User talk:PamD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
17:42 Sunday 24 July 2016 - - - - WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE

Please click "New section" above to leave any new message, and please sign your message (just type ~~~~).

If you leave a message here, I will reply here unless you ask me to reply elsewhere, to make discussions easier to read.
If you reply to a message here, please indent (start the line with ":") and sign your message.
If you are discussing any particular page, please provide a link to it - it makes life easier for me and anyone else seeing this page.

Thanks. PamD


Disambiguation link notification for July 3[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016[edit]


University of South Florida Polytechnic edits[edit]

Linking here to University of South Florida Polytechnic as editor has ignored my request at top of page for all comments to link to the page under discussion. PamD 07:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pam,

I started on a clean up on that page, because the previous page incorrectly pointed to Florida Polytechnic University. University of South Florida began in 1954 and started University of South Florida Lakeland in the 1980s. I became a student of the school right after it became University of South Florida Polytechnic (that happened in 2008, I started at the school in 2009).

Our local state representative, JD. Alexander, decided that becoming a separate campus of USF with its own accreditation was not enough (mind you, USF is a Research 1 institution in the US, nothing to sneeze at!) and went nuts on starting a whole new STEM university. Long story short, a whole new university (Florida Polytechnic University) was started and University of South Florida Polytechnic was dissolved. The schools are NOT affiliated with each other in any way.

In fact, Florida Polytechnic right now may not receive the accreditation that JD Alexander promised they would this year. The South Atlantic Conference, an accrediting body headed by Belle Wheelan, refuses to grant this important status until the school meets the criteria established when it was formed. Meanwhile, if University of South Florida Polytechnic still existed, it would have been accredited 4 years ago!

It is a huge bone of contention for USFP students that all social media sites put the logo of the school that killed their school up when we list our alma mater. We have never been FPU students.

How do I get this resolved? I can cite about 50 articles in the Wikipedia page if I need to. FPU's buildings were designed by Santiago Calatrava to be USF Polytechnic, and the site donated to USF for use for their Lakeland Campus, but no, the schools are in no way affiliated with each other.

