Please do not delete my information. Then I will improve the rest of the information --Theryx7 (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at my edits you will see that I was incorporating what you added while restoring what you deleted. You have still not explained why you have removed so many article links and images. Some of what you've added is poorly written. It's unfortunate that you aren't willing to work more collaboratively with others. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Well tell me that food is important in the article and I would add food along with my new information. The above information also had many problems.--Theryx7 (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to add an underconstruction tag at the top so people know when you are actively working on the article. I think that articles on foods and beverages of Colombian cuisine should all be linked to from that article or that article should link to a list of Colombian cuisine foods article. And article links that were lost in your editing should be added back. In addition to the couple I mentioned on your talk page (including the coffee grower's acis), butifara is another regional specialty that comes to mind. You might also look at the Category:Colombian cuisine to make sure they are included. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. I would be happy to have a look when you are finished working it up. If you do changes section by section and explain your reasoning for changes that can also be helpful. I'm not sure why you're grouping all the photos at the bottom? Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I don't really know much of anything about Charlotte, NC, but I'd be glad to help with general editing or stuff like that. Charleston, SC is my hometown, so I tend to stay pretty focused on my substantive work.ProfReader (talk)
Need diffs!
You still need to provide diffs for the AN thread. I tried to find the "snide comment" to DGG, but I couldn't. Please post them ASAP. StAnselm (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
John Collins House
Please see Category:All articles sourced only to NRIS; while it's reliable for a few specific pieces of information, NRIS really isn't enough by itself for an article, due especially to numerous errors that it contains. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I see your point but I think the bot tagging is misguided. The project can identify and work on articles sourced only to NRIS, but mass tagging doesn't seem helpful or constructive to me. Many other sources use NRIS anyway, so this approach isn't necessarily useful. Obviously articles should always contain the best and most comprehensive sources possible. We do the best we can. While the Park Service makes lots of mistakes, it is useful for the basic information and provides a good starting point. I don't understand why all the actual nominations for National Register of Historic Places aren't available online. The information in those forms is really the meat of the content and sourcing we need. Thanks for the note. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The tagging is basically a specialised form of ((One source)). Meanwhile, NPS is in the middle of digitising nominations (see File:NRHP nominations upload status.svg for state-by-state details), but they have thousands and thousands left to go; it's not something that they can do overnight. Of course you're right about these forms being the meat of the content, but please note that form citation is 100% different from NRIS-only articles. For one thing, NRIS gives only a few tiny facts from the nominations: when your entire stub is sourced to NRIS, either you're unable to write anything substantial about the site, so it's not really a helpful stub for anyone (but its existence produces tons of mirror pages, which Google finds, thus actually making it harder for someone to research the site), or you add tons of unsourced content. If you cite the nomination form for the site, your page won't end up getting tagged as NRIS-only, since it's citing the nomination form and may be able to have tons of additional information, and at any rate with the nomination you can provide plenty of site-specific informatioon that's not even mentioned in NRIS. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for raising that issue at AN. I have left 6 questions for the editor concerned at the end of discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that your articles got deleted and I'm happy to see them restored, along with your "user rights". Thank you for your contributions and your assistance to others in improving articles. Take care and have a great day. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
sorry
That was a weird edit conflict. Didn't mean to restore your comment.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. I thought I had left an edit summary noting that I just wasn't sure, but I'm not seeing it now. Anyway, we'll see what progresses in the discussion. Have a happy every day. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Your request at REFUND - Kathleen Peters
I haven't restored the history, because the 2007 version was not about the same person. The whole text was: "She is very rad and nice. She is married to <name>". JohnCD (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for looking into it for me. Happy holidays. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
(2nd) Nomination of Kevin Bott for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Bott is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Bott (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
As a participant in the 1st nomination discussion, you may wish to participate in the 2nd.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rivergate Tower may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
a cold one for the Beercan Building's 25th] by David Warner on Thu, Nov 21, 2013 Creative Loafing]</ref> is a 454 ft (138m) tall skyscraper in [[Tampa]], [[Florida]]. With 31 floors, it is the
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arland W. Johnson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
[[ProctorsTroy.jpg|thumb|[[Proctor's Theatre (Troy, New York)]]
*[[Jefferson Theater (Auburn, New York]] at 61 State Street<ref name=treasure/>
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arland W. Johnson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
[[ProctorsTroy.jpg|thumb|[[Proctor's Theatre (Troy, New York)]]
*[[Jefferson Theater (Auburn, New York]] at 61 State Street<ref name=treasure/>
Scherrer began work on the Tipton County Courthouse building, which was built of sandstone in a [[Romanesque architecture] style with a [[clock tower]] that rises 206 feet above the ground. It is
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George W. Maher may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Galloping Bungalows: The Rise and Demise of the American House Trailer by David A. Thornburg] reviewed by Roger B. White Technology and Culture Vol. 34, No. 1 (Jan., 1993), pp. 169-171 The
]. They plan to renovate and revitalize the historic [[Capitol Theater (Clearwater, Florida)]]]].<ref>[http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/article838940.ece "Clearwater negotiating to
ArchiveNews.aspx?NewsID=683 Restoring Morgan County's Hall School] 12/14/2011 Indiana Landmarks]</ref> It is located at 5955 West Hurt Road at Hall in [[Gregg Township]]. It is listed on the [[
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 08:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
NRHP stubs Comment
Though appreciated, you might want to slow down on creating the NRHP stubs. Especially with them being unsourced, they are likely to be deleted. I stopped creating the Florida NRHP stubs a while ago for that reason. If there are sources other than the National Register, I do try to create them. If you'd like help, I'd be happy to oblige though. Especially since I visited most of the sites and got photos of them. :) Cheers! --‖ Ebyabetalk - Union of Opposites ‖ 16:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I think there are almost always sources on the NRHP listed buildings, although good sources are sometimes tough to find. I have been happy to have help with those I've created articles on and have tried to include the photos you've taken. It would be great if the NRHP application docs were always available as those are very meaty. Happy Holidays. Candleabracadabra (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Eagles Theatre was listed as the Eagles Building (104-106 West Market St.) in the Downtown Wabash Historic District nomination[1] (also known as Wabash Marketplace, the same name as the society preserving it).[2] The district was listed with NRIS reference number 86001678 on July 18, 1986;[3] note the nomination form was written in 1985, probably explaining the date in Indiana Economic Digest[4] which was a republish of an item from the Greater Fort Wayne Business Weekly, date/issue unknown. Thundersnow (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks. I will clarify that it is listed as part of a Historic District. Happy Holidays. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I added the infobox (ask me how when you're done with my other recommendations) and did a bit of polishing. Assuming you've got a copy of the nomination form, you should add the author's name on that ref. You should also reword some of the text, or some folks might call it a copyright violation. See if the United Way of Allen County has a website with any info. Is it in a historic district? All told, looks pretty good. thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Indiana NRHP articles
I noticed you've been creating a lot of articles on NRHP-listed buildings in Indiana recently. Most of your new articles don't cite any sources, don't have any categories, and appear to be based entirely on information in the National Register Information System. These articles are leaving other editors (like me) with a lot of cleanup work, and there are a number of problems with articles that only cite the NRIS; the database is error-prone, and short articles don't explain why a building is notable enough to be on the NRHP. I highly recommend that you take some more time to write and develop your articles, since you've been submitting articles 3-4 minutes apart, and cite additional sources besides the NRIS. If you need help finding additional sources, WP:NRHPHELP has a list of available sources for each state, including a link to a state database with almost all of Indiana's nomination forms. (There's also a nice tool to generate an infobox and categories for an article, though there's an implicit rule that the tool shouldn't be used to generate two-line articles based entirely on NRIS data.) TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 03:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. In my opinion a short article is better than no article. I agree the NRHP info is sometimes flawed. That's why it's helpful to get the articles started and sort out what the buildings are actually called etc. I often have to correct what's already included here. Additions and improvements are most welcome. I'm not a big fan of info boxes. I don't add categories myself and I'm sorry if that's a burden to others. Usually I do things the old fashioned way and create by hand. If there's a tool to create articles on NRHP listed properties it should be used. I don't see any reason why we don't have articles on all of them, especially when many of them have lovely photos. Happy Holidays. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
As I cull lists for improvement from Wikipedia rather than the list, I have to agree with unsourced or NRIS sourced articles over nothing. It is a lot easier to grow something from a stub than it is from a red link; most people add, but do not create pages after all.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't really understand the opposition. Thanks for the message. I often try to impove existing articles. As the dispute at Crittenden Farm shows, it can be pretty thankless drudgery. Happy Holidays. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Candleabracadabra. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page. Message added 11:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.
