Jump to content

User talk:Castncoot/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Little India (location), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jackson Heights (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Renaissance Technologies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantitative analysis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead map image (New Jersey)

In the New Jersey article, I would like to change the lead map image to New Jersey in United States (zoom).svg. Can you please open up a discussion on the New Jersey talk page to establish consensus please? Thank you. --192.107.120.90 (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your good-faith suggestion! Unfortunately, your proposed picture blocks out some of the U.S. Midwestern states and would therefore violate the standard format for U.S. state lead infobox maps. Best, Castncoot (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (List of journalists in New York City) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of journalists in New York City, Castncoot!

Wikipedia editor DGG just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please remember that these lists are supposed to contain only those people notable enough for WP articles. I have not removed the others, because many of those listed there but without articles should probably notable enough for articles to be written. The most helpful thing you could do at this point is to write articles for them; pattern them after the similar ones that have already been written,

To reply, leave a comment on DGG's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on Asian Americans

As someone who edited Asian Americans in the past two weeks, I invite you to participate in a discussion about some recent edits. Specifically, there is a question about whether to include South Asian ethnicities in the discussion about Asian Americans. --Ishu (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the problem has been addressed. Best, Castncoot (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK

Castncoot, your creation of WP:COATRACK list articles and making WP:COATRACKs of existing lists is indeed problematic. Please see WP:WTAF. If you continue edit-warring to include non-articles in lists, you will probably end up reported to administrators and possibly end up topic-banned from lists. Softlavender (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, your understanding of this issue is not correct. Did you happen to see the note left above by the reviewer of a new article I created? The standard is that those listed with refs who could warrant their own page qualify to remain in the notable people section, rather than people who already have Wikipages created. But your thinking defies logic, because you're implying that until a Wikipage is created, one is not notable - but a Wikipage cannot be created in the first place unless one is notable. Do you understand? Castncoot (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TEU (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For continuous edits in many fields; a very fair editor. IWI (chat) 22:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Best, Castncoot (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Castncoot. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Borough maps

Good afternoon. I do now recall talking about this; I had completely forgotten about it. I really cannot see why the Earth map is needed for a New York borough. They’re essentially areas within the city and probably don’t even need a pushpin map at all, if someone wanted to know where New York was, they could just go to that article. IWI (chat) 13:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there- on the flip side, some readers do think it's informative and helpful, and it's easier just to let them have it at their fingertips rather than force them to rummage. Certainly doesn't cause any harm. All of the boroughs (except Staten Island, which then just tags along for consistency's sake) maintain global prominence anyway, receiving large numbers of foreign immigrants; each of those four may as well have its own city scale of an article, if not already so. Best, Castncoot (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes but they are areas within the city. I’m British, if I were going to move to New York, well, I would move to New York, not even thinking about which borough; I group them all into just New York. I think your argument is invalid. IWI (chat) 05:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

(Discussion continues below referencing Brooklyn as a specific example.) Castncoot (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with the article as it is now. That was collateral damage of a mass revert of a large number of edits by the previous editor, who was introducing errors in the settlement_type parameter of {{infobox settlement}} in articles on every US capital city. (I tried to exclude any edits from the reversion that did not introduce that issue, but apparently a few were included.) Unfortunately, I can't control whether the tool applies the minor edit flag or not. General Ization Talk 01:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Isn’t it a small world; that editor was me. IWI (chat) 04:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I really think General Ization should be more careful with rollback; I would never blindly rollback many edits without checking each one. If you can’t control the tool correctly, don’t use it. IWI (chat) 05:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Los Angeles

Due to the length of time that it said Los Angeles, the version it should stay as until consensus is that. IWI (chat) 17:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it has been at "Los Angeles, California" for a much longer time period. Castncoot (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Yea it has but it has been Los Angeles since October, which they consider to be stable. IWI (chat) 05:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

New Jersey

If you can’t see that three old looking confusing image maps should be removed, then I don’t even know what to say. There’s no way the community would agree to that. IWI (chat) 08:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! IWI (chat) 22:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, I saw your fine work on New York City where you added an interactive map. I'm hoping you could give me a clue as to how to do this, or should I check in with @Epicgenius:? Is there some doc on this? I'm guessing a missing link is the id parameter in {{Maplink|frame=yes|frame-width=300|frame-height=300|zoom=8|frame-lat=40.782|frame-long=-73.965|type=shape-inverse|id=Q60|title=New York City}}, which somehow links to Template:Attached_KML/New_York_City ? If I do put together a procedure I'd be glad to create some doc for it, obviously not here. Thanks. --Cornellier (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! The ID parameter is represented by the Wikidata item number, with the link to that page being in the left hand column of your geographical article. Best, Castncoot (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much. That was indeed the missing piece of the puzzle. --Cornellier (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

LIst of New York City journalists listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LIst of New York City journalists. Since you had some involvement with the LIst of New York City journalists redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Why?