4.35.211.210 (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Suzannadanna: (and @Cuchullain: for info) Please see my detailed comments at User talk:Suzannadanna and in particular my statement there: If you disagree with Cuchullan, please argue about it on his talk page. And please also note that if you have registered an editor name it is better to use it consistently: by editing here from an IP address but saying "I started ...", you reveal the probable link between your IP address and your editor name, which is generally thought to be unwise. PamD 07:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@PamD: (and @Cuchullain: for info) My apologies, I am new to this and didn't know the protocols. Heck, it took 20 minutes to find out exactly how to respond . I don't mean to be argumentative. 70.127.26.3 (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it will be better to discuss this in a central location. I'll open up a discussion at Talk:Florida Polytechnic University.--Cúchullain t/c 12:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I've just copied all the conversations to Talk:University of South Florida Polytechnic to centralise there! Perhaps a note on the other one would be useful too. PamD 12:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User_talk:Bgwhite. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I do not appreciate being falsely accused, or being talked to like I broke the entire encyclopedia. The thing you linked regarding templates is an essay and isn't a policy. I agree with the essay, and I thought hard about what would be the best method to post on the userpage - I used the notice template on the talk page because I didn't want to write a message, as I often sound like I attack people, but don't mean it. I wanted to avoid any trouble. A predefined template seemed less hostile to me. Nothing I did was against policy, yet you jumped to the possibility of me using an IP to edit, and treated me like dirt on my lack of knowledge with wikipedia lingo ("ce"). I am sorry for non-standard editing, but I am curious why it was chosen to remove, rather than standardize. This is very discouraging, as I meant no harm and enjoy benefiting people. I try my best but it's never good enough. I feel so unwelcome. Is this how every new editor who makes a frowned-upon action (not mistake) is treated? :'( CoolCanuck eh? 21:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't falsely accused you of anything significant - though at first I got the mistaken impression that you hadn't signed your comment, because an IP had added an unsigned comment with no section heading nor blank line, onto the end of your post. I realised what had happened, moved their comment to a new section, but forgot to remove my incorrect reminder to you about not signing your post (which I've now struck out). OK, perhaps that was a "false accusation", but hardly one to get agitated about.
You, on the other hand, are accusing me of bad faith and saying that I treated me like dirt on my lack of knowledge with wikipedia lingo ("ce"). I literally did not know in which of two senses you meant a more meaningful summary than "ce" which is the equivalent of no summary: either you did, or did not, know that "ce" is a common abbreviation here for "copy-edit". I tried to be helpful in each case. You chose to take offense. Please calm down. :As far as I can see BGW removed some non-standard formatting from Simcoe County District School Board but left your image file still linked; the image file of the motto was later deleted by a different editor as a copyright violation. I then helpfully reinserted the text of the motto.
And on WP:DTR: yes, it's an essay, but it makes sense. To suggest to an extremely experienced editor that their removal of text "may have been a test edit" is inappropriate. You could just have asked "Please explain why you removed my formatting". I'm sure s/he would have done so. Neither of you were leaving particularly useful edit summaries while you reverted each other. (@Bgwhite: for info, as this started on their talk page).
I'm sorry that you're feeling unwelcome and discouraged. I chipped in as a friendly informative "talk page watcher" to respond to your post on BGW's talk page (which could well be interpreted as either careless or insulting, as it was so inappropriate to use that templated message), but you've chosen to react negatively. Ah well, such is the rich tapestry of Wikilife. Come to think of it, any templated message, like yours here, which starts off "Welcome to Wikipedia" is a pretty unsuitable message to leave on the talk page of someone who's been editing here for 10 years, and likely to result in the following message not being taken particularly seriously: you might do better to cut down on the templated messages and handcraft your posts instead. PamD 22:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@CoolCanuck: Pinging you as I just noticed I forgot to do so above. PamD 08:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, in all fairness, it's not policy - stop over reacting. Various editors have discussed on IRC and have no issue with using templates instead of being hostile, as I previously explained my reasoning. Thanks for your suggestion to refrain from using templates, but in the end, the decision is solely mine, and mine alone within official policy - not yours. Regarding an image being used in an infobox (the actual "issue" - let's stay on topic..) for motto without it being officially supported, editors and reviewers of Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 have no issue with it. I would like to know how my instance differs? No mention of using images for slogans on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_U.S._federal_election_campaign .. just like the school district infobox motto. Your sarcasm and poor attitude towards new editors is dully noted. You were not a "friendly" talk page watcher. Don't bite new editors. --CoolCanuck eh? 17:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: the editor above first edited in November 2014 so is hardly "new". PamD 18:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Giorgio Tavecchio[edit]

Hey. I was in the midst of redoing the page and just re-writing the the previous facts in a more detailed manor. I'll remember to write a summary next time. I just figured I'd do it at the end instead of writing a summary for each edit I did on the same page. Toeknee44 (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Toeknee44: Sorry about that: I just saw edits which had removed the lead and sources, so fixed the article as I saw it. If you're doing a whole series of edits it's useful to add {{in use}} as an alert (and remember to take it away at the end). Alternatively, edit, use "Preview", edit again, etc, so that the article is in a good state when you finally hit "Save". It's a good idea to try to leave the lead sentence intact whatever else is going on - it's the key thing which people see in search engines etc - and not a good idea to remove sourced content without an edit summary to say what you're doing... it tends to upset people. I'm not interested in American football, but was stub-sorting back in April, saved him from speedy deletion on the basis that his significance was asserted, nominated him for BLP PROD as he had no sources, and he's been lying around on my Watchlist since then. Happy Editing! PamD 09:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Where would I put {{in use}}? On the top of the page, in the edit summary? I've been doing edits for almost 5 years now and I'm still trying to learn everything.