Request to approve my article as a separate entity
I submitted an article named 'BIIT' at Articles_for_creation/BIIT. You have added my article in the article named 'Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi'. The article BIIT is a separate institute and is just affiliated with 'Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi'. I don't want to add it in the article 'Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi'. Please approve it as a separate article and do not add it in any other article.Sidra456 (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
What independent sources do you have that cover the subject? For example magazine and newspaper articles? Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
A non-notable author. No google hits about him, but only a few about his book. If the book is notable, then an article should be made about the book with this redirected there.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Since the introduction is a summary of the rest of the article, we should generalise from the rest of the article. First off, the date isn't particularly significant by itself; you'd need to place it in more context. Very few people other than locals are aware of the township, so specifying it is excessive detail; mentioning a nearby community is entirely sufficient, and as only specialised maps show townships, people entirely unfamiliar with the area will find the community far more easily. Finally, please reread the intro I wrote: I specify that it has been named a historic site. Since even many Americans haven't heard of the Register (I learned of it by editing Wikipedia), a generic thing such as "historic site" is much better. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Which article on a site of architectural history doesn't include a date in the opening paragraphs? Which article on architecture doesn't include the location? Mentioning a nearby location is insufficient. And since every NRHP listed building is plastered with a giant NRHP infobox, it seems at least worth noting that it is so listed in the opening paragraphs.
This is an encyclopedia and it's governed by consensus. Please respect the standards we've agreed upon based on reasonable dialog. You're edits have damaged that article. If you want to add more context about the date of construction then do it. But removing the date from the opening is just weird. And arguing that we shouldn't include where something was built because "no one has heard of the place" is.. well.. idiotic. Please reconsider. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Read this page and know that you have ended sensible dialogue. Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Says the joker who accused me of having "unclean hands" because I asked for outside input on the issues you're disputing. Your arguments are silly. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. But there is no sensible explanation for why we shouldn't include the date a building was constructed, its most notable designations it has received identifying it as historically significant, and its actual location in the opening paragraphs of the article. So instead of slinging malformed and hypocritical attacks, why don't you reconsider your position. Your attempts to distract from the core issues won't work. You're off base on this. Instead of trying to inflame the situation, why don't you initiate an RfC or any other input gathering means to see if others share your positions that we omit the date, actual location and significance of a structure from the opening paragraphs in favor of giving a nearby location, a generalized note that it is a historic site, and no indication of when it was built. I know you won't play fair because we both know your argument is ridiculous. Plain and simple. That's not a personal attack, it's reality. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Leave me alone, and stop calling my words idiotic or ridiculous. We cannot have a logical discussion when you engage in ad homines. Anything else will result in a request for sanctions. In the mean time, please remember that ((uw-unsor4)) redirects to the ((uw-vand4)) template; stop creating piles of unsourced pages. Nyttend (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
You're not listening: when someone stoops to ad homines, we cannot have a logical discussion, so I'm not going to waste the effort. I also told you to leave me alone; this means that you are not welcome at my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Why are you refusing to discuss the content in the article and continuing to make threats? I solicited outside input on the NRHP page (where you are active) and you attacked me for that. You can't just take your ball and go home. You are an admin and are expected to conduct yourself in a manner consistent with high standards. We need to resolve this. I am open to using whatever dispute resolution method you want, but let's get outside input on whether the date the building was constructed, that it is NRHP listed, and the township where it is located should be included in the opening paragraphs. I do not want to engage in an edit war and you have reverted me twice already. So now we have to resolve this in another way unless you want to change your mind about the content. Thank you for yoru assistance in getting this resolved so we can move forward. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 08:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I have altered it further. The content is based on a historical marker posted by a state agency. Not sure on the copyright status, but I would think itmight be public domain. At any rate I tried to use my own words while sticking to the basic facts. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Downtown Ironton Historic District
It was redirected to Ironton, Ohio. I deleted the redirect since Ironton is much bigger than one historic district in its downtown area, so it doesn't make much more sense to redirect the historic district there than it would to redirect a single building in Ironton to the article on Ironton. Redirects like that are best used for cases where a historic district encompasses all or almost all of a town; in this case, the historic district is a separate topic as Ironton is a fairly big city that includes much more than its downtown. (There are exceptions to this, but only when there's evidence supporting it.) TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 03:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Right now it's a redlink. If you want to create an article on it that's fine by me. But I don't see why it can't be covered in the article on the city. That article benefits from coverage of its historic district and readers benefit from being able to read about the district (as opposed to having a redlink). Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I found a few sources about it, so I think I'll write an article on it so there's some actual coverage of the district itself. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 03:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay with me. I added a bit from the NRHP listing page for the county, but it's pretty generic stuff. If you look at the Ybor City article you will see that it is possible to combine the historic district in with the broader area. I would probably bold the name of the district in a combined article. The combo approach can make for a better article and serve readers well. I am okay with it being split out and prominently linked too. At least linking the districts in with the towns and cities where they are located gives some coverage instead of just a redlink. Take care. Have fun. Happy Holidays. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I see not in the Ybor City article it isn't bolded because, although covered in the main article, there is also an Ybor City Historic District article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Original images are acceptable per WP:OI, and captions are thoroughly necessary as well as being appropriate without sources. This is completely different from text, which needs a source. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I have reworded and reworked the material. Also, the Waymarking site is based on material from other sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Builders exchanges
I noticed your inquiry regarding builders exchanges, and according to this book, builders' exchanges are trade associations for construction contractors. I'm surprised there isn't an article on it yet; at the very least it seems like it should be a redirect to trade association. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 03:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
An article would be helpful. I kind of understand what they are but I guess I'm not clear on how the architect I was working on used them to bid on lots of projects, which was the statement made in one of the sources. It was a way to build contacts? Relations with builders to put together bids? I'm still not clear on how they work and who they benefit exactly. Maybe I'm just tired. I just put some historic sites in Georgia in Mississippi. If you create an article on the subject I would be happy to read it and I think its overdue. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I unfortunately don't know much about them either beyond the definition, and I don't really have enough time right now to do the research to write a proper article. I'll add it to my to-do list, though I can't really say when I'll get to it. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 03:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Builder's exchanges are principally used by contractors and subcontractors to trade leads on building projects and as a central clearinghouse for plans and specifications for projects that are out to bid. In paper-plan days they allowed a contractor or subcontractor to stop in and see the plans, decide if they wanted to bid, and to do their estimates without having to order their own set. Subcontractors could see which general contractors were bidding and submit their prices to them. Nowadays it's mostly done via PDFs. Builder's exchanges track projects and bid dates. They can be used by architects and engineers to track projects coming up for RFPs to, and can act as central repositories for RFPs for design services. Unfortunately, I don't have any sources at hand that suit WP:V, etc for all this, but that's how they do it. I get calls about once a month from places like the Altoona Builder's Exchange, Dodge Reports/McGraw Hill and Reed Construction Data to see what we have coming up for bid. Acroterion(talk) 04:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 11:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
A redirect would be counterproductive. The listings page doesn't allow for expansion and improvement. Your prod is ill-considered. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
My Prod was carefully considered: as the article stood, it had less information than the list entry (no coords) so could reasonably have been CSDed as WP:A10. I PRODded it instead, to give you or other editors a week to add some useful content, with it becoming a redirect if not expanded usefully. And you've now added useful content, thanks. All is well. Another time, you could add useful content to an article in the first place. PamD 14:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I find it's actually easier to create the basics first rather than try to produce a comprehensive article right off the bat. Once the basics are established an article can be easily expanded. In my experience the push for lots of content right off the bat leads to sloppy rushed jobs with lots of mistakes. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Gilgamesh