You can’t even discuss this issue with me to come to some sort of agreement, you’re a respectable editor, don’t do this. Removing my comment twice is plain insulting. IWI (chat) 01:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

IWI, this should be something self-evident to you, that Wikipedia works based on consensus, and the consensus with regard to this issue of the nomenclature of New York City is that, by and large, people want the disambiguation word "City" added to the term. You have a noticeable tendency to truncate wording just because you feel that the meaning should be obvious when truncated, but that's not how an encyclopedia works, because you cannot simply make this assumption every time. My suggestion seriously would be to take a short Wikibreak from NY-related (and maybe US-related) topics and come back refreshed with an open mind. Castncoot (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if you read my ping on my talk page, but apologies for the way I acted; I was out of line and behaved inappropriately. I hope you can understand. IWI (chat) 01:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Apology accepted! Castncoot (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

pls read

Not sure why your going out of your way to make articles non accessible but can you read over WP:GALLERY... WP:UNDUE....MOS:ACCIM...WP:SANDWICH. Not sure how many more people need to point this out to you.-Moxy (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What you don't understand is that these articles have evolved out of consensus. Are you saying that a bevy of other editors cannot make a decision in unison? Castncoot (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Effect of global warming on Vermont's ski industry

You are invited to offer your perspective at Talk:Vermont#Effect of global warming on Vermont's ski industry. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Yorkers in journalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Mason (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Done template

 Done ...saving my own Done template. Castncoot (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

New York City Edit Inquiry

Hi Castncoot,

I'm a student reporter with Uptown Radio--a live weekly show run out of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. I've been doing mini profiles of editors who have contributed to the Wikiproject NYC. I saw that you have contributed a lot to the New York City article in particular. I was wondering if you'd be willing to speak to me about making for this project I'm working on? You can reach me here or by email: jwm2164@columbia.edu thx!--Sachi McClendon 16:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but would prefer not to. But thank you for inquiring, yours sounds like a worthy project. Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Demographics of Filipino Americans

On 16 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Demographics of Filipino Americans, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the earliest permanent Filipino American residents settled in Louisiana's bayou country? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Demographics of Filipino Americans. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Demographics of Filipino Americans), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

feminist (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Caput Mundi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Survey
New York City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Survey

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from New York City into Culture of New York City. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LGBT culture in New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Javier Muñoz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australasian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australasian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Time 100, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gala (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Removing São Paulo

São Paulo is referenced, only as a footnote no less, as the largest annual event contrasted to the one-time Stonewall 50 - WorldPride NYC 2019 events. Does that make sense? Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gleeanon, that's exactly my point- São Paulo's is not the largest in the world on an annual basis. The two cities tend to rival each other and flip flop over the years. Best, Castncoot (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
That’s a reason to correct the information not remove it. Do have any sources that confirm the flip-flopping? Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
From a clearly WP:RS. The point is that introducing incorrect information as fact into an article serves no justifiable purpose, and in this particular case, Stonewall 50 had and has absolutely nothing to do with the annual São Paulo parade! Adding something both irrelevant and incorrect to this article is neither necessary nor warranted. Best, Castncoot (talk)
By claiming one pride parade or another is the biggest immediately begs the question if that’s an one-time situation or annually.
By both our investigations, albeit mine has likely been more limited than yours, it’s at least somewhat disputed so bears further scrutiny.
The source you just shared doesn’t support that the two flipflop, only that in that year one was likely the biggest.
We need to get this content right. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You should rephrase that to say, "We can't get this content wrong." There's already a link to the page List of largest LGBT events. There really can be no such thing as an absolute certainty as to the biggest parade annually, simply because it could depend on multivariable factors such as 1) the local weather that day, 2) contextually what else may be going on locally that day, 3) contextually what may be going on nationally or globally that year with the economy, for example, 4) the fact that these numbers are volatile on a year-to-year basis and can also incorporate an element of evoution over time, and 5) random variability. I think it is widely accepted that New York and Sao Paulo *generally* and *approximately* rival each other in scale, with Madrid perhaps being somewhat behind the first two. Beyond that, it would be disingenuous and unacceptable to label that the NYC parade or conversely the São Paulo parade as absolutely the largest on an annual basis. What is clearly verifiable (and just as importantly, relevant to the Stonewall 50 article itself), is that Stonewall 50 was the biggest single LGBT event in history. You're basically trying to find a problem for a solution, as they say, and as this edit demonstrates. I request you to please let this go amicably. Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback and insight. I’m still looking into what the sources say to guide how to present the information. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Requesting your input

