Jump to content

User talk:Markvs88/Archive 1

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

Archive for User talk:Markvs88 from 24 August 2005 to 24 August 2010.

Konnichiwa

Welcome!

Hello, Markvs88/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 03:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC) .

Stratford geography

You might consider developing a paragraph for Far Mill River, which has a higher elevation than mentioned in your recent edits Tedickey (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tedickey! I agree, and am trying to figure out if Far Mill's elevation is the 42 feet in question or the 200 feet listed on that page. Right now I'm not sure and want to check against the surveyor buttons. I've also found that Sikorsky Memorial Airport varies between 8-10 feet depending on when the measurment was taken. Hopefully I'll have it figured out soon.

thanks - I recall that part of the drop in elevation is within Shelton, but didn't think it dropped ~150 feet between Huntington St (the top) and Bridgeport Ave. There's a lot of drop between Bridgeport Ave. and Rt. 110 - and (I don't see a good map...) the town line's above most of that. Anyway it's worth checking into. Tedickey (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasteland

So what makes you think that this game is part of the Fallout series? As I have said being a spiritual successor doesn't make the game part of the series. Read that article. Look at the examples, none of them are the same series. Wasteland and Fallout are no different. They are different IPs. --Mika1h (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's more the other way around -- I think Fallout is part of the Wasteland series. Like Fountain of Dreams, the Fallout games draw HEAVILY from Wasteland -- not just in concept and spirit, but in terms of actual content. There are dozens upon dozens of references in each of the Fallout games to Wasteland, the most obvious example being the "Fix Water Purifier" mission in FA2. FA & FA2 also quote lots of the speech from Wasteland. FA3 does a lot of this too "Radio Free Wasteland"? Check. Enigmatic robots? Check. Energy weapons and power armor in a post-nuclear setting, even if the world seems stuck in a decade w/o that level of technology? Check. People worshiping nukes? Check. Minefields? Check. NPCs that don't help you? Check. ETC, ETC, ETC! While lots of tasks are the same across games, FA and WL have more in common than not. It is quoted on the Fallout page that if EA didn't hold the name "Wasteland" that it was the Fallout team's first choice. The Fallout series is much newer, but at the end of the day it's still the son of Wasteland. Unlike, say, Twilight 2000 which is clearly NOT the same game redone. Unofficial sequel? Yes. But a sequel! - Markvs88 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Fallout has many references to Wasteland. That is why it's considered a spiritual successor. Legally they are different series and that's what matters in the end. So can you get me a reliable source saying that they are part the same series? --Mika1h (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw a reference that said that Fallout was a "spiritual successor", so it's not technically part of the same series. The Fallout series page can mention the Wasteland series as a precursor, but not include them as part of the Fallout series. However, putting them in the same infobox is fine IMO, as they are related to each other.--ZXCVBNM 22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
They are both designed by Brian Fargo and Interplay, it was just the legal fact the EA owned Wasteland that stopped it from being a full sequel. Wasteland has more in common with Fallout than Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel does. There is even an NPC in Fallout who is "unofficially" from the game Wasteland, Tycho the Desert Ranger. [1] ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:NFCC

Based on your addition of wikis and fan sites to the BSG units article, and your restoration of a non-free image that completely fails to meet the criteria for inclusion, I'm asking you to take a moment to refresh yourself on the contents of WP:RS and WP:NFCC. Thanks, and happy editing! --EEMIV (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, fan sites do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, regardless of the article topic. --EEMIV (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The word "fan" occurs zero times in the standards article. Your opinion is yours, (and that's fine) but it's not as if a work of fiction often enjoys non-fan related content as a source of information. The sources in question DIRECTLY supports the article's information, they are third party and are credible as much as anything else on the Internet. Further, these sites directly publish information from the TV episodes while NOT adding opinion.

Unless you can directly cite where the site fails ANY part of the standards article, they're valid.

Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources - The web site is self-published fancruft; the author is not a recognized expert in the field. --EEMIV (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Whom are you to say he is not? I wasn't aware of a "Battlestar Galactica Certification" where one can take and exam to become an expert! And, btw, *everything* on the Internet is self published. You'd have to take out about 90% of the citations on Wikipedia if you extended your ruler to the rest of the site.

Please respond on the article talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been asking you the same thing for some time how.