Okay, you'll find it here. Deb (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thansk Deb. Certainly there are parts that might not be worth including there based on standard criteria here, but I'm not seeing why you determined it was solely promotional? Most of it looks okay to me. Can you point out the problems? I have no problem removing the beer listing table, I don't think we generally include those although it is rather helpful, and the beer bottle image seems oversized. What else needs addressing? Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Trevj (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Creating articles
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you add a new article, be sure to add the appropriate categories to the bottom of the article. Also, it's next to have two or more reliable sources with in-depth coverage about the subject to show notability and stave off the deletion of the article. - Dravecky (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. Every article has to start somehow. In the old days redlinks were allowed. Since they are now considered a problem by some, I sometimes rush an article start so that I can leave wikilinks to it and work it up as time allows. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't think redlinks are a problem ... though I'm with Dravecky in expecting even a stub to include sources, as the info must have come from somewhere. If you're really planning on returning to the article in the near future to add sources etc, please give it an appropriate tag like ((under construction)) to let us know - there are a lot of editors out there who create unsourced stubs with no plans (or no ability) to improve them. PamD 18:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
When you go to a page like this one, how helpful do you find it? Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
If I see a page like that, I can get basic information about the name and location of every historic site on the National Register in that county. It would be nice to have pictures and short descriptions too, but what's there is the sort of thing I'd look for in a list. Though the items are all redlinks, that just tells me that we don't have any information on those sites yet; there's no deadline, so that's not necessarily a bad thing. If there's a blue link to an article like this, though, which has no more information than the list, it gives the impression that we have more information on a site when we really don't. I don't consider that a big improvement over the redlink if you're following it from the list, since if you want more detailed information about a site you're out of luck either way. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 23:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I find the list more helpful than this: it gives the coords, at least. PamD 23:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
What do you do with the coordinates? I agree lists are useful. But articles get expanded and improved over time. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Stubs do get expanded, but if you're rapidly creating a lot of stubs that need improvement and cleanup to stand on their own, it may not be a good idea to create so many; see Wikipedia:Kittens. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 06:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"What separates a "kitten" article from a stub is that kittens are created in litters so large that it appears unlikely that the initiator of the article intends to do any further work on any of the individual articles." Doesn't seem to apply here. And anyone can improve a stub. This is supposed to be a collaborative enterprise. Thanks for your assistance by the way with many of the articles I've created. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
And when the Egyptians laid down the first stone of the Great Pyramid at Giza, the Wikipedia admin said, "Why look at the mess you've created. Someone will trip over this. And if you aren't going to include the top piece it's not worth starting at the bottom." Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
... until they saw the scrap of papyrus attached with hieroglyphs saying "This is at Pharaoh's request" (source) or perhaps "We're coming back tomorrow with the next chunk." ("under construction" template), and all was well. PamD 16:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
A considerable number of these new articles require attention: establishing Talk pages, disambiguation, link repair, etc. Gulbenk (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
No article "requires" a Talk page to be established, until someone has something useful they want to say on a talk page or a WikiProject wants to claim the page. PamD 23:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that PamD. You know, of course, that I said the articles themselves "require attention", and then followed that with a number of examples. The concern is quantity vs. quality. Is it best practice to create the maximum number of articles, albeit with limited content and flawed features, with the expectation that others will clean up afterwards? Is that the model we should be promoting? Gulbenk (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
As you can see above, I've already told this editor that new stubs need to have references. Fixing links is also important. But it downplays these important things if something unnecessary like creating a Talk page is listed along with them. I came to this page in the first place after I redirected a stub to a listPRODded a stub (replacement text) because the unsourced stub had no more information, in fact slightly less (no coords) than the list entry. PamD 07:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC), amended 17:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Pam, which article did you redirect? Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, no, sorry, I misremembered: it was Possum Poke I was thinking of. I PRODded it as being less useful than the list entry, though thought at the time that a redirect to the list would have been more useful except that there was a link in the list so we'd have got into a muddle of circular linkages. We discussed above. My PROD had the effect that the article got improved. I've corrected my statement above. The principle remains the same: Gulbenk and I agree that even a stub needs refs and care; I don't agree with their suggestion that creating a Talk page is an early priority; I think a stub needs to be more informative than an existing list entry. PamD 17:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 09:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Boyd Mill Place may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
] on September 24, 2009. It is located at 580 Mill Pond Road at coordinates 31°58′08″N 84°32′41″W]<ref>[http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/GA/Webster/state.html Webster County, Georgia]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmm... I'm not sure how much I can rework and put the basic facts from the site's historical marker into my own words, but I have gone ahead and removed most of the content. Someone more experienced than I will have to work it up, and I'm sure there are better sources anyway. Not sure that it realyl constituted a copyvio, but I am happy to play it safe and be conservative. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 08:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Northampton Polytechnic Institute
Please see the Talk section for this article.Robocon1 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Please, please, please
When you create NRHP stubs, add the NRHP infobox. It's not really that hard (trust me, I've done a zillion of them). I can provide tips on how to make the process as easy as possible. Photographically yours. :) --‖ Ebyabetalk - Welfare State ‖ 17:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I have good new and bad news.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Karel Jonas House. Since you had some involvement with the Karel Jonas House redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Orlady (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Holiday Cheer
Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidttalkbackis wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS
You are correct that discussions about accuracy are important but these people are not providing any sources and casting opinionated aspirations that she is a fraud. It is a classic case of soapboxing and supporting it will just lead to problems and is also a BLP. Also, the claims that she did not invent the technology are correct but she never said she invented it, she invented a specific device that uses the technology at a specific price point for specific uses by specific people (ie. third world Africa). Cummins seems to have garnered some enemies for some reason who are apparently out to smear her, probably her competitors in these competitions. -- GreenC 18:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you are the only one who is throwing around the word fraud. I think your comments would be a useful addition to the discussion. I don't think it is accurate to describe as "smearing" the expression of concerns about how innovative a particular technology that has received accolades or acclaim. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think it is important that we discuss "concerns" about how innovative a particular technology that has received accolades or acclaim? -- GreenC 18:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's important and I haven't contributed to the discussion. The article looks okay to me although the notability of the subject is marginal. I just don't see any need to obscure or hide the concerns expressed by editors regarding how innovative the subject's inventions are. Perhaps time will tell. I certainly hope their work proves to be very useful and they continue to make extraordinary contributions to humanity. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
This is not a new conversation it goes back to 2009. There is a group of IP editors who have been trying to insert unsourced and biased material on and off since then. They are relentless and will return regardless. The only way to deal with them is by using BLP and V and enforcing our rules of soapboxing. They have no sources, it is all opinion, from what I can tell they are not seeking the truth so much as seeking to disparage Cummins for whatever reason (jealousy typically but could be something else). Anyone can post a comment that Obama might be a Muslim and that will get deleted because there is no proof of it, the same is here. They are creating strawman arguments and that is not what Wikipedia talk pages are for, it's called soapboxing. If they had sources it would be a different story. -- GreenC 17:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Grooverville Methodist Church
Hi Candelabracadabra -- Your newish article on Grooverville Methodist Church pops up in my notifications list because of some links that it has. Thanks for creating it. I see that it is a historic church in Georgia. I just want to suggest that you add a talk page, to put it into WikiProject Georgia and into WikiProject Historic sites. I don't know if you are aware of WikiProject Historic sites (shortcuts wp:HSITES and wt:HSITES), which covers historic sites world-wide that are listed on any historic register (e.g. commemorated by a local historic plaque, or on a state or town or city register). Wp:HSITES is a parent to WikiProject NRHP so it is not necessary to add it to Talk pages of NRHP-listed places, but it is the appropriate wikiproject to add for sites like Grooverville that appear to be locally registered but not NRHP-listed. Specifically I suggest you add ((WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)|class=Stub|importance=Low)) and ((WikiProject HSITES|class=Stub|importance=Low)) to Talk:Grooverville Methodist Church.