Hi. As a contributor to the talk page for Asian Americans, I am seeking your input for a discussion about changes to the lead section that I started. I'm trying to set a good example of consensus-building, especially for the lead section. Your input would be most appreciated. Thanks! --Ishu (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kimberly Guilfoyle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Calculations of growth for Filipino and Korean residents in Fair Lawn

This edit, in the article for Bergen County, New Jersey, added claims re growth of the Filipino and Korean populations of Fair Lawn from 2010 to 2017. I had reverted the same claims in the Fair Lawn article, noting that the 2010 Census shows 626 Filipino and 389 Korean, while the 2013-2017 ACS shows 952 Filipino and 356 Korean. Percentages of growth -- Korean tripling and Filipino doubling -- don't match the values in the respective sources. Am I missing something. I will leave the Bergen County article unchanged until I get a response. Alansohn (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alansohn, not sure which source you're getting the 2010 figures from, but I'm actually comparing apples to apples on the same American FactFinder page, by comparing the figures directly between the 2010 and 2017 bookmarks on that very page- there were apparently 408 Filipino and 119 Korean estimated for 2010. As you know, with each successive annual iteration, the Census Bureau continues to update retrospectively as well. Castncoot (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
In the 2010 Census, the United States Census Bureau reached out to 100% of residents of Fair Lawn and counted 626 Filipino and 389 Korean residents (see 2010 Census link). The American Community Survey (ACS) includes a sample of 2.5% of residents of Fair Lawn each year; the 2013-2017 ACS was based on data for from 12.5% of residents (2.5% per year) over the five years from 2013 to 2017, while the 2006-2010 ACS you cite includes data from 12.5% of residents or the five years from 2006 to 2010. The 2013-2017 ACS data lists 952 Filipino residents (+/- 460) and 356 Korean residents (+/- 290). The 2006-2010 ACS data lists 408 Filipino residents (+/- 241) and 119 Korean residents (+/- 119), which means that the actual number of Korean residents could range from ZERO to 238 for 2006-2010 (and not for 2010). The 2006-2010 ACS is a sample that covers the five years from 2006 through 2010 and is in direct conflict with the data from the 2010 Census for Filipino and Korean residents. Inherently, the ACS is based on a small sample and that sampling is least reliable for small groups within the borough. The comparison you are making is not the increase you describe. Alansohn (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a good discussion, Alansohn. I understand exactly what your point is- but the overriding fallacy of that particular argument is that you're comparing apples and oranges, namely a 2010 Census enumeration done back in 2010, to Census estimates contemporaneously revised in 2018 for years 2010 all the way through 2017. This apples-to-oranges comparison is indeed accepted in the lead section of county and city articles, because obviously it is imperative to state the official decennial Census number there. But especially so with small numbers and specialized subsets, the apples-to-apples comparison is critical. If you look at the 2018 contemporaneously revised estimates for the Filipino and Korean numbers for Fair Lawn retrospectively for years 2010 chronologically through 2017, you'll see the definitely notable and (mostly) consistently upward trends in the estimated numbers for both groups over the years. For example, in 2018, the estimated Filipino population was 407 in 2011, increasing to 804 in 2014, and then to 952 in 2017. Similarly in 2018, the estimated numbers of Korean residents increased from 166 in 2011, to 192 in 2014, to 356 in 2017. This gives a reader the more accurate picture of evolving demographic changes that the ACS algorithms (all computerized and continually being revised retrospectively every year) are indicating. Castncoot (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
This edit again perpetuates a myth of growth in Fair Lawn's Filipino and Korean populations based on ignoring the full 100% 2010 Census data of 626 Filipino and 389 Korean residents, and instead comparing only to ACS samples; as such, the change has been reverted again. The population numbers shown in the lead sections of municipality and county articles is based on the Population Estimates Program, which focuses on estimates of the full population based on changes in the number of residents born, died and moving in or out of a municipality (and is not based on the American Community Survey). The 2010 Census -- based on an enumeration of 100% of Fair Lawn residents -- counted 626 Filipino and 389 Korean residents; to say that "both the Filipino and Korean populations of Fair Lawn more than doubled between 2011 and 2017" is not supported by the data, but merely shows the limits of the ACS with small samples of small populations. The decennial census may not be perfect, but it is impossible to simply ignore it. All you have to do is compare the 2010 Census data to the 2011 ACS to see that it is extremely unlikely that the population dropped from 626 Filipino residents (in the 2010 Census) to 407 (in the 2011 ACS data you cite) or that Korean residents dropped from 389 (per 2010 Census) to 166 (in the 2011 ACS).
The main reason why this change seems so utterly wrong is that the 2011 ACS data you cite is not for 2011; it's for 2007-2011. take a look at the source you call "2011", which states that it is in fact based on data from the "2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates". This 2007-2011 ACS estimate is based on 2.5% of residents surveyed in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. The data you cite as "2014" is based on data for 2.5% of residents in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, and the "2017" data is really for the five years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. All you have to do to see this most clearly is to compare the 2010 Census counts to the 2007-2011 ACS numbers you cite.