Articles for deletion nomination of BlackBerry Storm 2

I have nominated BlackBerry Storm 2, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlackBerry Storm 2. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ejfetters (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No one has been talking on the page for a long time, so it's not being deleted. Markvs88 (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Gold edits

Your start of edit warring on the Gold page is not very constructive. I have started a discussion section of the issues at hand, cf. Talk:Gold#Monetary exchange section. Please discuss. Kbrose (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nor are your accusations. Let's discuss this in a civilized manner, eh? Markvs88 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Historic washington bridge.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Historic washington bridge.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please let me know if you need more information. All postcard images pre-1923 are in the public domain and are free to be used. http://reviews.ebay.com/COPYRIGHT-INFO-for-POSTCARDS-in-The-Public-Domain_W0QQugidZ10000000004222864 Markvs88 (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Per WP:BRD - please engage in the talk-page discussion I initiated on the Eastern Alliance talk page. The content you are restoring fails to meet WP:RS, WP:BURDEN. If you disagree to the removal of the crufty stuff, that's one thing -- however, undoing other general structural improvements in line with the WP:MOS is disruptive. Relax. The article is kept -- that doesn't mean it is perfect, or that it can't be improved further. --EEMIV (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Then stop your irrational "vendetta". I think some "Citation needed" tags make a lot more sense and are constructive. Markvs88 (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not a "vendetta"; I think you're reading more into my edits than is there. The material is trivial cruft that frankly doesn't belong. Please promptly provide sources for the uncited generalizations spawned from isolated appearances. --EEMIV (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I like that you went with the citation needed tags and restored the deleted content. The reason I said vendetta was the roughly 15 minutes of time between the "KEEP" status and your edit. Frankly, the trivial cruft material belongs and needs citations. Promptly? I take that to mean anytime in the next 60 days at the very least. I do urge you to refamiliarize yourself with [[2]], as I do not see you adding anything constructive to this page. Markvs88 (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Given your hostility, your perception of my contributions -- MOS alignment, templating citations, consolidating critical reaction, copyedits -- is immaterial. I'm removing your talk page from my watchlist; if you have anything to contribute, please put it in the article. --EEMIV (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hostile? Not at all. Had you been willing to discuss instead of immediately put the page up for deletion, I'd take you as being more reasonable. Have a nice day! Markvs88 (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Joseph DiMenna

"This user finds censorship offensive" ...I find it funny that you refuse to allow Joseph DiMenna to be considered "notable" despite the fact that the people of Trumbull do consider him "notable." Either you have a control problem or a personal vendetta against him. Editing the page to consider him notable is not "petty vandalism" or "cowardly," as it is in the will of the people of Trumbull. People like you diminish the usefulness of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.17.84 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! If you want to talk about cowardly, you're sending an anonymous note! That said, go READ the discussion page on the Trumbull page. As soon as somebody, ANYBODY can say why Joseph DiMenna is notable for something besides being Italian-American, doing his job and giving money to charity, I'd happily drop any objection. Your edits without reading the discussion page ARE petty vandalism and your anonymous status IS cowardly. Markvs88 (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Markvs88, I noticed you added the {{Editsemiprotected}} tag to the Stamford, Connecticut talk page, please note that this tag is only used to request an uncontroversial edit be made to the already protected page and not to actually request the page be protected, if you'd like to request page protection you can file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. See the protection policy for more information. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remove it. Markvs88 (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Geno Auriemma

Thanks for the work you are doing on the CT quality and importance - it isn't going unnoticed. One of the items on my to-do list is to get Geno Auriemma up to a GA level. While I added most of the references, it is disorganized, so I want to structure it better. Probably won't get to it right away. I don't disagree with the quality rating at this time - it definitely needs work, but I was surprised to see the importance as mid. I haven't done any work in the rating arena, so it isn't my area of expertise, but I took a glance at pages in Top and High, and I would see the debate as which of those categories is appropriate. If being nationally known is one of the criteria, he's better known nationally than Jodi Rell, and certainly better known than most CT members of Congress. This isn't a major issue to me, and if we want to revisit it when I've improved the article, that's fine, but I can understand if someone says improving the quality only affects the quality, not the importance, so I've hate to find that the importance isn't easy to revisit.