Top of the page, so people see it when they get there. (Actually, the documentation does say so: " ... is placed at the top of a page you are actively editing for a short period of time"!) Yes, I keep finding new interesting things (like how to link neatly to an article in another language Wikipedia). Glad to be able to spread a little knowledge! PamD 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


Thanking you with a barnstar[edit]

Female singer silhouette.png
Pride-female.svg Red Link Removal Barnstar Hires.pngWomen in Jewish History 2016 Wiki Logo.png
Women in Red logo.svg

A barnstar for your contributions to our June 2016 editathons

--Ipigott (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Marta Pen[edit]

I have expanded the article (I'm not an author). I think now the article doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria. Greetings, Żyrafał (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Żyrafał: I agree - have removed the Speedy Deletion template. Thanks for improving the article. PamD 19:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

University of South Florida, Lakeland (U.S.F. Lakeland)[edit]

Hi, PamD, I'm a greenie (newbie) to the the Talk Page, hope i'm doing this right.

I live in Lakeland, Florida and attended the University of South Florida, Lakeland Campus ("U.S.F. Lakeland" as a nickname). Therefore I am an alumni of that college, which once existed as a satellite campus to the main campus of University of South Florida in Tampa, which is also a public university. In addition, U.S.F. Lakeland shared a campus with a community college, now known as Polk State College. (confused more yet?) So, historically, there was a U.S.F. Lakeland Campus that has closed, but it is still my alma mater. I would like the history to be preserved, because the new university is another institution.

At one point, as the Lakeland campus grew, with U.S.F. Lakeland leading the growth, the main campus in Tampa determined to have a campus that focused on Poly-Technical instruction (a technical trade school). Then, local politics came into play. A Senator from Polk County, where the City of Lakeland is located, decided to make it his duty to disconnect U.S.F. (et al) from the school altogether, due to political differences. The senator, J.D. Alexander, lobbied the Florida Senate to vote to create a twelfth university in Florida. The name would be Florida Polytechnic University.

There are still contentious politics at play. As I was googling for references I found that there is a newer name for the university yet again, as of December 2015. The University Trustees voted to name the school after the senator.

Some references: "Sen. JD Alexander: respected, reviled, always powerful" http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/college/sen-jd-alexander-respected-reviled-always-powerful/1216101 "Florida Polytechnic University trustees name campus after former Lake Wales lawmaker J.D. Alexander" http://www.theledger.com/article/20151202/news/151209903 AJMJohnson 00:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XanaDrew (talkcontribs)

@XanaDrew: As I said a few posts above, this is all best discussed at Talk:University of South Florida Polytechnic: please join in the discussion there. For a good article about USFP, it would be helpful to have several Reliable sources about the school, and in particular to have a copyright-OK version of its logo. Another editor uploaded one, marked as "own work": that can't be correct, as either it's the school's logo and not her work, or it's not the official logo. If you have a school document from which you can copy or scan a reasonable-quality copy of the logo, so that it can be uploaded with a stated source, once an article exists, under the special rules for logos (ie it is OK to copy the copyright logo of an organisation for use once in one article about the organisation, roughly), then that would be helpful too. But go over to that talk page and talk there: I know nothing about Florida academic politics. @Cuchullain: for info. (And, by the way, when typing in Wikipedia you need to abandon the way we were all taught to write: don't indent starts of paragraphs, just add a blank line. A line starting with a space gets formatted differently, looks odd on a talk page. And hallo to yet another librarian - there are a lot of us around editing the encyclopedia: I guess the urge to make knowledge available goes with the territory.) PamD 07:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
XanaDrew, PamD, yeah, that's essentially true. However, the shift of campuses didn't happen with the move from being a USF branch to being independent. USF Lakeland, as it was then known, was outgrowing its space on the community college campus and local leadership secured land for the new campus back in 2008. The name changed to USF Polytechnic happened the same year. It wasn't until 2012 that the branch campus was dissolved and Florida Polytechnic University was officially created, and the process took till 2014 to complete. Classes were still held at the community college campus before the new buildings were ready. "JD Alexander Campus" is just the name for the physical campus itself, not the university, in the way university buildings and features are often named after prominent founders and benefactors. The history is fairly convoluted, which is one reason I think it's better covered at one article than two.--Cúchullain t/c 14:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Suzuki Lets (Let's)‎[edit]

