suspect that the user is a WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT, take appropriate actions as outlined on those pages. WP:NPA also applies here. (Wow, that's a lot of WP: links. Sorry.) Jouster  (whisper) 18:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you again, Jouster. I've taken your advice. I reviewed WP:SOCK and related pages. Since the three anonymous single-use accounts have all used their single edits to edit this straw poll and come down on the same side, and given User 69's history, I initiated a complaint at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets against User 69. The complaint is here. Noroton 02:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE, Noroton's reasoning is still nonexistent. All you're doing is providing data which says that both parties actually lived in Ridgefield as opposed to Redding, you don't have very many sources stating that they were Redding residents. Either way, the information is not needed in this article at all. I also find it amusing that you consider people with few edits to be less capable of sharing an opinion than yourself. You are not an administrator and, as such, don't deserve more clout than a generic user of Wikipedia. 69.118.129.76
  • That kind of wording "Noroton's reasoning is still nonexistent" is not conducive to reaching a consensus, and is one example among many from you. Here's some simple reasoning for you:

• Many sources state the misinformation that O'Connor and the Fitzgeralds lived in Ridgefield (the eight references above prove it)
• O'Connor and the Fitzgeralds were obviously well-known by Wikipedia standards used in "List of people from ____" articles
• The Fitzgeralds and O'Connor lived on Seventy Acre Road, as the first example I gave from the Letters of Flannery O'Connor (just above the bullets in my last comment) shows ("70 Acre Road/Ridgefield, Conn./October 6, '49")
• As this map shows, Seventy Acre Road is only in Redding, although it is near Ridgefield.

Whose reasoning is nonexistant? Noroton 00:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to officially say I could not care less about this issue anymore thanks to the generally childish behavior of the anonymous troll whi is posting here. And it is highly suspicious that outside of registered users, the others who want to delete the section are all anonymous IP adresses—just like the abusive troll—and they all have the same problems signing their name as the others. But that said, I believe the section should stay. And 69.118.129.76 should not dismiss others who are not admins. What you are basically saying is that you will push and abuse others until the situation gets so bad that someone has to come in and reprimand you. Good luck with that attitude, because I'm gone. --BaseballDetective 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to me that the individuals mentioned above be included in the list. The parties mentioned are generally clearly notable, and including a section which would remove ambiguity regarding some of these names and their relationship to Ridgefield makes sense to me. And I too am struck by the fact that the majority of the responses from registered members, who are in fact most likely to respond to the RfC, have agreed to inclusion. John Carter 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In your posted example edit, "Fitzgerald's" is incorrect; "Fitzgeralds" would be correct. Jouster  (whisper) 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteThe section in question serves no purpose in this article. 22:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.219.96 (talk • contribs)

— 216.110.219.96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jouster  (whisper) 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• delete i dont see why you need to mention people who never lived in a town on a list of people who did actually live in a town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.197.31.2 (talk • contribs)

— 12.197.31.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jouster  (whisper) 01:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Worthless section, focus more on actual article! 15:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.17.145 (talk • contribs)

— 72.254.17.145 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jouster  (whisper) 20:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why users are still ignoring consensus.

Well, actually, I don't have a valid answer here. Some users, namely Noroton, are unable to understand that a consensus has been established and that consensus confirms the "non resident" subsection's worthlessness. There is no rule stating that people who don't have an account can't have an opinion in the way this website is run, you are simply grasping for straws now. I suggest you finally concede and cease undoing my edits because, rest assured, I'm not about to stop removing this ridiculous section any time soon.04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't count votes to determine consensus. Instead, we evaluate the arguments made by each side on their individual merits. As you can see, above, I started out supporting your position and was made to change in the face of exposure to new evidence. Since that time, all that has gone on here, in terms of advancing the discussion, has been the introduction of a large number of apparent meatpuppets and obvious SPA's.

If you genuinely believe that your cause is right, please take it to a wider community for their opinion, via RFC or another method of your choice. Stating things like, "rest assured, I'm not about to stop removing this ridiculous section any time soon," without a disclaimer along the lines of, "unless you convince me" or "unless the consensus is against me doing so" is highly disruptive to the work we're trying to do in building a competent, complete wiki-Encyclopedia.