Wp:HSITES is a quiet wikiproject but serves good purposes; you're welcome to join and/or to comment at its Talk page. Also, you could add a row to List of Methodist churches in the United States#Georgia to link to the Grooverville article. Keep up the good work! --doncram 19:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 08:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Your revert on Johnston railway station
Why did you revert me with this edit? Please don't complain that my revert was "unexplained", when not only does mine have an edit summary, but none of your three did. Please also observe the following: I removed your disambiguation notice because it is both malformed (see WP:HATNOTE) and unnecessary (the former name of Ludowici, Georgia was not Johnston railway station but Johnston Station, which is a redlink); other than that, I did not remove any "introductory information from introduction and see also" - the article has no "See also" section; and far from removing content from the introduction, I restored a section heading (History) that you removed, and returned text to that section that you had moved to the introductory section and to Services. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. I was mistaken about the see also, you are correct. And I take you at your word that there wsa an edit summary. For some reason I did not see it.
If indeed you are correct about the redlink I will put a redirect there, or would a disambig be better?
It seems to me that the opening paragraphs should note the basics about the station, for example when it was established and how it's used. Perhaps I should have summarized what was in the history section instead of moving it up? But the alternative names also I believe belong in the introduction and should perhaps be bolded? Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks fine now, thanks. But regarding "the alternative names" - I think that you refer to the succession of renamings (Johnston/Milford Road/Johnston/Johnston (Pembroke)/Johnston (Dyfed)/Johnston) - these are given in the infobox and also in the history, I don't think that they need to be listed a third time: for UK railway stations we would normally only put a previous name in the lead if the last renaming was recent. Since the date of the last renaming is unknown, but must have been after 1976, it could be considered recent, so we might perhaps have
Johnston railway station (formerly Johnston (Dyfed) railway station) is an unstaffed railway station ...
You've made a huge contribution to articles about the Southern United States. Well done and thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you kindly! It is always nice to have one's work appreciated and it speaks well of you that you've taken the time to provide recognition to others. Take care and have a very happy holiday season, a merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and an all around good time. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Sweetwater Inn
I haven't been able to find any sources on Sweetwater Inn in Georgia. (Confusingly, there's another Sweetwater Inn - the Mary Phifer McKenzie House in Florida). Neutralitytalk 23:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
Your addition to Francis Huber Residence has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Nyttend (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to this content where I noted with a citation that the building is located cattycorner from the Marion Public Library? How would you suggest wording that in order to satisfy any copyright concerns? You seem very eager to delete the article. Do you have a problem? It's obviously a very beautiful, historic, and notable building with significant tenants and architectural history. Please stop stalking me and harassing me. You are acting like a real prick. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Frank Huber Residence, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no need for a nuisance tag when you've already taken the article for a deletion discussion. Please stop stalking me and harassing me. Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
And I most clearly did use an edit summary in the edit. Are you suffering from some kind of mental condition? You are acting in a manner that is highly abnormal. I suggest you take a break and seek treatment if necessary. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Frank Huber Residence, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thank you for your kind note! Have a wonderful holiday. Neutralitytalk 21:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
p. 254 may be what you're looking for. Neutralitytalk 03:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 08:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 08:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Taxi Dancing is the Parent Behavior of Lap Dancing
Concerning the Lap Dance article, why did you delete the See Also items for Taxi Dancer and Taxi Dance Hall? If you bothered to read the article before editing, you would notice that they play a very important part in the History Section. The same for Mitchell Brothers strip club items -- the lap dance was invented in their club. Please put them back.James Carroll (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Covering any connection in the history section seems like a good solution. If they are linked in the body there is no need for a see also. And as I've demonstrated any reason for including taxi dancing as a see also is not readily apparent, nor is it appropriate to include a single strip club as a see also without explanation (which goes in the body along with the appropriate wikilink). Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I very strongly disagree. Taxi Dancing is a very important part to the cultural understanding concerning the evolution of lap dancing, and should be also mentioned in the See Also section to remind and reinforce to the reader that there are other key articles which they should also look into. It’s too easy for a some readers to possibly miss the light blue hi-lighting of a hyperlink, and not realized that other valuable articles exist. Is it that great an expense to add these two valuable links in See Also, when you already chose to give placement for much less relevant topics to lap dancing, like Table Dance and Pole Dancing? And while you are examining the page, why don't you remove the unnecessary Tophat which now is no longer necessary? The song and band are now referenced in the In Popular Culture section, and the film is now resolved through Disambiguation.James Carroll (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I understand your position, but heaps of see alsos were not helpful to the reader. There wasn't any indication why some of the subjects were included there, so discussing them in the actual article is a better approach. Which topics to include as see alsos is a judgment call. If they aren't covered in the article body I think the ones you've mentioned are reasonable to include as see alsos. Disambiguation notices at the top of article pages are useful navigational tools. If a reader is searching for a film of the name, it isn't reasonable to expect them to read an article on much more general or unrelated topic in hopes of finding a link, when an entire article on the subject they are looking for exists. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
You have now stripped the See Also down to only three items. What good is a See Also section if it is empty? OK, if it's a judgement call, since am the only one creating all the new content for this very neglected article, I'm going to put Taxi Dancer and Taxi Dance Hall back since they are valuable to the article. As far as the Tophat it is supposed to be temporary, and now it is unnecessary -- it is a clumsy tool and it is graphically distracting from the first paragraph. The film comes up in disambiguation, the song is listed in the In Popular Culture section. The song seems too obscure to get this promotion. We should be doing things the right way, and not in a clumsy format.James Carroll (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but there are standards at Wikipedia commonly practiced across articles. You have not convinced me of the need for an exception to these pratices for the article you are working on. As I've explained to you, see alsos are used for related subjects NOT covered in the article. And the disambiguation links at the top of the pages are used to help readers navigate the encyclopedia. They are not temporary. Creating a disambiguation page and having a single link at the top of the page to that page is a possible alternative if you prefer that route. I do not think that taxi dancing and taxi dance hall need to be a see also in addition to being covered in the article. In fact, I think you've gone a bit overboard in your coverage of those suject in the article text. I understand that YOU think that these subjects are important and worth including as see alsos, but that's not common practice and I think it's not helpful since the see also section provides no context. Explaining why these subjects are related in the article is a better approach. I understand that scanners might not notice them as readily there, but readers will. You are welcome to seek the opinion of other editors and I will be happy to respect whatever consensus emerges. Regards. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
"I think you've gone a bit overboard in your coverage of those suject" ...Well that's the first time anyone ever said that to me, or maybe to any researcher. Who are you to censor peoples research and writing when you have not even pursued the topic yourself? The whole purpose at Wikipedia is to increase available information, not decrease information. There is a very valuable sociological force in this topic -- you just have not taken the time to read it, or appreciate it. Do you ever create any articles, or just CUT away the work of others?James Carroll (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Sub Headings Are there for a Reason