Thanks for wading in with regards to Suzuki Lets (Let's)‎ / Suz AX100 mess, I tried to restore to a decentish revision, but the page moves looked very messy, and I didn't have the time (or willpower!) to even try to correct them -- samtar talk or stalk 12:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:British Journal of Sports Medicine front cover.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:British Journal of Sports Medicine front cover.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge[edit]

I presume you have heard about The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 16:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Poetic encyclopaedist school[edit]

Hi, PamD, Thank you for your attention on the wiki pages about the "Poetic_encyclopaedist_school"(Poetic encyclopaedist school). This is a serious poetic school founded in China by Yin_Xiaoyuan (Yin Xiaoyuan), one poetic school very innovative in themes, styles and techniques etc. Please give us advice to construct a good presentation on Wikipedia of the poetic school in compliance with the spirit of Wikipedia.

Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzjq (talkcontribs) 08:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jzjg: (Please remember to sign all your posts on talk pages). I am not an expert on poetry, or Chinese literature of any sort. Your immediate problem is to defend the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poetic encyclopaedist school, by showing that the recently added sources are "Reliable sources" which are independent of the school, and by ensuring that the article is in clear English (see latest addition to the AfD debate). The references in the article are currently not well presented, in that they do not show the source of the reference clearly - a title and a URL are not enough for a reference: the reference should be as detailed as it would be in a written academic paper, with the URL as an extra bonus. Similarly, articles on individual poets need to include sources about them, not just duplicated chunks of information about the school and its other members. And you need to be sure that each editor edits using one and only one editor name. I see that your first edit was to add the article to the assessment requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry/Assessment where it says "If you have made significant changes to an article ...", although you had not made any changes under your current editor name. PamD 09:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@PamD Hi, PamD, Thank you for your reply. I am a beginner as 'editor'on Wikipedia. Is it not a good idea to make an assesment request about an article edited by other editors? By doing so, we might expect a more objective rating? Best regards! Jzjq (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jzjq: No, as a new editor I think you should concentrate on responding to the points made in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poetic encyclopaedist school. The section of the Poetry project page which invites editors to ask for assessment of their articles says, quite clearly, "If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. By implication, if you have not yourself made significant changes to that article you should leave it to those who have done so to request any assessment. PamD 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]

Wikipedia and United Nations Women Project[edit]

Bertha Lutz 1925.jpg
Please join us...
Women in Red logo.svg

Wikipedia and United Nations Women Project
A Women in Red worldwide, online editathon - 12 July till 12 August 2016 - #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) Delivered by Rosiestep (talk) via MassMessage 04:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Not that this needs to go any farther[edit]

Background for talk-page watchers or myself looking at future archive: This is about a possibly non-notable, possibly ambiguous (see talk page), sailing ship: the Eliza Stewart. My curiosity was piqued by this rapidly-deleted talk page post, and I followed it up and then commented further. PamD 07:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

But you're welcome to review WP:AAGF when you have time. The edit comments were not utterly neutral, but neither were they inaccurate. There was in this case obvious and clear evidence that the banner spamming was not in good faith: no evidence was presented that the editor in question bothered googling or even reading the provided citation before claiming it was uncited and non-notable. The cite established that if the article was not notable enough on its own, the proper solution would be a merge into a larger list and not generic removal. In fact, the editor was just peeved that their original mistaken removal of the topic from the dab page had been undone. Per WP:CIVIL:

Explain yourself.—Insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary does not provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed.