Are you arguing that the 2010 Census data is wrong and the ACS data, based on surveys of 2.5% residents -- 1 in 40 -- per year, is more correct? Alansohn (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
No. The endpoint here is to accurately reflect two significant progressive trends over the past several years. The Census 2010 figures are not erroneous by any means; what's erroneous toward achieving the above endpoint is to compare the Census 2010 figures enumerated in 2010 to revised estimates in 2018 - comparing apples and oranges. With every passing year, you'll find that, take for example, the 2011 estimated figures, which are retroactively revised and different, repeatedly, year after year. Such is statistical variability within an acceptable margin to the Census Bureau with an acceptable p-value that looks at the chance that a trend may not be significant because of sample size issues per se - this is the same principle used in polling. As far as each ACS figure representing a composite average over a five-year period, this is already understood and baked into the semantics. If you have a couple of spare minutes, please look at the ACS page in question, and for both Filipino and Korean numbers, please look at the estimated figure for each year from 2010 through 2017,and what you'll notice is a definite significant and notable uptrend for both. This is by design of the ACS algorithms and not by chance. This should be reflected in the article to give the reader an accurate picture. Castncoot (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I understand your effort, but what do I do with the 2010 Census data, which shows far higher numbers for Filipino and Korean residents than the 2007-2011 ACS shows? Is there any explanation how the 100% enumeration of 626 Filipino and 389 Korean residents in the 2010 Census plummeted to 407 Filipino and 166 Korean residents the next year in the 2007-2011 ACS? The American Community Survey provides five-year rolling numbers for almost all municipalities, as well as one-year data for those above 65,000. Saying that data is for "2011", "2014" and "2017" implies a one-year timescale for the data, that should be accurately reflected as "2007-2011", "2010-2014" and "2013-2017". I'm not sure that the ACS is updated retrospectively as you describe, though I am certain that the Population Estimates Program does update estimates for previous years; if you could point me to a source to demonstrate that the ACS for prior years is adjusted, I will stand corrected.
I think that the use of ACS data for this purpose demonstrates the extreme limitations of ACS data for small groups within a municipality and changing numbers over time, in that the ACS is a snapshot over five years that includes a small sample of all residents. I have tried to see where we could find editors more knowledgeable about this issue to get some additional insights, but I haven't figured out the best place to ask a reasonable sample of editors familiar with the topic of decennial census data vs. ACS. Alansohn (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Two different concerns here:
  • 1) The decennial enumeration is sacrosanct and non-negotiable for the lede. The topic in question here has a whole different shape and purpose- it's to suggest a rough but significant trend or ratio over a period of time in a sourced way. If anything, the rolling 5-year averages make these trends even more credible. (I have no issue with spelling out the whole 5-year period being cited explicitly in the article, other than that it seems clunky and we don't do so when updating intra-decade estimates in the lede for comparison to the decennial count.)
  • 2) The ACS is absolutely revising previous years' data on an annual basis because it uses the constantly changing Population Estimates Program data as its controls to work off of. Castncoot (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In terms of item 1, I'm really unsure how to reconcile the fact that there is a huge discrepancy between the data in the 2010 Census and what should be the corresponding numbers in the ACS for 2007-2011 (or 2008-2012 or 2009-2013...). Why doesn't the data match up? The significant mismatch between the 2010 Census numbers -- which should be the gold standard -- and matching ACS data makes the use of the ACS data for an apples-to-apples comparison that much harder to justify. Regarding item 2, I haven't seen any confirmation that the ACS is adjusted to reflect any retrospective changes to the PEP (again, I'd appreciate any source to describe the process), but the PEP adjustments are almost always very small and wouldn't have a meaningful impact on the number of Filipino and Korean residents, which are a small percentage of the total population. I will continue to research the issue and I hope that we can find a mutual understanding of how to best use and present this data. Alansohn (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, there is one sure way to find out. I suggest we leave the content as it is for now with respect to this issue. We have recorded in this discussion the figures for both Koreans and Filipinos in Fair Lawn as estimated in 2018 for 2011, 2014, and 2017. Let's wait a year for the 2013-2018 ACS estimates page to come out, which will list next year's revised estimates for 2011, 2014, and 2017. We can then compare them to the figures we have recorded in this discussion. Of course, it may be temporarily relegated to the status of an academic discussion since the 2020 decennials are coming out about 12 to 18 months from now anyway. But subsequent to that, this issue will come up again and we should be better educated about this by then. Castncoot (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of self-identifying LGBTQ New Yorkers --Moxy 🍁 16:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