Again more slashing without discussion. Why did you CUT the subheading that I had created in the History section of Lap Dance article, and without even discussion on the talk page? We have subheadings for a reason, to clarify, to add emphasis, and to engage the reader. What sense is it to have subheading if we do not use them? And now I have written a third topic which will also need a subheading for clarification and to show overview for the topic. With the way you take the all subheading out, it becomes a big blob of text without focus. I break my tail doing research and writing only to have someone tear it up in five minutes time! How does that motivate content-creators? Please do not cut the subheading out again unless you first start a discussion and find consensus on the article’s talk page. You are turning my return to Wikipedia into into a thankless effort.James Carroll (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are frustrated. Keep in mind that things are not written here as you would have them be but as per the standards agreed to here by community consensus. There are many protocols with which I disagree, some of them I think are totally inane, so I certainly understand your frustration. In this case you are coming at the problem from the perspective of wanting to emphasize the aspects of the subject that YOU think are important. That's understandable. My understanding is that headings and subheading are to serve organizational functions. So while you think the subheadings are useful to emphasize points that you consider critical, I found them to be unnecessary and unhelpful beacuse they did not aid in organizing the article or assist the reader. You are most welcome to solicit the opinions of other editors. You can do this by posting to the relevant WikiProject (they are usually posted and linked on article talk pages). You can also seek out a third opinion at that noticeboard or simply post to the article's talk page as you've noted. There is also a means to request comment if you'd like to pursue that option. I don't think we should emphasize the taxi dance connection beyond giving the relation appropriate coverage in the article body. I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issues and I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye on some of the editing issues. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Stop trying to patronize me. If you want to CUT UP my work you should first start a discussion topic on the articles Talk page, right? Plus you don't get the big picture. Content-providers are the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and when you carelessly cut up someone's hard work, despite whatever sense of entitlement you get from your reading of the rules, you are still suffocating the creators of Wikipedia, and urging them to leave. Wikipedia could exist without edit-only participants, but it could never survive without content-creators. Again, what articles have you created?James Carroll (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
No need for an apology. My opinion is that most of what James Carroll has added is unhelpful and much of it destructive. The connection with Taxi dancing is tenuous at best. Also there is no clear lineage to the origin of lap dancing and clubs other than the one credited also claim to have originated the practice much earlier. Carroll's additions also put way too much emphasis on Taxi dancing which is covered in its own article. The article doesn't cover the history and evolution of lap dancing in Britain. Most of his arguments have been rejected by a series of editors, but that has done nothing to diminish the stridency of his belief that he's right. Much of what he writes is speculative and theoretical. As such it's not particularly encyclopedic. It also lacks neutrality, instead trying to promote certain views while diminishing others based on his "expertise". The entire dot-com section is inappropriate. In summary, I hope that most everything he's added is reverted. I apologize if I have patronized anyone. Beyond My Ken, your readdition of select see alsos seems reasonable to me. Happy New Year to all! Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You just erased paragraphs of referenced information on a whim. What is wrong with you? What you did was a form of virtual vandalism, and you did this in a matter of minutes, on your own without the decency of having a discussion on the article talk page. Where did you get this sense of false entitlement? Our job is to increase information in Wikipedia, and not to destroy the research of others. It will be very interesting to see how you defend yourself to the admins after this very destructive emotional stunt.James Carroll (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, I have had extensive discussions with you here and explained my reasoning. If you wish to initiate a discussion on the article talk page you are welcome to do so. As I am not the only editor involved please proceed with any discussion about the article on its talk page so that everyone can participate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Candleabracadabra: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 16:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year 2014)) to user talk pages with a friendly message.
After the incorrect information has been removed, this article contains no information that expands on the list entry in National Register of Historic Places listings in Whitfield County, Georgia. There's no point in the existence of a stand-alone article unless additional, referenced information can be found.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deor (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 08:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Peruvian cuisine
Thanks for reverting, sometimes the best call is made by topic experts who work on them vandal-fighters base them on their knowledge of appearance of vandalism, although this one was a good-faith one but lacked reference. I made the necessary changes. As for the cn tag it will be soon resolved. Soham 14:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Chicha de jora should really have its own article as chicha morada has. Chicha is a broad topic. An alcoholic beverage and a non-alcoholic beverage are pretty different. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the ((prod blp)) tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 09:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Please read the article before editing it, instead of duplicating text that is already there. The lede in the article, which is a very short, almost stub, article, already had information about the Costa Rican owner before you starting editing, so why do you keep adding it again, duplicating the text that is already there? Thomas.Wtalk to me 20:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
This article is "finished" from my standpoint, so I've listed it for peer review, hoping to get feedback from others who may find the subject of interest. Feel free to add your opinions if you're so inclined, with my thanks. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
You were absolutely right about the lead, it bounced back and forth a bit. I've made further changes for clarity and syntax; I hope they meet your approval. Thanks again! —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 02:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Pro-life
Unfortunately I hit a key on my keyboard by mistake before finishing my edit summary on Pro-life, but I did at least type that my edit was "per WP:MDP." If you had bothered to click on that link you would have known that my action had nothing to do with the content of the page, and was based on the fact that "Title" is not supposed to redirect to "Title (disambiguation)", but instead the other way around. Of course, that is not the only potential issue; the change may well be controversial and need discussion to reach consensus, and even if there is consensus to move the disambiguation page, someone would have to undertake to fix all the existing links to Pro-life. But your edit summary when reverting my edit didn't even address any of these issues; instead, you just assumed I meant something else. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't desire to get caught up in a highly contentious political issue. But basic principles of neutrality and accuracy suggest that the redirect is inappropriate as I have explained in my edit summaries and on the of the redirect page. Terminology used by one side (or the other) in a dispute should be avoided and we should seek to present information fairly and accurately. Also, Pro-life is not exclusively related to abortion. And the abortion component of the debate is better covered in other articles (abortion debate for example). In cases where a term is generic and it isn't clear what subject the reader is looking for a disambiguation page is a reasonble starting point. The respective articles can and should be included there (such as pro-life movement). I'm sorry my edit summary wasn't comprehensive enough, but I have initiated a talk page discussion. Your explanation does not address any of the points I raised, all which trump our desire to have redirects to articles instead of disambiguation pages. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alex Sink may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
crossing the border, stating that it is not the responsibility of the government of the state.{{cn]}
Register of Historic Places]] on March 6, 2007. It is located at 108 Main Street. The 2-story]] brick courthouse building was constructed in 1910 in a [[Richardsonian Romanesque architecture]]
Re your message: The single revision that I deleted was a redirect to a sexual topic that I will not be repeating (hence my deletion reason of vandalism). The second redirect was a malformed redirect to NASCAR. You are welcome to create a new article or make a new redirect, but there is nothing you need from the previous revisions and no substantial history will be lost by not having it there. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmmm. Okay. Thanks for letting me know. I did a Google search and it looks like a legitimate topic. The edits I saw in the editor's editing history also seemed to be in good faith so I wasn't sure what happened in this instance. Thanks for your help. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
List of state poets laureate
Excuse me, but thank you for wiping out my edits and the start of my addition of state tables and information below. I'm transitioning the article from just a list of current laureates to a more comprehensive and informative list.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
And the new table structure I was aiming to transition the article to would have addressed your concerns.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I am happy to go back and restore the content you added below the table, although I think it may not be appropriate for a list type article. I do think it's worth including in the encyclopedia so perhaps a rename or once you're done we can consider the possibility of splitting the article.