Now, let us all kindly stop misusing policy to remove helpful information from the encyclopedia or to bicker with each other and get back to expanding it and ignoring one another except to provide kudos or help with our expansions. — LlywelynII 22:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

...speaking of which, overwrought non-AGF comment to my talk page aside, thank you for your help expanding that article and depersonalizing the conflict with the other editor. — LlywelynII 22:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: Your insistence that Boleyn's policy-compliant removal of an entry with no blue link from a dab page was "mistaken" is verging on a Personal Attack on her. Please check WP:MOSDAB which states: A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link.. And it's difficult to "Assume the Assumption of Good Faith" in the light of your unpleasant edit summaries where you describe an editor as "peeved" and her edits as "catty" and "unhelpful", and legitimate tags as "obnoxious". There is no requirement on an editor to look for sources themselves before tagging an article with one reference as "needing more references" and suggesting that a one-sentence article does not appear to show WP:NOTABILITY. Tags are there to suggest ways in which an article should be improved: the editor doing the tagging is not required to do the work themselves. Just as I am entitled to add a {{catimprove}} tag without it being described as "tendentious", and without choosing to add more specific categories myself. PamD 22:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Pam, I certainly agree with your comments here and elsewhere. Jut in case you were wondering, I removed the message from my Talk page because I had already responded to a similar comment on the talk page of the dab, and when I saw the message then at my talk page, which was rude, I couldn't give it any more of my energy. LlywelynII, I would just like to clarify that my edit summaries and response at Talk:Eliza Stewart took the time to link to guidelines so you could see clearly where you had gone wrong. I didn't create the guidelines - they have emerged from the consensus of numerous editors who work in this area over a number of years, and shouldn't be unilaterally ignored because you don't agree, based on your limited experience of editing dabs. I would, though, encourage anyone to open a discussion about changing guidelines on the MOS:D or WP:Wikiproject Disambiguation pages, that's the way to get things changed. Personal attacks just make you look bad. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks giving[edit]

Hi, PamD. Thanks for improving the article "Pooja Sharma (disambiguation)". Further, your comments are very helpful to me. Regards! Teampoojasharma (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Épinal-Erfurt glossary[edit]

I realise that the Épinal-Erfurt glossary page could use quite a bit of expansion (which I don't have time for at the moment), but I'm wondering how to expand it in regards to notability (something that won't require too much more work for now). The existence of academic work on it (including a number of books) and its mention in other Wikipedia pages should already suggest some level of notability. What sort of content might you suggest adding? (For the record, I wish there were some other method of requesting such expansion besides nominating the page for deletion. When it's nominated for deletion, it seems to convey that the nominator considers it to be not at all notable, when in reality they usually simply know nothing about the topic. Is it the case here that you doubt notability, or are you simply pushing for higher quality standards on the stub?) —Firespeaker (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


Also, it's not a book, exactly, so the addition of that category seems a bit odd. I'm wondering if that should also be fixed, or if you had something else in mind here that I'm not getting. —Firespeaker (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Firespeaker: I came across this while stub-sorting (it caught my eye as something misfiling and needing a DEFAULTSORT principally, as the initial accented "E" files after "Z"). I didn't really grasp what it was about, perhaps didn't put enough effort into thinking about it. The fact that the one reference led to a predominantly non-English language Google page about an OUP book was also a bit offputting. I now see that the glossary itself is the entity, a reference work in two manuscripts, and Pheifer's book is a scholarly work entirely about it, which probably confers notability - I'll tweak the article to try to clarify that. Apologies for my rather careless tagging: I should have just walked on after sorting out the DEFAULTSORT, though it would quite possibly then have come into the hands of someone equally out of their depth in the field. ... Have just found a couple of good-looking references and will see what I can do. PamD 16:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Firespeaker: There, I've had a go at it. Now looks thoroughly notable, even to an ignorant eye. I'm unaccustomed to dealing with seriously scholarly stuff in Wikipedia, as I mostly stub-sort miscellaneous stubs (lots of sportspeople, politicians, villages, albums), or things on my watchlist (including the very random collection of articles I've started myself over the years). I hope that what I've added is correct - I'm sure you and others who know the field will expand it. PamD 17:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)