List of self-identifying LGBTQ New Yorkers

Hello Castncoot -

Your new article, List of self-identifying LGBTQ New Yorkers has somehow or other come to my attention. Per BLP, all of the entries need to have a link to the self-identification of these individuals. I know you have put a lot of work into this list, and rather than following the strict letter of the BLP policy (which would probably require deleting the list), I'm going to move it to your personal userspace to give you some time to add the links to the self-identification. While you're at it, I'd also suggest that you link to a confirmation that the person is, in fact, a resident of New York City. (You may need to expand your criteria somewhat to include those who work in NYC, as I suspect some of those individuals may have a primary residence elsewhere.) This is in no way prejudicial to the article being returned to mainspace once the citations are complete. Risker (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I've started reviewing the references you've added (incidentally, good work in getting so much done so quickly!), and I've made a few notes on the talk page of the draft that you might find helpful. I'll continue tomorrow as time permits.

To make sure we're both clear here - the objective is to have the list properly referenced with respect to confirming that the individuals included have publicly identified that they have an LGBT orientation, at a minimum; there should also be evidence that the individual lives and/or works in NYC, although this is often included in the same reference. I don't have an opinion on whether or not the article would withstand a challenge at AFD, should someone bring it forward, and that's not the objective of getting the list referenced; right now, the objective is just to get it to meet the minimal BLP threshold. I can't help wondering if the list is so long that it should logically be broken down differently (e.g., multiple articles, using tables instead of free text, or some other format). I'm estimating there are 300 entries on the list, which is very long for this style of list. It's also prone to a lot of expansion, because there's no way this is a list of all the notable "out" people from NYC who have a Wikipedia article, which likely numbers in the thousands, given the size of NYC, the number of notable people there, and the comparative openness of the LGBT community there. That is something to think about in the "middle distance" though. Risker (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Risker- first of all, I would like to thank editors Figurefour44 and Chrish65 for their valiant efforts and edits. Because the far greater time urgency here is the LGBTQ status, that is what I've concentrated on in quoting sources. Most of them probably also do mention the NYC connection- but it can be challenging to find the required refs and not every ref may contain both the LGBTQ and the New York connection. I'm sure ultimately we can find a ref that also contains the NYC connection for all of them, but this aspect is not nearly as personal (or urgent) as the LGBQT status. Will look at and incorporate your suggestions after we beat our self-imposed time deadline here. Thanks all, again! Castncoot (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For your diligent efforts in referencing a long and complex list to the exacting standards of the BLP policy. Risker (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, you deserve the same Risker for your diligence inspecting all of the references and finding more suitable ones where needed. Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
....and the move has been completed. Now back to regular community discussion.  :-) Risker (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of self-identified LGBTQ New Yorkers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of self-identified LGBTQ New Yorkers 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/List of self-identified LGBTQ New Yorkers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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) 19:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Deep breaths

I saw your comments here. After all of the work that you have put into the page, I can understand the level of passion that you have for keeping the article. I might suggest, however, that after you've taken a walk around the block (or similar), you might want to moderate the tone a little bit. Perhaps consider asking the OP what they'd suggest be done to improve or modify the article. I'm not the best person to comment on the AfD; I don't have a lot of expertise in the standards for lists (generally speaking), or in this topic area. I have, however, asked someone who has more knowledge in both areas to take an independent look at the page. Risker (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I was just flabbergasted by what I saw as the ultimate in hypocrisy. But you are correct, deep breaths are better! Thanks and best, Castncoot (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Remember to focus on policy/guideline-based reasons for keeping the article, such as Wikipedia:Article size, and pointing out that the split-off list is an improvement in that it is now properly BLP-compliant with appropriate references. Risker (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC). Oh, and that it was suggested by another admin? Risker (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely, agreed- in fact, multiple editors have alluded to this over the years. Castncoot (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lower East Side, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caucasian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Birth place/residence parameters in infoboxes

Hi, Castncoot! First, I want to say I think you've done a great job with List of self-identified LGBTQ New Yorkers. Keep up the good work!