As far as wiping out edits, I was sorry to see that you restored disguised and misleading links. The appointee can be noted in the notes section. And links to the articles on the state programs are obviously worthwhile. If a link to the category or lists of state poets are worthwhile then they are worthwhile and we should include them also, not hide them behind a pipelink behind the name of the state. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
If you wait a day or two, you'll see a drastically more comprehensive article...with appropriate lists and historical information. this has been on my radar for a while, but cleaning up your error brought it forward in my work today (and pleasantly distracted me from another article draft I planned to work on today). It's a lot easier collaborating and improving articles without jumping down each other's throat every two minutes. I'll address your concerns with ((Main|(article/category))) templates in the relevant state sections.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
My concern is that you are building on a flawed premise. I think it would be better for you to work from the improved version of the article. That way we won't be creating two competing versions. You haven't explained why you prefer disguised hidden pipelinks, a column for the appointee, or why you have removed the links to the state article subjects. And for lifetime appointments I see no reason past recipients can't be noted. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
First, when I finish, past receipients will be in the appropriate tables (and I'll get rid of the section called "list of current state poet laureates" in favour of comprehensive state lists and sections. I'm not using pipelinks in the version that will be finished shortly, which satisfies your concern--the main articles or categories will be at the head of the relevant section using Main and see also templates. Wait and see. As for appointed positions, it's usually germane to mention the person (or body) doing the appointing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I would have preferred you to work from the improved version that I had worked on, but I will wait until you are finished. I do hope that you look at my comments and edit carefully and make sure that you address the issues I raised and worked to fix. For example you've readded trivial references to other poet laureate programs in the lede without any clarity on why those programs have any special significance to the U.S. state poet laureate programs or are any more relevant than any other nation's progam(s). Take care and have fun. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I have a handful of states done during my work on it yesterday--do you approve thus far? I would prefer not putting the appointing official/legislature/writerscouncil, etc. in a note. I think if a governor appoints a poet laureate, that governor should be put in the table. I think it would be more effectively comprehensive because when they a reader finds out that it's an appointed post, a curious searcher is bound to ask "hey...who appointed this guy?"--and anticipating the average reader, most aren't patient enough to find it in notes. I think that information should be readily accessible. I know the lede needs to be rewritten, and I usually wait until the article is in a more complete state before polishing a lede...but in the interim, the links to the US and UK poets laureate posts (which you call trivial), I would assert should stay just for the sake of context--most people have vague understanding of the poet laureate post because of those two national posts. eventually I would like to add a little history section that describes how states came to establishing their own posts, but I'm still weighing that after I see how the table/state sections work out--but I would wager when the research is done, we'll find the states yearned for their own version of the UK post (Maryland's first...in the 18th century who was self-titled did so because of his own crazed ambitions for the UK post). So as that gets developed, it will be more relevant. However, that's down the road after a few weeks of revisions, I'd guess. I know my first priority is tables.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Colonel, I will have a look when I have some time. I looked at some of the work you were doing earlier (It was either today or yesterday) and the material looked reasonable and worth including. I'm still not sure it belongs in a list article, however.
As far as the appointmee info, my findings were that the poet laureate positions are usually filled by a selectioncommittee. The governor may act in some ceremonial manner, but if he has little or no involvement in selecting the laureate (apart from perhaps helping to select the committee that selects the person) I don't think it's particularly vital to include the governor. It will always be whoever is serving at the time of the appointment right? I think there are more interesting factors to note. But I've not had a chance to look at what you've done lately so give me some time and I will give you my 2 cents worth. Party on. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Most of them do have selection committees, but ceremonial or not, the Guvnah is still the guy that says yes or no and signs his name on the commission. I was surprised to see a few laureates actually appointed by Lieutenant Governors, and the legislatures. I aim for using the summary paragraph(s) in each state's section to discuss how the selection process goes (cf. the New Jersey section...which is about as informative as I'd like it, and based on an article I wrote 95% of...in NJ the governor's appointment power came back to haunt one of them).--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, well, I wasn't able to get past the first paragraph. Before you mass reverted my work I removed the bits about "The responsibilities of the state poets laureate are similar to those of the Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom" from the opening paragraph. I don't think it's relevant. Why are state poet laureates more like poet laureates in the UK than poet laureates in other places? Is this covered in the body of the article? Why is it in the opening paragraph?
Also, I believe poet laureates are also asked to write about aspects of their state, but that's not noted at all in the opening paragraphs.
So I find myself frustrated and wondering why it was necessary to revert all the work I did in its entirety before doing your mass reworking of the article? It's not fun for me to rehash the same points again and again and to go back time and again because you wanted the whole thing exactly the way you desired from square one. I'm not that interested in the subject to begin with, I saw some problems and I tried to fix them, and now I'm tired, and I have some other editor harassing me and making false statements against me, and frankly it's just not fun to deal with people who have no consideration for the work of others. I think the article has a lot of problems. That's why I made changes. If you aren't willing to take the time to look at what I did or the explanations I've already provided and don't want to consider why I made the changes I did then don't waste my time further. Write the article any damn way you want. You can make the whole darn thing a comparison of poet laureates in the UK to those in US states for all I care and make sure to mention every governor and keep that updated as its critically important. I've had enough. Tyger tyger and what not. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: Tostilocos
I just added a "variations" section that might address the image issue. See what you think. About the "tostiloco" thing, I happen to be mexican-american and live pretty close to the border. In all my years I have never heard them being referred to as "tostiloco". Frankly it just sounds funny. I could be wrong, but I think tostilocos with an "s" is the way it should be. It's almost like a brand name. micho meow! (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
That walking taco article is all over the place. It even includes frito pie which, like you said, is a different subject altogether. It sounds like "walking taco" is just a mid-western term for the same thing. I'm in favor of merging it into the tostilocos article. I'm going to post a merger template on the walking taco article and if no one objects after a month we can just merge it. Sound good? micho meow! (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, after the reading the article's only source, it sounds like walking taco is more of a variation of frito pie than tostilocos. Maybe it should be merged into frito pie instead. What do you think? micho meow! (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
My first inclination would be to redirect to frito pie. The only difference seems to be serving them in the fritos bag. I seem to recall that being done for a while at fairs and such. The article lacks sources and seems like a work mostly of original research. I will drop a note on the food and drink project and see if anyone there wants to weigh in. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The status quo is for Pro-life to redirect to Anti-abortion movements. That may change, but in the meantime, let's keep our readers first and not hamstring the redirect. For now, readers don't need to know, and probably wouldn't care, that someone is dissatisfied with the current arrangement. --BDD (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with readers being made aware that there is a dispute and discussion regarding the redirect. The link remains. Can you please address the concerns I've raised in the discussion if you think it should remain as is? Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean the RM? I'm not really sure what to make of the underlying issue. I have no problem with your proposal; I just want the whole thing resolved before we make any changes. --BDD (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
How can I get objective input so we can reach an informed consensus? I did a Google search and I still it seemed to me to show the redirect as it stands is too narrow and that a disambig is the way to go. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Try notifying relevant WikiProjects, tagging the discussion as an RfC, or notifying participants in the previous RfC. There's a tag, ((disputed title)), that's occasionally used for such issues, but generally naming discussions take place behind the scenes, and that's really where they should stay. You may catch some editors by modifying the redirect, but you're just as likely to confuse non-editor readers. --BDD (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Catherine Samba-Panza
Is there a SOURCE for this? Don't see one, and if there isn't then please don't add unsoruced bits. See tha talk page(Lihaas (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)).