—Jouster  (whisper) 10:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If the input of other Wikipedians doesn't form consensus then what, pray tell, does? I have "evaluated" the arguments made in each of the comments definitively stating an opinion and it is clear that the non-resident section is not what the community wants. If an administrator "hands down" a final ruling then that is what I'll adhere to... otherwise I'm going to go with my initial conclusion (and, mind you, the community's conclusion) and continue to remove the list of three individuals who didn't live in Ridgefield. 21:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)~

The fundamental caveat here is that, of the !votes above, only one (yours) arguing to delete the section is anything but a single-purpose account. Or, in other words—Yes, the opinion of Wikipedians count. All of the delete votes, but one, are not from Wikipedians.

"Wikipedia has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry. In votes or vote-like discussions, new users tend to be disregarded, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion."

— WP:MEAT

As none of the SPA !voters except 12.197.31.2 have ever made a single edit outside of this article (or, in the case of one, the sandbox), I discount their !votes when looking for consensus. Not solely because of their record of contribution—indeed, even I had a small edit-count once. Instead, I discount them because of their apparent WP:MEATiness, denoted by their ability to arrive, unbidden and unheralded, at the Talk page for a first-order derivative article ("List of people from") for a random town that's nowhere near where they live (using geolocation services on the IP address), and all express the same view. And then, when the !votes were not in your favor, for more to appear as if by clarion call from on high over the course of the next two weeks.

Your activities are frankly disruptive and contrary to our goals. Please stop.

Lastly, as both you and your meats seem to have trouble with it, please sign Talk page comments with four tildes, as so: ~~~~. Using another number of tildes results in difficulty identifying who left the comment. For simplicity, there is an "add signature" button () on the default edit control. Thanks! Jouster  (whisper) 13:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So this article is "Oh my god NOT A VOTE!!!!!" when you need it to be a consensus but, somehow, becomes a vote-like situation when it suits you? I believe that Noroton tried and failed to prove puppetry, the opinions of these low edit users count just as much as your own. If this bothers you to any extreme extent I suggest you open a RFC yourself, otherwise this will just go back and forth despite the clear consensus that has been formed. Love, with twenty seven tildas, 69.118.15:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)15:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)15:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)15:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)15:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)~~

Vote v. not a vote: I have not made the claim that the !votes are the ultimate decider of consensus, but they are the only objective measure I have to show support or opposition to the changes you advocate. I continue to maintain that each argument should be evaluated on the basis of its adherence to project policy and the very existence of its poster's contributions—that is, since this is a process to divine consensus of Wikipedia editors, if the !voter is not, by any reasonable definition, a Wikipedia editor, we must discount their !vote. In its strictest definition (which is the only one I can support in good conscience), that dissolves all but two of the !votes that are currently tagged as {{spa}}. Note that, for this purpose, I am even counting the person who added the letter "d" to the sandbox as a legitimate editor; you cannot possibly say that I am making the guidelines too hostile.

{Sock,Meat}puppetry: It's not really possible to "prove" sockpuppetry across multiple IP addresses; besides, barring some clever proxy setups, I do not believe (and I don't think Noroton still believes, though I could be wrong) that they are your sockpuppets. They do appear to have been rallied by you, however—note the difference between WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. At any rate, your severe lack of civility, regardless of the number of tildes you use, has left me no choice but to commit to taking this to WP:RFC, WP:AN/I, or even WP:CN if you continue to revert without respecting consensus, as I've outlined it. My views of consensus have the support of policy, yours have the support of WP:SPA's. Jouster  (whisper) 21:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone please do something about this user 69.118.129.76 who is simply engaging in some personal vendetta against this page and has made no effort to respect the consensus of users on this matter. --SpyMagician 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed compromise on "NOT here" section

Looks like I've stumbled upon another wikipedia skirmish. As a disinterested observer, here's my two cents:

• First, Fitzgerald and O'Connor are clearly notable.
• Second, it's not clear that their (reportedly) erroneous attribution is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, or so notable as to deserve a subsection. Yes, I can see that various sources have made a technical mistake but it doesn't strike me as esp noteworthy, sorry, IMO.
• Third, the revelation of this mistake seems to be, or to border on, a finding of original research. E.g., the footnote refers to "searches through Ridgefield and Redding records." WP:NOR? With this section, the editor(s) seem to want to settle -- based on strict legal demarcation -- what may be really a contested matter. After all, people often lay claim of belonging to a place in a more casual way -- e.g., people say "I'm from Boston" when they are really from a suburb. Or a city realtor claims that a property belongs to a fancier neighborhood (and thereby might eventually expand that neighborhood's scope). Therefore, the Fitzgerald's and O'Connor's (and biographers etc) claims to have lived in Ridgefield do have authentic, discursive validity, despite the insistence here that technically they did not live in town. An encyclopedia need not negate such a claim. There seems to be a research claim here without balanced credence to what people mean when they say they live somewhere.
• Fourth, I looked at other articles in the category "Lists of people by U.S. cities" -- none have this kind of section. These articles are lists. Surely, (claimed) misattributions happen in other cities too? I don't think the list format needs to be disrupted for this information.
• Fifth. Manning may have lived in Ridgefield, albeit fictitiously. He does not belong in this section.
• Sixth. Rather than vote for deletion, let me suggest a compromise based on the foregoing reasoning. Granted, this may not be exactly what either side has insisted on. But why not just go ahead and list O'Connor and Fitzgerald (under authors) and concisely state (with footnotes) in a balanced way their relation to the town, e.g. "Robert Fitzgerald, the {author/translator}, called Ridgefield home, though legally their property is located in neighboring Redding." "Flannery O'Connor, the author, lived at Robert Fitzgerald's house and called Ridgefield home etc...." Alternatively, just list them and footnote the disputed attribution. Thanks for reading this. HG | Talk 06:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like my hunch, above #3, about a "no original research" WP:NOR problem may have some traction. I'm sure that Noroton and Jack Sanders have the best of intentions, but I think they may be stretching wikipedia into something other than an encyclopedia. Here's an excerpt from his talk page: "I think you could do some real good by adding footnotes at the Ridgefield people page and at the O'Connor and Fitzgerald pages as well stating that they lived in Redding and citing Redding town records and The Redding Pilot. With Ridgefield mentioned in the books, the idea won't die unless you can at least wound it, and I think one of the beauties of Wikipedia is that it's so big (already, and just getting bigger over time) that it's a kind of Grand Central Station on the Internet for anyone doing research (not definitive by any means, and not always reliable, but always worth a check). If you footnote it, at the very least, someone who sees the footnote will question the idea that they were in Ridgefield." (emphasis added) Unfortunately, wp is not the place for this kind of research. Granted, the situation is a bit complicated because Jack Sanders is a bona fide journalist/researcher. Nevertheless, I don't think the article needs a section about -- if it includes at all -- this particular little finding about the Fitzgeralds/O'Connor. Anyway, my key point remains that the claim to live in a place retains some validity regardless of the technical finding. Ciao. HG | Talk 06:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for a reasonable, rational contribution that actually discusses the matter, HG. I disagree, but I respect your point of view. I'll respond with a number of points replying to yours:
    • Your last paragraph and your third point: We don't need original research or relying on what Sanders said. We have evidence on the Web that anybody can see (I've gone into it above -- referring to the map of Ridgefield showing where 70 Acre Road actually is). If we simply present evidence that exists, and do it in an extremely simple way by simply refering to it, I don't see a WP:OR violation at all. Any time we have something incorrect out there in the universe, and if it's widely enough thought to be incorrect, or the mistake is made in some prominent forum, it's worth noting that there's a discrepency in what other reliable sources say and noting that. In effect it's a tiny correction in a Wikipedia article on the relevant subject. But we should do it only if evidence exists that would simply, reliably correct and only if all we have to do is refer to the evidence. We have to be able to address conflicting information in Wikipedia -- it's what we sometimes do just to create encyclopedic content. We should not rely simply on what someone, even Jack Sanders, says without evidence. But we have the evidence.
    • As to your second point, the subject of the article (who lived or lives in town) makes the inclusion of the information on the three (notable figures who were thought to live in town or be associated with it in the case of the fictional person, but didn't actually live there) noteworthy enough.
    • Your third point also mentions the idea that people say they're from one place but don't really mean they're exactly from that place. I can accept that, but that makes it all the more important to mention Fitzgerald and O'Connor here. They really are associated with Ridgefield and this is an article listing people associated with Ridgefield (not even necessarily living in town.
    • Your fourth point: Wikipedia doesn't have a style rule on whether people who are thought to live in a place but don't should or shouldn't be included in a list. Wikipedia has no obligation to be consistent in content across any categories -- and this is in the policies or guidelines somewhere but I just can't find it right now. I don't think it's proper to create bureaucratic rules on content for articles that are similar in subject matter -- our reasons for doing things should be to provide encyclopedic content to readers, and since lists are only vaguely encyclopedic anyway, I think we should focus on usefulness with them -- what would be useful for a reader to know.
    • Your fifth point on Manning. If he were a fictional character, I think I would agree, but he was alledged to be a person. I don't feel as strongly about this one, but there is already a Wikipedia article on the hoax. I'm not sure whether it's worth mentioning at the Ridgefield, Connecticut article, but I think it should be here because the subject is who lived in town or was associated with it, and that name was -- in a notable way. Incidentally, you didn't provide reasoning for your position.
    • Your sixth "point", actually proposal, isn't a bad one at all, but I wouldn't say only in a footnote that they didn't actually live in Ridgefield. Are you from the area? Town boundaries around here actually mean something more in this area than they might elsewhere. They tend to be the way someone describes where they live (although there are exceptions and it may not always have been the case). Even if someone says they live in a place, it should be noted within the article space, not just the footnote space, that they did not. If it was noted that way, I think I could accept integrating those three names into the list, with noting that they didn't actually live in town on the same line where their names appear. Noroton 01:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Style of entries