Keep up the good work. --SPhilbrickT 12:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Excellent, it's great seeing articles get improved over time! Sadly we have so few GA articles in the Connecticut project right now. If you haven't seen it yet, the ratings criteria for Connecticut can be found at [[3]]. I admit that I wrote it, (though it is based off the general Wikipedia system) and of course it is somewhat subjective. For what it is worth, Geno is rated the same as Calhoun, and both are on par with mayors of Connecticut cities & Lieutenant Governors in terms of importance to the state. I'm hard pressed to say that either man rates (as High) with Governors, Senators or nationally known authors/artists/businessmen/musicians et al... maybe that'll change as the articles improve though! My main rationale was that their influence is over their own programs at UConn, which is by definition regional. Another example of Mid is Jeffrey R. Immelt. While GE is very important to the state, he is only a Mid because while important, he himself is not GE. It's very easy to revisit and rerate articles, so no worries there. I see you are doing a lot with CT basketball, why not join us in the WikiProject Connecticut? PS: I graduated UConn myself ('95). Markvs88 (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

For your consideration

Re [4]: Fuck off, you idiot. --87.79.84.177 (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk like that hardly helps your case, o anonymous one. Markvs88 (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Fairfield Prep

Quite honestly, the whole article is not cited. That was a valuable contribution that is occurring at the school right now. Do as you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.224.70 (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

While the article is indeed in dire need of citations, the tone the edit had was certainly not neutral Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and was *very* POV. I'm not against what was posted, but it needs to be cited because it was accusatory and would be considered original research and/or not verifiable. At the very least it would need revision to be balanced Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Balancing_different_views. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Interstate 384

Hi,
what's going on with that Interstate 384 article? I notice that the IP is changing the categorization key in line with the other categorization keys on the page, and also in line with other similar articles (Interstate 284, for example).
That's not vandalism, and it appears to me that that change is quite correct.
Amalthea 16:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The user never explains why they're making the change, they don't respond to messages on their talk page User talk:205.166.161.61, so I logically assumed vandalism. I-384 is not called 84-3 and since 284 isn't being changed, I didn't even notice that there is something called 84-2... and have no idea why anyone would call it that. I reported the IP for vandalism because they were unresponsive yet kept making the same edits over and over again. Markvs88 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
That parameter in the categorization links is not actually displayed anywhere, it just defines where an article is sorted in the category. Check out Category:Interstate 84 (east): The 284, 484, and 684 articles are all listed under "8" because of that sort key. Of course, I think the IP changed all of those.
I've started a section on this at WT:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Category sortkeys, it's possible that the project prefers it that way. Amalthea 17:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Amalthea. Personally I have no problem at all with how the Roads project chooses to do it, but it would have been nice had the user posted a reason why they were making such changes. I probably rollback a dozen or two edits like that per day and it's very rare that it isn't page vandalism. Thanks also for the note on their user page, hopefully they'll listen. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much. But Connecticut is a breeze compared to what I just finished up in Massachusetts. Hmains (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Desiree Bassett

Good morning. I was curious as to why you evaluated the article the way that you did. Comparing the article's merits/deficits against the WP:CN Assessment Criteria, it would appear that a proper ranking would be somewhat higher than "Low/C".
Using the criteria from WP:CN, the two 'quality' rankings:

B - An article that is mostly complete and features references to reliable sources, pictures and is neutral in point of view.
C - An article with substantial information but may contain irrelevant material and/or have few references to reliable sources.<>br

