User talk:Castncoot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

March 2016[edit]

Information icon Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Donald Trump. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- WV 02:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I simply restored a large amount of content deleted by someone else. Go take it up with that editor. Castncoot (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brooklyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Startup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nassau County, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Westchester[edit]

Hey,

Though I appreciate all the work you've done on the county and related articles, the 'nickname' field of a county or city infobox is meant for a term in common use for the area, e.g. the Big Apple or Windy City. I'm a current resident of Westchester, and I've never heard a single person call it Biochester, nor can I find any source that deems it a common term.

It appears Westchester Magazine made up the term. I therefore don't even think the term should be mentioned at all, considering Westchester Magazine's strong trend/bias towards promoting Westchester. In this sense, it also could, in certain cases, be deemed an unreliable source.

As well, in any case, the source doesn't even establish Biochester as a common nickname. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities requires that field to only list common nicknames. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a common nickname (not yet, at least), but it is a nickname. There is no evidentiary justification to call the cited publication an unreliable source. I looked in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and couldn't find the requirement about commonality of nicknames in infoboxes which you mentioned above. If you can find that, then I believe it would be reasonable to remove it from the infobox. Castncoot (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I can easily find examples of how Westchester Magazine is not a reliable source. It's a biased magazine, geared for entertainment towards moms and families. It's not a neutral informative source like large newspapers, scientific journals, or government publications are. Please recognize the difference. Also, on WPCities, both the US and UK guidelines mention it. As well, I wouldn't even consider it a nickname. The magazine coined a cute little marketing term, but nobody has or will use it to refer to the county, so it's just silly to put it as a nickname on Wikipedia. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Both the US and UK guidelines ask for notability (which this definitely has), but do not ask for commonality. I've heard the term used on air in conjunction with Westchester County's recent biotech developments, so it is a nickname that's gaining traction. Are "moms" and "families" somehow less intellectually inclined than "dads" and "singles"? I've seen publications from that media outlet, and they all speak seriously enough. Even, hypothetically, if the term originated with that magazine, all new nicknames have to originate somewhere; and in this day and age, digital media has removed the distinction between "magazine" and "newspaper." I'm not convinced by your argument. The term is certainly notable and reliably sourced. Castncoot (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

() I would appreciate if you would provide more sources to this nickname. One is simply insufficient to establish notability. As well, infobox space is valuable, it's often the first thing a reader sees and has no room for non-essential information about the subject. I trust that through your experience you should know this. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Chinatownscape"[edit]

Hi, I wanted to talk to you about the section heading "Chinatownscape", which you added to the three NYC Chinatowns' articles. It does not seem like a proper word. We can rename these sections "Street scene" and use {{anchor|Chinatownscape}}. What do you think about this? epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What a coincidence you sent me this message! Look at your talk page.:) Best, Castncoot (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinese emigration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinatown, New York City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported Bergen County edits[edit]

Regarding your recent edits. Despite the repeated efforts to link to New York City-related articles, Bergen County is in New Jersey. Source NYCJewstoBergen1 mentions Brooklyn once, in the context of flow to Deal in Monmouth County. Source NYCJewstoBergen2 mentions Bergen County as one of several destinations from one neighborhood, with no mention of numbers. Simply put, these sources don't support the "significant" claim made in the article and have been reverted. Alansohn (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no effort of any sort here, let me assure you. I guess you didn't read (at least one of) the sources carefully. Source NYCJewstoBergen1 clearly mentions numbers at the top and indicates that Bergen County has the highest Jewish population in New Jersey and also indicates migration from New York City to Bergen County. Whether or not there is also migration from NYC to other areas of New Jersey is irrelevant to this article. Source NYCJewstoBergen2 indicates migration of Russians (Jews and non-Jews alike) moving from Brooklyn to Bergen County; unless the number was significant, The New York Times wouldn't have noted it in the first place. Maybe "notable" would be a preferable term to "significant"? Certainly WP:NOTABLE criteria has been met. Exactly what number of migrants would indicate "significant" to you (and how many sources)? Together, although there may be a modest degree of WP:SYNTHESIS (which, by the way, is not an absolute contraindication to a statement), the statements are justified. In any case, you've blanket-reverted the edits, which was not called for here, at minimum given the absolute fact of Bergen County having the highest Jewish population in New Jersey. In your justified concern to get the statements correct and well-supported, I would also advise you not to delete constructive information from the article. Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I should also note, for current as well as future reference, that Bergen County should not be viewed solely as a county within New Jersey, but should be additionally viewed more broadly as a core county within the New York City metropolitan area. Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

New York[edit]

This edit summary was incredibly rude and unnecessary. Watch yourself. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally find your tone borderline threatening and hostile. There was no reason for you to initiate this with your over-the-top edit summary over a relatively small, innocuous, and good-faith edit. If you had phrased it initially by not using the words "excessive" and "violates" (over and above the Undo) over such a tiny edit, this wouldn't have happened. Anyway, let's both move on with some learning from here, thanks. I have no desire to dwell on this. By the way, I did appreciate your technical edit, the hatnote is definitely better now! Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
My tone was hostile in my previous message because I don't appreciate my good faith edits being called "obnoxious". I fail to see how I was being hostile in any of my edit summaries. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote for New York (state)[edit]

Hi Castncoot, I think the hatnote for New York (state) is a little short and doesn't fully clarify the things that can be referred to "New York." In particular, Manhattan ("New York, NY") and New York metropolitan area ("the New York area") can be referred to as "New York." Can we discuss whether these can be included in the hatnote? Thanks in advance. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should wait on the move to be overturned first. Clearly the move was a serious mistake. Nobody refers to either of these two subentities as "New York" by the way, and in fact, the second one actually includes New Jersey and Connecticut. Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Castncoot: Thanks for your response. As a NYC resident, I just assumed that people might refer to the NY metro area or to Manhattan as "New York" for the reasons I stated above. Regards, Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit at Talk:New York (disambiguation)[edit]

G'day

after some deliberation I think I must complain to you about this edit. It appears (perhaps unintentionally) disruptive. I have asked for comment on the page itself [1] and received one reply there that appears to confirm my concern, but no comment from yourself.