Starting with the first section, I made some changes aimed at a more consistent and simpler style for the entries. Again, I compared quite a few other articles with lists of people. Not much information is needed for these lists, esp. since the point is to list notable people who deserve their own articles/stubs. Tried to eliminate parentheses, except for birth-death and key works (most of which can be omitted). Also, the other articles don't differentiate past and current residents -- if only because the point-of-view for "current" constantly shifts and is not encyclopedic. Tried to get rid of most addresses. I would also suggest eliminating the specific dates for residency because it's trivial, inconsistent and not done elsewhere, but I wasn't bold enough yet. Indeed, not sure I would explain all this except folks here seem a bit touchy after multiple reverts. HG | Talk 03:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Later... ok, I made few bolder edits and got rid of most residency data in 2 sections. HG | Talk 03:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the main thing which Noroton still isn't able to come up with valid reasoning for is why people who didn't live in a town deserve to be mentioned on that town's resident list. No matter how noteworthy the person may be, the fact that they didn't live in town means that they aren't worthy of a subsection. Perhaps if you had a long and powerful list you could create an article for it, but to break Wikipedia norm for such a trivial thing just doesn't seem worthwhile. I wouldn't be opposed to, as HG somewhat suggested, listing Fitzgerald and O'Connor (forget about Manning, that's just too absurd to deal with) under their proper section as residents with a footnote describing the alleged discrepancy in residence. Oh, and for the record, I'll probably remove the section again tomorrow. 69.118.129.76 04:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose part of my discomfort with the section is that, as currently worded, it doesn't exclude anyone. Nor would the data, IMO, support a more qualified section, e.g. "Those notable for not living here." Anyway, thank you your willingness to accept sentences about Fitzgerald and O'Connor. How would you feel about this? "Robert Fitzgerald (1910-1985), poet, critic and translator, and his wife Sally called Ridgefield home, though their property was located in neighboring Redding." (n.b. Presumably we can agree on the need for a t/b/d footnote for verifiable and NOR sources about the discrepancy. If so, then it would be good for the text itself to at least mention the footnoted discrepancy.) Thanks! HG | Talk 06:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • I think your changes to the top part of the page are overall improvements, but four points:

• First, the idea that we do anything on this page JUST because it's done elsewhere in Wikipedia is a principle I really object to unless there's some guideline or even style guide that encourages us to do so -- only that level of consensus and well-thought-out consideration and level of importance should be persuasive to us because other factors are more important (we may be doing it better and maybe the other lists should be doing it our way; we may be better adapted to local conditions; there may be other reasons). In fact, I think there is a style guide on lists which we should follow unless we have a good reason not to do so.
• Second, I think it helps the list to note the road that FORMER residents lived on. Including the information does no harm and it's information that really is too trivial for any other part of Wikipedia (so you wouldn't want to move it elsewhere), but it will be of interest to residents of Ridgefield and surrounding areas -- the most likely readers for a page like this -- and for the subject of this list it is a short bit of information that naturally gives fuller treatment to the subject. To the extent that a list of residents of a community is encyclopedic at all, the roads that former residents lived on is encyclopedic. (One possible harm that could result from keeping the roads is that it might encourage people to list the roads of famous residents who currently live in town. I think this is invasive, and Wikipedia shouldn't be a resource for nut cases or people who may be mad at a celebrity who might harm or harass them. But none of this applies to former residences.)
• Third, we should always note when people are current or former residents, information which you've taken out in a few cases. That information certainly helps give fuller treatment to the subject of the page. I see no vagueness whatever in "current" or "former" -- someone either lives in town or they don't, owns property or rents or they don't. If they're famous enough, the information will be reported when they move, and often an article in the local press will note when someone is a former resident even when we don't know the year.
• Fourth, I like the idea of knowing when they were living in town or when they weren't, and I don't like the idea of leaving out information based solely on the fact that that information is not listed in other lists. I'm pretty sure Sanders, who knew, added that information, and the fact is, it most likely wasn't added in similar lists elsewhere because the editors didn't have the information. It's not the most important type of information, but it adds to the subject, does no harm and doesn't take up much space.

As to your proposed language for the Fitzgeralds, I like it. I suggest changing the word "property" to "residence", since "residence" is more exact (and avoids repetition of "home" in the same sentence). I'd be happy to update the footnote, simply citing information, as all footnotes do. I would also add "and have been called Ridgefield residents". As I show in the above discussion, I can footnote that, too. Without that, some reader may look at the item and think Wikipedia is simply wrong because that person read in some authoritative place that the Fitzgeralds or O'Conner were in Ridgefield. This phrase points out that Wikipedia editors know that authoritative sources have said that but that more authoritative, local sources have contradicted it.

For Manning, what if we noted him in another way on the page, perhaps as a sentence rather than a bulleted item. A link to the page on the hoax would provide any additional details. I think this hoax needs to be noted on some Ridgefield page, perhaps on the main Ridgefield page or a Ridgefield history page.

I'm going to try to look up the Wikipedia style guide for lists and link to it from here. Noroton 13:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I found these guidelines, but they are silent on what information should go in individual items of any list: Wikipedia: List guideline, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) and this essay Wikipedia: Lists in Wikipedia. I also looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography but found nothing useful there. I don't think anything in Wikipedia tells us specifically to make some kind of article uniform with others if there are no guidelines involved. It's common sense to try to make things more uniform and makes things more understandable if things are in a uniform style, but I don't see how removing information of the type you're talking about actually helps this article, which is the most important consideration, right? Noroton 14:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been checking the list pages too. It's great that we agree, in general, on common sense of uniformity. If you look at other lists in the category, I think it's clear that this one is more cluttered than many, restating info that is/should be in the linked article. (This point is part of the general thrust of the wp:list articles, in my reading.) If info isn't notable enough for article, a list isn't the repository for such info.

• On #2, I'm sorry but if street locations are too trivial/inappropriate for a bio article, then too trivial here. If O'Neill's home is a tourist attraction, fine put it in the article there, but Wikipedia isn't the right place for the remainder. (If the intended readers are only locals, why not put up a webpage associated with the town? Then link to it from the WP article.)
• On #3, see WP:DATED which I just noticed myself. This gives good reasons to exclude this info (besides the lack of uniformity both within the article and compared to other articles in the category.)
• On #4, sounds like info was known personally, not verifiably. If too insignificant for article, then better to keep the info somewhere else besides wikipedia. (This is for your own benefit, unless you plan to safeguard the page indefinitely, others will come along and streamline this list to be uniform and w/significant info.) HG | Talk 15:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Maybe comment on style here, not in next section, ok?

