Is it Cooper's Corners or Cooper's Corner?
I noticed that you changed my edit from Cooper's Corner back to Cooper's Corners. I'm going to explain to you why I changed it from Corners to Corner.
Click on the following links:
I have known about Cooper's Corner for more than 50 years, and it was ALWAYS referred to as Cooper's Corner, NOT Cooper's Corners. I try to be very careful with my edits. I did notice that the images in the article are identified as Cooper's Corners, but the school and the nursery were always referred to as Cooper's Corner.
- The US Geographic Names Information Service says that the name of the place is Cooper's Corners, with the extra S. This is the authoritative source, cited in the article, and Wikipedia follows published official sources whenever possible. The GNIS nomenclature should be followed unless there is some other authoritative source that says otherwise. So far, none has come to light.
- All your links point to the Montessori school. Your Google link displays an icon for the Cooper's Corner Montessori School, not for Cooper's Corners itself. A Google search for Cooper's Corners https://www.google.com/#q=cooper%27s+corners selects the correct map with an icon at Cooper's Corners. I do not dispute that the Montessori school is named "Coopers Corner Montessori School". But the article is not about the school.
- —Mark Dominus (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Bascove-BooksFall.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bascove-BooksFall.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Bascove-Sustenance.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bascove-Sustenance.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
While reviewing the North Pole article I discovered several citations to the non-notable journal DIO. For several reasons, I believe this journal is an unreliable source. Special:Linksearch indicates that Wikipedia currently contains 138 citations to this journal.
In short, there is a problem here that should be addressed, but I don't know who can help with it. Who can? Is there a WikiProject or other group whose job is to investigate unreliable journals and to remove or tag assertions that are cited to these journals?
—Mark Dominus (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- The closest I can think of is WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard; leaing a note there will get people experienced in determining the reliability of sources to check it out. There is no WikiProject dedicated to investigating unreliable journals. Huon (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mark Dominus - Leave a message on my talk page. I'll be happy to look through your concerns and determine if the source meets Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, there was an edit conflict and I think I might have accidentally removed your additions to the WP:RSN. I'm very sorry, just wanted to let you know so you can correct it if so. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- It looks okay to me. Thanks for the warning! —Mark Dominus (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
You might wanna hold off on the renovation
- Thanks! Please cite the OUP publication of Wavell’s journal for the Churchill quote, as it's the best possible source. —Mark Dominus (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- In that case I'm going to add the Wavell thing now. Cheers! —Mark Dominus (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
You uploaded, File:Placido2-s.jpg, where you either stated that you had permission to upload it or that evidence of such permission would be provided on request. Wikipedia needs the permission to be explicit and proven at the time of upload.
Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, which advises on how to confirm the permission you obtained from a third party.
- The image file page includes an excerpt of the correspondence between myself and the copyright holder which specifically authorizes me to distribute this picture under the terms of the GFDL. If anything else is required, please state specifically and in detail what is needed. —Mark Dominus (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)