I also want to point out one small thing. I've seen you make edits like this one to several articles, and I want to let you know that that goes against Wikipedia style guidelines. You can read at Template:Infobox person that the birth_place and residence parameters take their arguments in the form city, administrative region, country. Therefore, Manhattan, New York, U.S. is correct, while Manhattan, New York City is not. Please remember to use city, administrative region, country in the future :-) Feel free to ask if you have any questions! Armadillopteryxtalk 16:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(Whoops! Just to correct myself, I meant that New York CIty, New York, U.S. is what should go in the infobox, since the first entry needs to be a city, and Manhattan is just a borough. It's certainly right to be specific and mention that the person lives in Manhattan in the article, but in the infobox, only city-state-country is written for U.S. subjects.) Armadillopteryxtalk 16:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, and thank you so much for your help as well! Castncoot (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard notice about editing gender-related articles. The notice informs you that beyond all the regular rules around here, there are a more stringent set of rules governing the behavior of editors who edit in certain controversial areas, like gender, that you need to know about. Please read it, and follow the links. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

BioNTech SE moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, BioNTech SE, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Lapablo (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content from Cherry Hill

Why remove Chick's Deli from the article for Cherry Hill, New Jersey in this edit, in which no explanation was offered? It has an article of its own and the sources establish the connection? Alansohn (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Should we include McDonald's and other food entities which have articles of their own? It seems decidedly WP:UNDUE to me. Castncoot (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that a notable single-location restaurant (e.g. Chick's Deli) is relevant to the article of the city it's in. That's different from a large chain like McDonald's with no specific link to that town. Armadillopteryx 11:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I concur with Armadillopteryx, certainly for a notable establishment with a single location. Alansohn (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about it one way or another. Castncoot (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of LGBT people from New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robin Roberts.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of LGBT people from New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billy Porter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Koreatown, Palisades Park for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Koreatown, Palisades Park 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/Koreatown, Palisades Park until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Rusf10 (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Koreatown, Fort Lee for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Koreatown, Fort Lee 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/Koreatown, Fort Lee until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Rusf10 (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk page discussion on Yang

Hey, both of our edit summaries were getting pretty long, so I started a talk page section so we can discuss at length and others can weigh in as well. We can definitely come up with a reasonable consensus for the first sentence of the lead - just have to work out what that consensus is! Ganesha811 (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good-see you there on that page. Castncoot (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of LGBT people from New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aja.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trenton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bergen County, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Portland metropolitan area, Maine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MSA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

To make things clear

Hello Castncoot! To make things clear, I reverted your contributions (the one with in List of IndiGo destinations), the reason why because IndiGo doesn't have route to New York. They have all narrowbody aircrafts with Mumbai to New York or Delhi to New York is about 12,000km+ or 6000+ nautical miles. And thus, American Airlines codeshare with IndiGo for the Indian domestic flights. It doesn't mean that Indigo have already direct flight to New York. The list of destination is also do not include the codeshare destinations. I hope you understand! Thank you. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Primary topic

Hey there,

I'm not sure if these edits were made in error, but I've undone your recent moves of List of tallest buildings in Melbourne → List of tallest buildings in Melbourne. Australia and List of tallest buildings in Sydney → List of tallest buildings in Sydney. Australia. Aside from being incorrectly formatted (eg. Melbourne. Australia would need to be Melbourne, Australia) both Melbourne and Sydney are already recognised as the primary topics of their respective names, as they're quite obviously the two most notable in the world to carry those names, being the two largest capital cities of Australia. Hence, there is no need to clarify to the reader whether we're referring to Melbourne/Sydney in Australia, or another Melbourne/Sydney elsewhere... it should be assumed to be the former. More so, the changes were inconsistent. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Indians in the NYC metro region