On Manning. He's already listed under List_of_hoaxes. For uniformity sake within the cateogory of locale lists, clearly he does not belong simply because he's fictitious. Are hoaxes more worthy or simply more unusual than fictitious characters? Neither Noroton nor 69.118.129.76 make a strong argument either way IMO. Also, is it verified that he lived in Ridgefield, maybe he commuted from Redding! :) What about Noroton's idea of putting him in Ridgefield article, ok? HG | Talk 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On Manning: What about including a link to the article about him in the "See also" section, and adding on that line something like "about the non-existent film reviewer 'David Manning'". "See also" sections are not for information that falls into the subject of a Wikipedia article, but they are for information that would help readers to know more about related subjects, and this is clearly related. And the link would serve my purpose just as well. Alternately, a See also ____ line could be used in one of the sections. Noroton 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On Manning: Sure, a "See also" in the Ridgefield article would make sense, complementing the many external links. (I hadn't noticed the links to the Sanders' extensive bios, which obviate the need for extraneous info on this list, IMO). None of the people-city lists have "See also" section, btw, prob due to list style.

Response to three points:

• On #2, you say "if street locations are too trivial/inappropriate for a bio article, then too trivial here." But I don't see any connection at all between what should be considered trivial for an article on, for instance, Eugene O'Neill and what should be considered trivial here. The distinction between what's trivial and what's properly in furtherance of the article's theme and aims has to do with the purpose of this article, which is primarily about Ridgefield, not about the individual people in it. One way to think about it would be the way you already have concerning biographical material in this article: We don't want or need a lot of bio material that's already in the bio articles because what's appropriate there is not appropriate here. Conversely, what's appropriate here may not be appropriate there. This is essentially an article about Ridgefield and the people who are associated with this geographical location. Some additional information on geographical spots (homes or whatnot) associated with these people within Ridgefield furthers the aim of this article, which was originally a section of the Ridgefield, Connecticut article. "If the intended readers are only locals, why not put up a webpage associated with the town? Then link to it from the WP article." No, I only said much of the interest will come from people interested in Ridgefield. I think it's an encyclopedic article that will get readers beyond Ridgefield's borders as well.
• On #3, I think WP:DATED gives us good tools for dealing with information which should remain in Wikipedia articles, which is the purpose of that page, isn't it? An argument for uniformity needs to be backed up with something more in order to leave out information, I think (otherwise we'd never be able to add anything in the encyclopedia, right?). If we take out "former" and "currently" we're going to run up against problems with readers saying, "I KNOW that guy lives in Westport, not Ridgefield" (as is the case with one author on the list) and that reader might delete. Saying "former" indicates we know the guy moved away.
• On #4, you say, "sounds like info was known personally, not verifiably." When the editor of the local newspaper knows it, it was known professionally. If it's on his Web site (I should check) and there's a link to his Web site, then Wikipedia would consider it reliably sourced because it comes from a professional journalist. And that would make this information some of the most reliably sourced stuff we have in the article.

In short, I still oppose removing information telling readers that someone is a current/former resident (we can use the tool provided in WP:DATED to help with that); oppose removing street location information for former residents; and I think Sanders' contributions, if we can link them to his Web site or elsewhere, are reliably sourced. Noroton 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise language (cont.)

Both key parties to the dispute, (Noroton and 69.118.129.76) are willing to live with removing the section and listing Fitzgerald and O'Conner, even though may not be their ideal. While I'm not certain, it doesn't look like they're too far apart on specific language. Maybe 69.118.129.76 can go ahead and remove the section, while Noroton can go ahead and add the list entry sentences for Robert Fitzgerald and O'Conner (along lines discussed above). You can put your draft sentences here, if you think they'll still be controversial, or in the article, if just for usual wp revising. Does that sound fair to both sides? HG | Talk 15:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes. Noroton 01:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. You deserve kudos for all these Connecticut lists... Take care. HG | Talk 02:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508232804/http://jackfsanders.tripod.com/whoswho.htm to http://jackfsanders.tripod.com/whoswho.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20030118184457/http://www.andalusiafarm.org/flannery.htm to http://www.andalusiafarm.org/flannery.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)