User talk:Ken Gallager
Hi. On the castle in the clouds page, when you say a published reference do you mean a book or a website sort of thing? I might be able to get a journal or something, MAYBE, from my relative, but I'm not sure. I know other relatives often used journals, so I'll see. But the thing is, I'm not trying to disagree with you, your point makes sense, but I got this information from a relative who would actually go to visit her grandparents (the tobies), & sleep there as a kid. Once again, I'll see what I can find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - thanks for getting in touch! The issue has to do with Wikipedia's policy that the encyclopedia is a compendium of published knowledge rather than a venue for posting original research. I wonder if any of the curators of the Castle might have already published some sort of history of the estate which would make reference to your reminiscences? Failing that, the next best thing would be some sort of journal, as you suggested. Best wishes, --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Revert Redirect Request
Greeting Ken, Pardon any greenness, want to treat Wikipedia etiquette with utmost respect. Writing you regarding a redirected page dating back to 2013 that is causing confusion with consumers. Writing this from work so my work IP can be logged using an account associated with my work email so my identity can be verified if called into question.
The page in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Realtor.com&action=history which was redirected to the National Association of Realtors page back in 2013. The confusion comes in when a consumer searches for Realtor.com in Google and the NAR wiki page displays in the right rail Knowledge Graph suggesting the site is a trade union, displays the wrong CEO, wrong social media accounts, logo etc.
The sites are affiliated, but Realtor.com is run by Move Inc which was recently acquired by News Corp of which I am an employee, see: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-1001-newscorp-realtor-20141001-story.html We'd like to see the redirect removed so the page can be updated to be more accurate. I am well aware that we should avoid editing the page ourselves but reversing the redirect seems like the proper starting point.
Looking forward to your feedback and/or questions. I apologize in advance if this was the wrong approach.
- Hi, thanks for getting in touch. Just to be clear, the redirect has been in place since 2010. I reverted the change in 2013 because the new text appeared to be promotional. If having the redirect is causing confusion, though, I don't see any problem with your starting an article. There's not an explicit ban on conflicts of interest, but you do need to be scrupulous about not saying anything promotional. The solution is to start it off by keeping it as short as possible. You could start with exactly what you said above: "Realtor.com is a website run by Move Inc. which was recently acquired by News Corp", etc. Add an "External links" heading (see the bottom of the NAR article for an example) and put in the official link to realtor.com. Give the article one or more categories (again, see how it's done at the bottom of the NAR page). Then let it grow from there. Best wishes, --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for correcting my grammatical errors. I wanted your opinion on this: The article lists the city is being incorporated in 1751, however that was before the US. After that it was incp'd in 1846, and that is what the city lists on the seal. Should we change it to 1846, leave it, or put up both? Pretzel4 (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I took a look at some of the other cities in New Hampshire, and it appears that the practice around the state varies. Concord and Nashua are in the same situation as Manchester, where they started life with a different name and a different form of government. In each case, the earliest date is the only one given in the infobox. However, I see that the Portsmouth and Dover pages list a second date for their incorporation as cities. I suspect you could add the date of city incorporation to the infobox without getting any pushback, as long as you don't take out the date of original incorporation. I anyway won't object. Thanks for getting in touch! --Ken Gallager (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Portsmouth has a good example. After the "established_title" and "established_date" lines, add two more lines: "established_title2" and "established_date2". Portsmouth's infobox uses "Incorporated" for the first title, then "Incorporated (city)" for the second. You can adjust as needed. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know of any source that gives all the high points. When I did the high points for New Hampshire towns, I simply consulted the USGS topos. That's obviously going to be a lot more problematic for X thousand counties nationwide. In the GNIS, it appears that the elevation is given for the geographic centroid of the county, i.e. the same place for which the lat/long is listed. --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the County Highpointers website? I've only given it a quick glance, so I don't know if they've hidden a list in there. --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ken, thank you so much for taking on some copyediting at Goodlyfe Crew. It really is an absolute stinker of an article and I have more than once reeled away from it clutching my head. I am glad that you are made of sterner stuff. All power to your elbow! Cheers, DBaK (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I just wish I knew what someone's "provence" was... --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)