Hi Castncoot. I'm wondering if the image montage of Indians in the region needs some cleanup. Most of the individuals are notable enough to be featured in the montage but it seems to me that some self promotional stuff has wandered into the collection. For example, Simran Jeet Singh (NYC has many prominent Indian academics) or Roopa Unnikrishnan, who doesn't appear particularly notable? --RegentsPark (comment) 13:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi Regents, hope all is well. I guess if there's a Wikipedia article about them, they meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. But you're an experienced admin...so have at it! Best, Castncoot (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
    My point is that we can't include every Indian or Indian American who lives in the tri-state area and has a Wikipedia article. At least not in the images section. I was hoping to pass the buck (of figuring out criteria for inclusion) to you! Perhaps something like: well known entertainer; award winner; dean/vice dean if a university professor; elected official? Imo, you're more likely to know what constitutes a super notable person. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

List of Hindu temples in the United States

Thanks for your linkage additions to this page, which improve the article. I noticed you added "Further information: Hindu Temple Society of North America" and have highlighted it in the History section. However, as stated in the History section and according to reliable, verifiable sources, this temple is not the oldest Hindu temple in the U.S. - it is the second oldest Hindu temple built by Indian immigrants. Highlighting the oldest temple in the History section does improve the article, so I will replace it with the correct entry. I will remove the further information links to the Flushing temple, as its page only provides additional information on that temple, not on the "List of Hindu temples in the United States." Thanks again.

P.S. The Vedanta Society Old Temple in San Francisco, in spite of its name, is also a "present" Hindu temple. According to its website (https://sfvedanta.org/the-society/old-temple/), spiritual activities are currently held there and apparently have taken place there continuously since 1905.

- Ram1751 (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. Your assertion is actually misleading and incorrect. The Vedanta Society's website itself specifically refutes it by explicitly saying, "In actual fact, the Temple was not in any sense Hindu — not in organization, activities, membership, architecture, or decor." When it actually became a bona fide operating Hindu temple will never be known. Also, the image source in the article does not support this assertion either. So best we just leave it pictureless in this regard. Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
According to this reference https://www.societyforasianart.org/programs/member-events/visit-vedanta-society-and-old-temple-1905 (which appears solid and reliable), "The swami wanted to build a Hindu temple that represented the influx of India’s great spiritual wisdom into the culture of the West and yet was universal in its approach." Also per the source, the swami who built it called it “The first Hindu temple in the whole Western world dedicated to the cause of humanity.” Further, the San Francisco Chronicle article says, "It (old Vedanta Temple) was the first Hindu temple in the Western Hemisphere." So two reliable sources out of the three listed ones refute your "misleading and incorrect" assertion. - Ram1751 (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Here is a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle: https://www.sfchronicle.com/vault/portalsofthepast/article/That-exotic-looking-building-in-Cow-Hollow-was-16368432.php Please note its title: "That exotic-looking building in Cow Hollow was the first Hindu temple in the West" Here is another newspaper article (again, note its title): https://www.marinatimes.com/original-hindu-temple-in-usa-is-overhauled-after-111-years This newspaper article https://indiacurrents.com/the-historical-old-temple-of-vedanta-society-in-san-francisco/ specifically states: "The Old Temple...is the oldest universal Hindu temple in the western world." Per Wikipedia guidelines, the Vedanta Society's website is not a high-quality independent source and cannot be used to verify your assertion. On the other hand, I have put forth five (5) "reliable, secondary, entirely independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail, such as books, newspapers, magazines" that confirm the Old Temple is the oldest Hindu temple in the Western Hemisphere. - Ram1751 (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact the website admits as such, and that is the statement placed on the page, and cited by your own source, which you regarded so highly above!!! And truthfully, do you really think that the actual truth is not important to divulge? Let the reader make their own judgemrnt and arrive at their own conclusion by knowing the facts please. Castncoot (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by my "own source" - I have no connection to it and do not "regard it highly." Again, per Wikipedia guidelines, the Vedanta Society's website is not a high-quality independent source and cannot be used to infer the "actual truth" -- facts should be sourced from "reliable, secondary, entirely independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail, such as books, newspapers, magazines."

Ram1751 (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean that you brought up the source and used it first and then quoted it in support of your assertion earlier. Per WP:PRIMARY, the guidelines simply emphasize care when using primary sources, and care should be exercised with any source regardless. Anyway, this all seems to be a moot point now, as we seem to have reached a nice compromise on the article page. Best, Castncoot (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of city rankings

You and I had a difference of opinion about the ranking you added to the article for Monroe Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey in this edit (among others). I believe that some rankings (e.g. Money's Best Places to Live) are encyclopedic but that many (if not most) others don't merit inclusion, no matter who reported on the survey, and that the one you added did not merit addition to the article.