I am unsure how you are evaluating the article as containing irrelevant material or containing unreliable sources.
As well, I feel that the importance of Bassett has been underestimated. Using the criteria for 'importance', the would appear to be of mid-importance; she does have a regional importance, she's known outside her hometown. She's known in her field. I would go so far as to state that more people know who she is than those who know CN-related villages, generals or judges.
Of course, this being somewhat subjective, I think we should discuss this more. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I posted a reply on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut page, but am happy to talk about it. The ratings are of course fluid, but I'm really hard pressed to say that she's as notable to the state Meat Loaf (High) or dozens of other nationally known personalities and artists. Ms. Bassett is indeed notable, there is no doubt about that. IMO, her CT importance is about equal to any given non-Amtrak rail station (such as South Norwalk (Metro-North station) or Frank Pepe Pizzeria Napoletana: very important to some people, but not very to most of the state. Note that "Low" is certainly nothing to sneeze at, and just because she's "Low" today doesn't mean she's there forever! While she might be better known than Al Capp or Ward Cheney today, I can't say that that would be true in their heyday.
Yes, she is known outside her hometown (and that's great!) but then so is Pepe's Pizza. Or let's consider Hatebreed (Mid): here's another local act, but one with albums that can be bought nationally and has done extensive touring. IMO, the article isn't really neutral -- there's a bit of rah-rah in there. Consider: "In 2008, when Bassett turned 16 she had two birthday parties, one with her classmates and friends (a week before her actual birthday), and one for the release of her first CD." -- how about: "In 2008, Bassett turned 16 and released her first CD Power & Force." Being known in her field is more a Musician & Guitarists project rating... I'd really be surprised if we went to (say) Pepe's (or South Norwalk, etc...) with a picture of her and a list of 10 names if very many people would be able to pick her out. For all we know her next album could put her on Top 40, but for now with what's in the article my POV is that it needs a little cleanup & enlargement to get to B, but her noterity at this point is just not equal to Rivers Cuomo yet. All in all, it's a great start and I look forward to seeing this article evolve! Markvs88 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me, Markvs88. I understand your points. If I could trouble you to take a moment and highlight all the points that you think are 'rah-rah' (or even to alter the text to swerve back towards what you feel is neutrality), I'd be tickled pink. I created the article, but I am not an overly protective parent. Go to it; I trust your judgment in re-phrasing the bias out.
Thanks in advance. Btw, I've never heard of either Pepe's Pizza or Hatebreed. ;)- Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'll get to it sometime this week. Thanks. And that's why they're Low and Mid, respectively. (lol!) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've done some revision on the article. You can read the comparison, but most of it is intact... it did shed about 20% of its size though. If you have any questions on why I erased some items or whatever, just ask! If you want to restore stuff back, that's your call. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've looked over a lot of your revisions, and am concerned that the chronological order of events was lost amidst them. It isn't a "story" or advertisement as you suggested, but rather a concise listing of events as they occurred. You also removed a few exceptionally good sources (Southern Fried Magazine amongst them), and purged quotes by the subject themselves, quotes which afford us a view into the subject's own view of her music and life in the spotlight. We can discuss a lot of this, though. :) - 18:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs)
There were chonological oddities in the article when I started, such as in "The Future of Rock and Roll" when the last item is from 2002 yet jumps to 2008. This is Wikipedia, not a timeline and we don't care if she wanted to ride a ferris wheel a few years ago. We don't care about rah-rah from her father/manager. We don't care about her owning a guitar with signatures nor meeting her idol Joe Satriani (I have too, and he's a great guy BTW. But is it encyclopedic? No.) In short, you've gotta cut the fluff because right now it reads like a fanboy page. I still suggest looking at other musicians like Meat Loaf to help get ideas for what to do with the article. Markvs88 (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your comments. I don't think that offering insight into the subject of a BLP from the subject themselves is "fluff". As well, while I think that the father's comment about Hannah Montana is close to the edge, it is pretty solidly cited, and applicable in its comparison to the fictional character. I do somewhat agree about the guitar thing, and have moved it to the bottom of the article section. I'm not married to the idea of it staying, but I think that removing it before the article gets a lot of traffic after the DYK comes out before culling everything seems a bit peremptory. I'm open to culling the fluff, primarily to ease the fannish tone, but I think that removing citations isn't the way to do so.
I don't think I should be using as guide any articles that aren't FA-quality; ergo, not open to using musician articles that aren't FA.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind discussion; I tend to mind reverting without discussion; among the info you reverted back into the article was a statement directly contradicted by two different sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack, stuff that was taken out by the other editors was taken out *for a reason*. Are you going to put everything back one section at a time, again? Markvs88 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Tag Articles

How do you do this. DjlnDjln (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

On the discussion page, just type {_{WikiProject Connecticut}_} (or the proper wikiproject for others) without the _, so the brackets are together {{ }}. If you want to copy & paste, you can click edit on the Category talk:Sports in Connecticut by sport‎ talk page. Thanks! Markvs88 (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: James T. Downs Jr.

Hello Markvs88. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on James T. Downs Jr. to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's no problem. Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

GA nominations

When nominating an article at WP:GAN, make sure to add the {{subst:GAN|subtopic=name of the subsection on this page where the article is listed}} template to the nominated article's talk page. Also, I have begun the review of Wesleyan University. Nikki♥311 02:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Markvs88 (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast! Markvs88 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Rites of Passage

Good suggestion on adding Rites of Passage to Stamford Education. It's done. --Nowa (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It just didn't fit on the town page but (like lots of other things) there had to be a place for it somewhere... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