I added a source for the country of her birth and for where her parents are from as the diff shows. You had no business removing that easily verifiable content unless you had some reason to dispute or question it. Please familiarize yourself with Google. It works wonders. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The COUNTRY of her birth is not the same as the CITY of her birth. Google is not WP...easily verifiable is no reason to add without sources. Please see WP:ONUS for the need to add sources! I have every right to remove what is not sourced!(Lihaas (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)).
What is WP? Please see common sense and collaboration. I hope that helps. No further discussion needed here. I have provided you the source you seek on your talk page and suggest you take my advice in making use of Google in future so you won't have a similar problem in the future. You too can find sources on the internet!!! Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia...if you are familiar with it. I don't need to use google because google is not Wikipedia and i am not involved with editing it. I have indicated ONUS for you to note what you need while adding content, that is sources and if you don't provide sources for you additions, im sorry but they don't need to be here.
At any rate, citing a Wikipedia article on a different subject to justify your inclusion on this subject is not helping you. an article is not a guidelines/rule to editingLihaas (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you're whining about, as noted above I added a source in my edits. And I provided you with the additional source you requested. As I've also instructed you in how easy it is for you find these sources yourself, I don't see that there is much more for us to discuss. Judging from how quickly you continue to post here I suspect you haven't taken the time to read the articles I linked you to, which is unfortunate. Please cease posting here, I have nothing further to discuss with you. Thank you and Good night. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Your poet laureate stubs
I see from stub-sorting that you've created a large number of stubs for poets laureate of US states, like this one. Some, if not all, of these are fixed-term posts, so the statement "X is poet laureate of Y" is going to become false within a foreseeable time. It might have been better to say "X is an American poet. In 20nn s/he was appointed poet laureate of the state of Y for a n year period." That way we have permanent information.
Also, please don't use bare urls within "<ref>[...]</ref>", so that the reference list just shows superscripts. Either put in the effort to produce a decent reference, or leave it with "<ref>...</ref>" so that the bare url shows in the reflist as better than nothing.
If you're creating a batch of stubs for very similar people, it would reduce the total editor effort needed if you could sort out a set of useful categories etc for the things they have in common and use it as a pattern for the whole batch, rather than other editors needing to make so many repetitive edits to upgrade your stubs. Thanks. PamD 08:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting to see how few of these people have existing Wikipedia articles: does it reflect on the lack of coverage of notable contemporary poets, or the obscurity (or non-literary criteria, even?) of the poets chosen? I wonder. Good work on getting them into the encyclopedia, anyway! PamD 08:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm just happy the articles have survived thus far. The lack of categories is the least of the worries I have about those articles. Almost all of the state poet laureates are professors and authors, often prolific ones. Yet none of their work and works are even mentioned. So those stubbilicious stubs are wanting in most every respect. I can only hope that by bringing them to Wiki conception they will, in time short or long, grow and develop. I think its an interesting subject area and that yes, it is probably telling (and not in a good way) that this area of study doesn't draw more interest. But alas, as I've found entire cuisines in the List of African cuisines that don't have an article I'm not sure how soon I will be able to dig in and help out in improving where I've only just begun. I think Liberian cuisine has to come first. A man's got to eat. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as the date issue you raise, you are correct. But every article on a politician or any time dependent post or event has the same issue. Adding details about the terms would certainly be helpful, some are lifetime appointmens while most have a set period of some sort. Defining these people solely by the one appointment is also problematic. But at least it is a pretty good establishment of notability. Some are writers as well as poets. All this needs expansion. Once I'm done eating I will see what I can do. I was hoping that others would take an interest in rhymes as well. There's always a lot of work to be done. I always think it's funny when I see comments about how the "important stuff" is already covered. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Raggout, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template ((hangon)) to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
What makes the spelling raggout an implausible typo for ragout? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think it's unlikely that anyone searching for this type of dish would spell it raggout. Why would they? I wasn't absolutely sure of this, not being a specialist in the plausibility of typos/misspellings, and therefore I merely requested speedy deletion. If I had been absolutely sure, I'd have deleted it myself (I'm an admin), but I felt that it would be good to have a second opinion, i. e. the admin who comes along to review and potentially actually delete it, and who is hopefully experienced in the arena of redirects, plausible and implausible. That's the situation. May I ask why you created the redirect — why do you think it's plausible that somebody would type "raggout" into the search field? To me, that sounds like something that would irresistibly be read as "ragg-out" by an English speaker, similar to words like "blowout". P. S., I don't think a thousand Google hits, some of which are names, is so impressive for a misspelling of ragout, a word that has two and a half million hits. But as I said, I'm leaving it to another admin. Bishonen | talk 00:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC).
(ec) It's a possible phoenetic spelling. Reggiano has two Gs for example. I replied to your post here, went and looked at the page and saw it was deleted, so I did a Google search and based on the results I restored it. There are several pages with recipes, videos etc. about the dish that use the incorrect spelling. I think it's more than plausible as it is well demonstrated that ragout can be misspelled in this manner. So I think it's better to have a redirect to the correct spelling than not. I hope your 2014 is off to a good start. It is nice to have a visit from a legendary Wikipedian, even if it isn't under the most loving circumstances. Fare thee well. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Legendary! Ha! You must mean me! [Bishzilla goes off to cook herself a delicious raggout of little users.] bishzillaROARR!! 00:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC).
Just to offer a third opinion here, as an admin active at RfD, I can say with almost complete certainty that this redirect would be kept if discussed there. Unless there were a topic called "Raggout" (in which case we'd use a ((distinguish)) hatnote anyway), this seems a valid misspelling. Since it's proven controversial, though, it shouldn't be deleted again without discussion. --BDD (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the input. A speedy isn't controversial purely because the page creator disagrees with it, is it? They're surely likely to. But with the benefit of your experience of similar cases, BDD, I'll be glad to remove the speedy template. Thanks again. Oh.. I see Malik Shabazz has already deleted it as an implausible redirect, and Candleabracadabra has recreated it. OK, I've no objection. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC).