I raised the issue on the US Cities talk page here and was immediately referred to a recent RfC conducted at Talk:Chanhassen,_Minnesota#Request_for_Comment_-_Should_the_'Best_Place_to_Live_in_the_U.S.'_rankings_be_included?, where the clearest possible consensus was that the answer was that none of these rankings should be included. I'm not sure that I would have voted the same way, but I think that there is no support for a ranking by a no-name entity like MoneyGeek, even if the survey and ranking were reported in an otherwise reliable source like the one you used.

I think that this addresses the issue of inclusion at Monroe Township pretty conclusively with a resounding "No!". Do you have any thoughts on this with the benefit of the additional input? Alansohn (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess you didn't see the updated changes I made in order to work with you. There can't be further valid objections from you now. The content, sources, and tone expressed are reasonable, reliably sourced, fundamentally objective, and say nothing about "best"- and I have to admit that your initial argument persuaded me to improve upon all of these considerations. Your current argument, however, comes off as flawed on multiple fronts. Camden can similarly be objectively described as having been one of the most dangerous cities in the United States. Stating facts is perfectly OK as long as they are sourced and stated per Wikipedia's policies. Castncoot (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Luxury apartment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doorman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Mass image spam

Articles with many images will time out on mobile versions of Wikipedia. Ideally, a page should have no more than 100 images (regardless of how small). See MediaWiki:Limit number of images in a page.Moxy- 17:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ed Koch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democrat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to talk 1v1, let’s talk here

Also bear in mind that any disputed or controversial decisions pertaining to the United States article need to be run through community discussion via that article talk page to hash things out. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Castncoot: Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t looking for a 1v1 discussion on this topic. Anybody on the article’s Talk page is welcome to join the discussion. They just haven’t. Castncoot (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Castncoot: I will add this suggestion that may work, because I can tell you’re really genuinely to improve the encyclopedia, and I’d love to see you contribute in ways that are beneficial for both you, the editors, and the readers.

Can you think of any American theater plays that are very famous and world-renowned? And if the average person outside the US with an average general population interest and knowledge of theater saw an image of the play being performed, they’d immediately think, “oh that’s American!” I think that’s a good starting point that you can work from individually. If you find specific images, match them up against the various “tests” and criteria discussed, and if you’re still unsure, make a new thread on the United States talk page titled “Proposed image for theater section” for community discussion. I hope this helps, good luck! Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Here are some WP lists that I think are a very good starting point you can look into for image ideas:

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Manhattan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Safe haven.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Drought in the South Bay

I removed your inserted mention of drought from the Silicon Valley article. The main focus of the Silicon Valley article is the high-tech sector, not larger climatic issues. Drought is important to several other articles including the geographically oriented Santa Clara Valley article where you also inserted it, and any other metropolitan area article such as Santa Clara County, California. Please note that putting new information in the lead section should be accompanied by a fuller treatment of that information in the body of the article, per WP:LEAD. That means the Santa Clara Valley article is now in violation of LEAD, until someone composes a paragraph or two about the drought situation in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing out my discrepancy there. Castncoot (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Standard notice about editing around climate change

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Repeating that this does not imply any policy violations by you. Just a notice. Femke (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at LGBT culture in New York City, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Using event websites is considered WP:UGC, not a reliable source. BlueboyLINY (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Let’s take this to the article’s talk page. Castncoot (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for (mostly) reverting yourself on that page. Castncoot (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Citing sources

Regarding your 21:01, 28 June 2022 edit in the Dyke March article: if an article has an established citation style, editors need to follow it — see WP:CITEVAR re "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved." Also please read Bare URLs. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boeing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arlington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Primary topic moves

Hi! Before making any move page moves or retargeting of redirects that involve disambiguation pages, it would be a really good idea to have a look at:

  • WP:PTOPIC, the guidelines about primary topics
  • WP:DABNAME, about the titles of dab pages (in particular, there's no spacing between the parenthesis and the disambiguator)
  • WP:RM#CM, which is the process that should be followed (instead of doing it as a bold move) when changing the primary topic of well established pages.

Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Koreatown," listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Koreatown, and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10#Koreatown, until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Chinatow" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chinatow and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10#Chinatow until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Lgbt c" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Lgbt c and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10#Lgbt c until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Indian in" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Indian in and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10#Indian in until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Filipinos New" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Filipinos New and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10#Filipinos New until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Financial District, Lo" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Financial District, Lo and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10#Financial District, Lo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Castncoot/Archive_4&oldid=1097955508"