Connecticut Huskies categories

Markvs88, hello. I saw that you opposed my nominations to rename the UConn Huskies categories. I understand your concerns about confusion and loss of specificity with these name changes, but would "Connecticut Huskies" be confused with anything notable other than the sports teams of the University of Connecticut? My motivation for the name-change nominations is to match the category names with their constituent articles, e.g. Connecticut Huskies, Connecticut Huskies football, Connecticut Huskies men's basketball, Connecticut Huskies women's basketball. "Connecticut" is the established "short name" for the University of Connecticut within the college football and college basketball projects here on Wikipedia. A case could be made that the short name should be "UConn" instead. Several other school goes by similar types of abbreviation/acronym, such as UCLA, USC, and LSU. But if you take a look at the standard convention used by definitive sports media outlets such as ESPN, you will see that they also use Connecticut over UConn; see http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/standings, http://espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=41. Thanks for your input. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jweiss11! As a UConn alum ('95), I know that Connecticut is short hand for Univ... but so is UConn as you point out. I'm either for leaving it as UConn or going for the full University of Connecticut moniker. My rationale is that it is confusing as there are other teams which use Connecticut as a part of the name, including the Connecticut Brakettes, Connecticut Sun, Connecticut Wildcats, and the Connecticut Yankees RFC. I would even go so far to say that UConn might get confused as a part of the state university system Connecticut State University System by those not in the know. Then there is also the problem that this goes beyond sports, as the other articles would get confusing. Consider what happens to Category:University of Connecticut. Some names stay the same (like Connecticut Law Review, which are already confusing. But then we'd have to rename List of University of Connecticut people to List of Connecticut people... and that doesn't work because we have List of people from Connecticut. I like the idea of what you're doing, but I think it needs to be done in a slightly different way. Markvs88 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Markvs88, what I'm suggesting here does not impact Category:University of Connecticut or List of University of Connecticut people. Those names are fine as they are and "University of" is most certainly necessary to distinguish them from topics about the state of Connecticut at large. However, the standard naming convention for college sports topics is to drop the "University" or "College" or the like and shorten the school name down to a "short name", but also to append the school fight's name to maintain effective specificity. "Huskies" is an integral element of Category:Connecticut Huskies, serves to define the category as much as "Connecticut", and distinguishes the Connecticut Huskies from other teams in the state of Connecticut, such as the ones you mention above. Take a look at Category:College football teams for a myriad of examples of this convention in practice. Specifically, note how the naming of the category matches that of its constituent articles, with the exception of UConn/Connecticut. The Connecticut Huskies categories need to follow these conventions to ensure parallelism as we move and up and around the category hierarchy. To address your mention of Connecticut Law Review, as a side note which may help to illustrate my main point, that article is titled "Connecticut Law Review" because that is the title of the publication. It's not titled the "University of Connecticut Law Review." Let's say though, for argument sake, that the Connecticut Bar Association put out a different, but equally notable and identically titled publication. Then, we'd have to name the two articles: Connecticut Law Review (University of Connecticut) and Connecticut Law Review (Connecticut Bar Association). Jweiss11 (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Jweiss11, for every school that shortens their name, there is a Northwestern Oklahoma State Rangers football. And for all of that, there is still the matter of the other non-UConn sports that take the Connecticut name I listed above. It should be one University and one naming convention, and I don't see my position on that changing from it staying UConn (ala BYU, LSU, TCU, USC, UCLA, UNLV...) or going to the full University of Connecticut name. Markvs88 (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Northwestern Oklahoma State Rangers football is shortened. The "University" has been dropped. I already explained why those other Connecticut teams are not a problem. They're not called the Huskies. What makes the case for BYU, LSU, TCU, USC, UCLA, and UNLV and not for UConn is the way definitive media outlets list Connecticut:

Jweiss11 (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted on the College Football Project page, reasonable minds can differ on this one. There are certain university sports programs that have become known by established shorthand catchphrases. For example, in our naming practices, we use UMass Minutemen (not Massachusetts), USC Trojans (not Southern California Trojans), LSU Tigers (not Louisiana State), UNLV Running Rebels, BYU Cougars, etc. Much like those cases, I've typically heard "UConn Huskies" rather than "Connecticut Huskies." It may also be significant to note that the official athletic program website is called "uconnhuskies.com." Also the university itself uses "uconn" in its main domain name -- uconn.edu. At the university's home page, they do refer to the school by the shorthand "UConn." On the other hand, the category ought to match the main article. Right now, we have the main article titled Connecticut Huskies and the category as UConn Huskies. Adding another layer of ambiguity, the school's football jerseys say "Connecticut," but the basketball jerseys say "UConn." Compare basketball uniform and football uniform. I don't feel strongly on this one either way, but both points of view appear reasonable. Cbl62 (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Cbl162 makes several good points. Further, as a former President of UConn Fencing, state that at Nationals in 1995 (and for everything else in the USFA Connecticut division) we competed as "UConn Fencing", not "Connecticut Fencing" nor "Husky Fencing". This still holds true today. [[5]] & [[6]]. Heck, let's look at what CBS does: [[7]]! (Why UConn and not CONN? Becuase... CONN can be confusing!) QED. I see no benefit to renaming the categories from UConn to Connecticut. Markvs88 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Look what CBS does when it's not forced to use abbreviations because of space constraints: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/teams/page/CT/connecticut-huskies?tag=pageRow;pageContainer. If that screen cap suggests we should use UConn Huskies, it also suggests we should use Syr Orange. Also, UConn fencing is a club sport right? Connecticut Huskies refers only the varsity sports at UConn. QED? Hardly. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm still pointing out that the name makes things less and not more clear. Yes, Fencing is a club sport, but I think you'll find that being varsity or club has *no bearing* on the name. Markvs88 (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC opened

Hi. In order to gain consensus on this issue (which has also been discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football I opened an RfC here: Category talk:UConn Huskies#RfC on use of "Connecticut" versus "UConn" for University of Connecticut athletic teams. You are definitely invited to comment. –Grondemar 22:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Markvs88 (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


Many thanks

Many thanks for that barnstar. Happy to help out. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!!! Morrowlong

Hey, thanks for the Barnstar award! I appreciate it. I have several other Connecticut hiking trail pages under development and may add some biking and multi-use trails as well or even branch out to Massachusetts, NY or RI. Saw you are a comp sci grad and have the CompTIA Security+ cert -- I worked in the Yale Computer Science department for ten years and have been in the Yale Information Security/Assurance group for the past fourteen. Morrow (MS, CISSP, CISM, CEH) Morrowlong (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You more than earned it... I've been rating CT project articles [8] for awhile now, so I've seen a lot of your work. It's great, keep it up! Cool. Yeah, I've worked in New Haven myself (under contract) for 4 years before going back to corporate life. (S+, CCNA, VCP). Markvs88 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

re List of Governors of Connecticut

Consistency with the territorial state governor articles. (That's a lot of adjectives) For example, List of Governors of Colorado specifies territory and state... I thought, maybe for consistency across the lot, since the featured lists are all 100% consistent otherwise (save minor table formatting issues), to make the states that were never territories (13 colonies, Vermont, Kentucky, Maine, Texas, West Virginia, California) the same way. A trial balloon. Now that I've explained it better, do you still think it's a poor idea? If so, I'll revert the others (I think Delaware and California were the others I put it on so far). --Golbez (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but no it doesn't... I see "Governors" not "Governors of Colorado" in List of Governors of Colorado. Ditto List of Governors of Maryland. CT is the only state that counts its colonials in the numbering system, which is why the List of Governors of Connecticut starts at #16. I see it as redundant -- if you're in the article, you know you're looking at a list of governors of that state. If you want to see what I'm getting at, please look at [[9]]. As you can see, List of Governors of Connecticut just broke off any possible confusion by putting its colonial governors in another article. I don't think it's a poor idea, I just don't see the point as it doesn't really add anything to the article. (For what it's worth, the people that feel the need to swap categories from "Connecticut Rivers" to "Rivers in Connecticut" drive me batty as well.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't see anything of value on the Maryland article, seeing as how it's pretty far away from featured quality. As for Colorado, note the subheaders "Governors of the Territory of Colorado" and "Governors of the State of Colorado". This has nothing to do with numbering and more to do with just standardizing the headers... if the states that include territorial governors speak the whole name of the entity in a header, then why not the states without them? As I said, it was just something I was floating. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, and that's the point I'm making: you didn't change a subheader but the header! If the CT colonials were in the article (as the CO territorials are in theirs), then it would be the same level, but even then CO's header still says "Governors". If you do want CT to be the same as CO, you'd leave it just as "Governors", otherwise it's saying "These are the Connecticut Governors in the list of Connecticut Governors"... ergo, redundant. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)==File source problem with File:Parkcityferry1898.jpg==