Hello Candleabracadabra. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fried sweet potato, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: You need to specify a reason why this should be considered a uncontroversial maintenance deletion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought I did give a reason. I want to move the article I created on Sweet potato fries over the redirect I created at Fried sweet potato because I think its best to cover the subject more broadly. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It's okay. After I declined I saw that you were the sole author of both pages so I moved it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry if I didn't get the templates quite right. I posted on the requested move page as well under the uncontroversial move section (where a weird film template has been posted by someone else having trouble with the procedure). Not sure if I should remove my request as it's already done? I guess so.. Doing now.... Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 08:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I translated, duck attack on the German Main page ;) - Thank you for your appreciation of the author! --Gerda Arendt (talk)
Precious
picanteria
Thank you for quality articles such as Balinese cuisine and John Milton Hawks, contributions to articles on "the real Florida", Latin American cooking such as Arequipan cuisine and more international cooking, for gnomish work on redirects and the creation of articles on American history and education, for wishing happiness, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
ps: your other archive is here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. This is a very nice, kind, and generous message of support. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. The Duck video game article translation to German was interesting. Wunderbar! Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you know another language? I was pleased with the results in German (see "quick check" in the SG box), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 09:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Ralph T. Troy
Hello Candleabracadabra, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ralph T. Troy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an immediate speedy deletion candidate under WP:A7. WP:AfD is more appropriate. . You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Why isn't the article a candidate for speedy deletion under that criteria? What is the assertion of notability? Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Request for Undeletion of Jonah_Mungoshi
I kindly request that the article for Jonah Mungoshi be undeleted. This is due to the fact that there are independent online sources that are an indication of the the NOTABILITY of the article which were however not part of the article and will be added once it has been undeleted. These are as follows:
The deletion discussion is here. I am not an administrator so I can't restore the article and I'm still concerned that he isn't especially notable and coverage relates to what seems to me to be a single event. Is it enough for someone to pursue the record for longest speaking? If you want to work on the article I would suggest contacting User:Wizardman who closed the deletion discussion on his talk page (that links his user page) and ask him to move the article to your userspace. You can work on it there and include what sources there are covering him. Regards. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks I will contact User:Wizardman. Please note notability is not only for the Guiness World record attempt but also for being the First African Contestant to be among the best 3 public speakers in the world - Toastmasters World Championship of 2002 according to some of the sources provided.
Jmungoshi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Cleanup
I believe the articles you've listed include any that could have had COI issues. I did in fact clean up some stuff long ago, but when I realized the problem with some of my early editing I removed thing from my watchlist to avoid further involvement. Your list has false positives but there's no harm in checking them too. JehochmanTalk 14:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
| Facts/Stats/Financials |publisher=Tampaairport.com |date= |accessdate=2012-11-27))</ref>) and improvements currently in progress will increase capacity to 25-million passengers a year. The
an average of 764 per day: 85% [[airline|scheduled commercial]], 14% [[general aviation]] and <1% [[military aviation|military]]. At that time there were 90 aircraft based at this airport: 66% [[
* Blue Side Baggage Claim includes artwork by [[Elle Terry Leonard]] and [[Josh Johnson artist)]] above the marine exhibit.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George Snow Hill may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
http://richardnortongallery.com/artists/george-s-hill/artworks/6383-mural-studies-for Mural Studies] Richard Thornton Gallery</ref>
for bicyclists.<ref name=cycle>phttp://www.lewisginter.org/about/cyclinghistory.php Cycling History] Lewis Ginter Botanical Garden</ref> His niece, Grace Arents, inherited it after his death in 1913.
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. ColonelHenry (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
That looks like a decent source. Please add it to the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Ways to improve Polly Knipp Hill
Hi, I'm ColonelHenry. Candleabracadabra, thanks for creating Polly Knipp Hill!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. While the museum catalogue is a reliable source, but I'm not entirely sold on the use of an auction page and a blog. It's an artist I know of, sadly a minor and forgotten one, but there has to be better sources.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. ColonelHenry (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't find your edits helpful, so I'd appreciate it if you'd just leave my article creations alone. There are other editors who are happy to work collegially and collaboratively to improve the article content with me. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Award for your persistence and patience
WP:SOFIXIT award for your persistence and patience
Useful tool that could help get people off your back :)
Also want to point out a really useful tool that could help get people off your case, called "HotCat". You just go to the "Preferences" page for your account, look under "Gadgets," and check the box next to "HotCat". Presto! HotCat gets turned on. You'll see a plus sign in your article's Categories box, and you can instantly type in a category like Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places. (HotCat fills in most categories for you, with auto-fill.) Djembayz (talk)
I turned it on, but unfortunately it hasn't added any cats for me yet. Not sure what a Categories box is. If you can make it add infoboxes, references, and wikilinks that would be helpful also. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
For Categories using HotCat, you scroll to the top or bottom of the page where the Categories are (depending what layout/skin you use), click on the plus sign, and then type in your idea for what a category should be. If there's an existing category that matches, it comes up for you automatically. (Once in a while, the plus sign is missing, and HotCat doesn't work. So try HotCat out first on a page that already has categories, that's easiest.)
Adding wikiklinks can be pretty quick. Highlight the word(s) in your text where you want the link to go, then go to the bar at the top of your edit box, find little icon with three links of a chain, and click ...
Please read WP:Categorization and try to categorize your articles. Otherwise how are editors supposed to find them? Can you go through your recent creations and add categories and stub tags like this? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, I am not very good at categorizing. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
It's an integral part of editing though and you need to learn how to categorize your articles!! If it's a museum in Florida, Category:Museums in Florida will at least do, even though they're divided by county. If it's a church, then Category:Churches in Florida and click on Category:Churches in Florida by county to find the appropriate county to add it to. It's not difficult. See what a difference this makes? If you really can't find a category feel free to ask me. I don't want to see any more uncategorized articles hehe!! Also can you try to state where they actually are? Your most latest article doesn't have any mention of location and isn't categorized, how are readers supposed to find and know?? Where is James A. Jennings House??? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Ways to improve Higginbothem House
Hi, I'm Dreambeaver. Candleabracadabra, thanks for creating Higginbothem House!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It would be nice if you could briefly mention who Theopholis Higginbothem was. The article would gain more credibility and value that way.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Dreambeaver(talk) 05:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Why are you posting at Jimbo's talk page?
I see that you just posted 3 new sections on Jimbo's talk page. I suppose you wanted to tell Jimbo about Pubdog's work, but why did you choose to post your questions there? There are noticeboards for the topics you asked about -- and if you can't find the right one, the WP:Village pump and WP:Teahouse are places to find out "where should I post my question?". --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. The Village Pump is described as a" set of pages .. used to discuss the technical issues, policies, and operations of Wikipedia" and the Teahouse is, I believe, for new editors and not for discussion of article issues. That's why I posted to Jimbo's page. He's Wikipedia's patriarch and his page is active. Also the feminist editing issue was discussed extensively there. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, although you've been here for a long while, the questions you asked are the kinds of things that new users often ask, so the Teahouse would be a good place to get friendly help. You are unlikely to get that kind of assistance on Jimbo's talk page. Jimbo is Wikipedia's founder, but he's not personally in charge of the site, and he's generally not personally involved in giving advice to people who are searching for particular help pages and noticeboards. --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 08:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Museum of Southern History until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Advertisement tone
Hello, I have left you a message on the Borg Energy talk page requesting you to comment on the advertisement-tone for the article so I can remove/re-write them. Thanks.Henry9967 (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I have posted my reply on the Borg Energy talk page and I thank you again for the kind help.Henry9967 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Candleabracadabra, and thank you for your contributions!
An article you worked on Robert O. Lawton, appears to be directly copied from http://provost.fsu.edu/faculty/awards/lawton/bio.html. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.
It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Robert O. Lawton if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Great job on your recent page creation! If you check back i have added some tags to help the quality of the page.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Mycomp86 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