Please do not fix it now, that would be even more confusing. But please note the following points.

The edit in question ignores the stringing conventions, to which I have previously drawn your attention.

It misquotes me... a comment, signed by me, which you have copied seems here to be a reply to an unrelated post.

Lastly, it uses italics in a confusing and seemingly random fashion.

These all serve to make the discussion hard to follow, and seem to serve no other purpose.

I hope that is not your intent, but in any case, please desist. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course there was no intent to disrupt. I thought I was actually helping by following the italicizing that you had started. Sorry for any confusion there! Best, Castncoot (talk)
Well, the italics just look like a mess to me. You have not followed my example at all, which used the italics together with links to indicate the original context of the signed posts. But that's only one of three issues... and since then you have again ignored the stringing convention.
Please note that accidental disruption is stlll considered disruptive (wikilink above). Andrewa (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Further disruption[edit]

I am sure you have noted this edit by User:R'n'B with the edit summary fix peculiar indentation that gave the misleading impression that these were comments by more than one user.

I say again, please study and abide by the conventions of wp:thread. Your repeated failure to do this has made discussion more difficult to follow, and is (however unintentionally) disruptive. Andrewa (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC) d

Andrewa, I really have no idea what you're talking about. I'm placing comments as I have for years. Can you enlighten me as to what you're trying to point out? And why is it that nobody else has ever said this before (and what exactly are you saying, anyway)?
If anything, you're the one who has commented in two totally different sections on that page, giving the deceiving appearance that two separate editors support a move for two different reasons, when it's just you. My pattern of editing simply makes the paragraphs clearer. You have done this same thing before.
So I would appreciate if you would look in the mirror and analyze your own disruptive behavior before you characterize another editor on their talk page as being disruptive. Thanks. Castncoot (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Baseless accusations of disruption are themselves disruptive, of course... whether by me or you. A diff showing where I have done this same thing before would be helpful, and also diffs showing where I have given a deceiving appearance that two separate editors support a move for two different reasons. Andrewa (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request[edit]

I have reverted your edits to Talk:New York/July 2016 move request because the discussion is not open yet. Please wait until the request has actually been made to add your comments. bd2412 T 13:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: Oh. I didn't know it wasn't open yet. Okay, when does this period start? Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I see, it says July 14 at 2200. Thanks for the notice. Castncoot (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Have another look at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request and particularly Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Argument and evidence in opposition to moving the page which now reads in part This section is now open for editing.

I had to ask user:BD2412 to clarify this, see User talk:BD2412#Talk:New York/July 2016 move request, and as I now understand it, these first two sections have the function of a move rationale, and so are to be completed before the move is open for discussion. They will then be closed and the later Discussion sections opened.

So, I'm hoping you will add your arguments and evidence to the appropriate section. You might want to copy some or all of your material from here (if you need help doing this I'm happy to advise - be careful not to edit the old version of the page, that could make you most unpopular!). TIA Andrewa (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned[edit]

I am concerned that despite widespread support for relisting, there has so far been no input at all at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Argument and evidence in opposition to moving the page, which has been open for some days but will shortly be closed and the new move opened for discussion. Please consider whether you have a case to put. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. Real life has been hectic. Best, Castncoot (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:One World Trade Center#New infobox image[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:One World Trade Center#New infobox image. Thank you! ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 19:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brooklyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hipster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Copying content[edit]

Hi, just a word on copying content from one article to another. First, it is perfectly fine! We are free after all. The only requirement is attribution, meaning, just say in the edit summary where it came from, with a link back to that article. This edit summary I added is all that's required, though for completeness there are other things you could do, add talk page templates, etc. You can see those at WP:CWW. Just a heads up for the future, and thanks for your work! CrowCaw 18:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that was implicit in the forks, was it not? Castncoot (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • To a certain degree yes. The license we publish under though, needs it to be explicitly noted, with attribution given and a specific link back to the source. The actual license text says something about all authors need to be attributed in the new article in the same way as current contributors are, which the WP lawyers have decided is met by a wikilink in the edit summary. A minor difference, but one that is needed to keep all the legalities appeased. CrowCaw 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, I see, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of LGBTQ Americans in New York City for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article LGBTQ Americans in New York City is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBTQ Americans in New York City until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LGBTQ culture in New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hipster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Do you live in NYC? Some of us here meet regularly as described at WP:Meetup/NYC. If you are near and could join it would be nice to meet. Or have we already met? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for the invitation, but I don't. Thank you for your kind invitation, however, and I should note that I do admire your work. Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

In particular, see the relevant policy at WP:RMUM (last paragraph). Stickee (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
To make it explicitly clear: "if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in... [section that describes how to make an RM]". Stickee (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Who are you? Castncoot (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please withdraw allegations 29 September 2016[edit]

Please withdraw these allegations, as previously requested. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)