Thank you for uploading File:Parkcityferry1898.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! All postcard images prior to 1923 are considered public domain. It doesn't matter where they come from, they inherently have no copyright as there is no way to prove where they came from. Here is a link: [[10]]. Markvs88 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You need to specify that, though. - Denimadept (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see that you did. - Denimadept (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, would you please remove the speedy deletion tags at your convenience? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't put them there. You can remove the tag in order to challenge it yourself. Check out the block the tag generates, which will explain what it means and how to challenge it. - Denimadept (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I've modified the {{pd-author}} tag you used to correct it. It'd still help if you'd provide source information, likely on the back of the card. Just because the (c) has expired doesn't mean the card didn't have a publisher. - Denimadept (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That's not helpful. Doesn't the card have any maker information on the back? If you can't tell, please scan the back of the card and send the results to me, or point me where I can find them. - Denimadept (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Nope, it's white. However, there is a copy at [[11]]. Markvs88 (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah! Well then, I suppose we've done what we can.
On a slightly different topic, it's best to upload files to Commons rather than directly to WP. That's the normal place. - Denimadept (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Red Dawn

Rp my talk - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

CT ratings

Hi Markvs88, thanks for doing the many ratings of CT articles that are showing up on my watchlist, such as this re-rating for the Prospect Hill Historic District in New Haven. Hey, you should feel free to update the ratings for other wikiprojects at the same time, such as for WikiProject NRHP. Perhaps there would be wikiprojects that would quibble if you were revising very high ratings like A-class ones, but if you're changing from stub to start to C or b class I think it is always a help to the other wikiprojects to just go ahead and make the change. As an active NRHP wikiproject member, i certainly welcome your help. Cheers, and keep up the good work! --doncram (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Don. I try not to edit any projects I'm not a member of since they might have different opinions. :-) However going forward I'll at least match NHRP quality to CT if there is a delta. The CT project is pretty neglected, it'll keep me busy for months/years alone! Markvs88 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

what's up

What's up with this reversion with a cryptic edit summary? It comes across to me as obviously dismissive, possibly rude or insulting, or i don't know what. You also reverted a photo move i did there earlier, which was because the small photo you had added was down off the bottom right of the page, out of sight to me at least using the browser i am using. Obviously in my subsequent edits i was adding some good sources and allowing for development of the Housatonic River Railroad Bridge article. If you have a question or a comment, it might work better to post that at the Talk page, okay? Please. --doncram (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put it up in Talk already. Markvs88 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Questions from Discussion pages?

What's the point in having a DISCUSSION page for an article if questions get deleted before anyone has had a chance to read them? Don't delete the question - contribute to the discussion! 86.136.89.48 (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, if your post at Talk:Carrier Corporation was worded as a question it would have stayed. The fact that you've never heard of a major company (Carrier is a sister company of Otis, Pratt & Whitney, Sikorsky Aircraft, et al at United Technologies) is not a valid talking point, but the new phraseology you've used works. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Holy Land USA

I have started a discussion on the talk page of Holy Land USA to discuss the disagreement about the "Recent news" edit. This is the right place to resolve the issue. In the meantime, I will delete the content from the page, because there is clear disagreement about its content. The three edit rule doesn't just mean that the first person to insert something can keep it there if he/she reverts a change three times. it means that before reverting the change a third time, it should be properly discussed, with an aim to resolving the problem. Let's discuss it there and see whether we can get an agreement, or seek some further input from other parties. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! The editor in question has deleted this point more than 3 times, though the previous version of the event (by another editor) was far more NPOV/scathing. Note that all of the reverts that have been made are knee-jerk -- the editor has yet to provide any rational reason for the point not to be included other than he does not like it. I therefore request that the material be added back in since it is notable, verifiable and not POV. Markvs88 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Wow! Thanks for the award for the work on Holy Land USA - I really appreciate it! The interesting thing is that my initial reaction to the edit war was leaning towards the "remove" argument, on the basis that the murder only had a circumstantial relationship to the subject (the theme park itself). But in discussing it, I became convinced that it was relevant, becuase it has sparked renewed debate in the future of the park and also highlighted current problems with the park as a run-down, unmaintained property. Just goes to show that having an open mind is so important for successful collaboration! Thanks again!! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Holy Land

Ill just come back, I can't be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.23.91 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Category Question

Should I leave the Bridgeport Mayors in People from Bridgeport, too? I think that would almost certainly be right for Barnum, but it's probably duplicative having the others in both the top-level and sub-category. I could use some advice. Thanks. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I would put them in just the Mayors category. AFAIK any item/person should be in the most specific category of a type. (But it'd be fine if they were in Senators from Connecticut and Mayors of Bridgeport, as an example). Barnum makes it tough, though, since he was known for so much else. Thanks again for all the work you've done! Markvs88 (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Matthew Gallagher

Hello Markvs88. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Matthew Gallagher to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Theleftorium (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Matthew Gallagher

I removed the speedy deletion tag from this article. Please note that I was not the original creator of the article, and as such the {{holdon}} is not the correct way for me to proceed, since it is only intended for the original creator. Please remember that speedy deletion is only for entirely uncontroversial deletions, and since I, as a third-party editor, declined your speedy deletion tag, you should not have re-added it because you then knew that it was not uncontroversial. It is almost always inappropriate to re-add a speedy deletion tag if it has been removed by an editor other than the original article creator.

Cheers, Thparkth (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, that's fair. Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

<moved to user page>

Hey!!! Thanks!!! Markvs88 (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Removing my edit to New Canaan Fire Department/Company No. 1

There is a need to subdivide between the department and the company - and I am adding a page for the Fire Company itself. They are legally seperate organizations working together under the "Fire Department" as defined in the town charter. Please contact me at if you have questions as I am the Assistant Chief of the Department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmchummer (talk • contribs) 14:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Usmchummer! Please be sure to read (or at least give a good looking over) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. They will help you write for Wikipedia standard format/style. Since you're affiliated with the organization in question, please be careful not to put yourself into a situation where someone could call you out on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Good luck with it! If you have any questions or need help, please let me know. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also - can I/you add pictures? I would like to add a picture of headquarters, as well as pictures of our various apparatus to go with a description of each. Seems I have to wait for "autoconfirm" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmchummer (talk • contribs) 18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can but it only takes a few days to get autoconfirm.... you should be able to upload by Friday. Note that when you upload the pictures you put up should be public domain or you'll have to get permission for the rights. Markvs88 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Weston, Connecticut" reversion

Article link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston,_Connecticut Hello Markvs88, On August 18, 2010, I added 4 names to the list of "Notable residents in the "Weston, Connecticut" article. All 4 persons were known to me personally as fellow Weston residents in the 1950s and 1960s. My edit was reverted by first "Markvs88" and then by "Eeekster" for lack of citations. But 9 other uncited names were allowed to remain. Treatment of uncited items should be consistent. Either remove all 13 uncited items or leave them in and add "citation needed" notes, as I have done in a further edit. Thanks for reading this. Signed "Roaidepikiw" (copied to "Markvs88" and "Eeekster") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaidepikiw (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Sure, I didn't even notice the others becuase I just saw the additions by the comparing the two. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with one of your two "Choate" edits

Hi Markvs88: You were right to remove from the "Choate Rosemary Hall" article that roster of Fed Callenge student names. As the semi-official updater of the "Choate" article, I usually catch stuff like that, but missed it this time. Thanks very much. We've had good feedback from students and alumni about the comprehensiveness of the "Choate" article, which has been used as a go-to trivia storehouse and by researchers into the school's history. (Wikipedia must be judged, after all, by its usefulness. University and, especially, British private school articles are often enormously long.) I did restore part of the list of selected Choate alumni (President Kennedy, etc.) that you cut from the top of the article, although I shortened the list of names considerably. I made the restoration after comparing "Choate" with other boarding school articles, American and British ("Andover," "Exeter," etc.), where I saw similar paragraphs of notable alumni in top-of-page paragraphs. Quite a few other school articles ("Milton," "Lawrenceville," "Groton," etc.) do considerably more boasting in their lead paragraphs. It goes with the territory. My best, Quaesivibonatibi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaesivibonatibi (talk • contribs) 03:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly fair, thanks! It's one of those things that happens on many pages... the names just keep getting added on and on sometimes. I like the new edit. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Kent School

I am reverting SOME edits you undid of Kent School since I have added citations. I will slowly add citations to ALL content you undid. Please do not undo again unless you believe there are no citations. But again, I will not repost content unless accompanied by citations. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.45.15 (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, please be aware that anything uncited can be removed at any time by any editor. Also be sure to use valid sources [:Wikipedia:Verifiability], information from blogs, Facebook et al are not authoritative and will also be removed. I look forward to seeing your edits! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Markvs88/Archive_1&oldid=1144447228"