This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I want to thank you cause you don't delete the file with Luminiţa Anghel Let Me Try, please help me if they revert the page, to put the image on the page Let Me Try. Thank you, All the best. Andrei Dorian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Cold weather
The Weather Channel is correct. It's been going on for days, so much so that it was the headline news on CBC the other day. It's made worse by the wind chills they have had as well. Although we are gloating we do feel kind of sorry for them. Its got to be hard when you are not used to it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: "We Three Kings"
Of course I wouldn't mind! Whatever makes the most interesting hook. But thanks for asking me in advance! Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
re:We Three Kings
I'm not in favour of that because it does seem a bit less hooky compared to the others. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
NRHP in Cincinnati
There is a long-standing rivalry between the east and west sides of Cincinnati. While Vine Street is generally accepted as being the dividing line (Cincinnati Enquirer cartoonist Jim Borgman famously likened Vine Street to the Berlin Wall [1]), the line is sometimes blurred. Clifton, the location of many fine homes on the NRHP, is west of Vine Street but I wouldn't consider Clifton to be culturally a west side neighborhood. It's 'central' (or perhaps northern as the relevant section puts it, for lack of a better term).
So there's no easy answer to your proposal. But still, there are ways we can improve the current system.
There is no "east side" or "west side" to Over-the-Rhine. It's so close to Downtown Cincinnati, that all properties located in OTR should appear in the downtown section. You could even rename that page 'NRHP in downtown Cincinnati and Over-the-Rhine' if necessary. Even better, create a separate page 'NRHP in Over-the-Rhine' listing all of the many individual properties there.
In summary, I think the system should stay mostly as it is as not to further complicate and polarize an already divided city. - Gilliam (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi @Nyttend - thanks for the review - the hook fact is mentioned here "The Amaravati or Elliot Marbles have been compared with the beauty of the Elgin Marbles, but unlike the Greek sculptures, the ownership of them has not been contested." with the reference here.
Could be that the hook doesn't work as it relies of readers seeing "Elliot Marbles" as similar to "Elgin Marbles". If so then we could find an alt. Victuallers (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the note, and thank you more for the edit. I've added a comment to your statement, in hopes that it will demonstrate the chaos that results when ((w)) redirects to ((welcome)), and thus in hopes that people won't put it back to being a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Walnut Hills United Presbyterian Church
Thanks for your article about the Walnut Hills United Presbyterian Church. (I recall how upset my father was when it was torn down.)
I appreciate your effective input to Cincinnati articles, and keep it coming.
You have been hereby awarded the barnstar of Cincinnati.- Gilliam (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know. Message added 15:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.
I really haven't a clue. I did this simply to ensure that it had been submitted; I'm unfamiliar with the AFC process, and for all I know, it might already have been submitted some other way. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Cumberbatchstagedoor.jpg
Hey, that image is under a false claim of ownership. That user who is now blocked for their edits and sock puppetry uploaded NUMEROUS images of Benedict Cumberbatch all claiming them as their own. This image needs to be deleted immediately. Lady Lotus • talk 00:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is the link that I used for the other uploads of this image, all of the other images that Fairyspit and the accounts they sockpuppeted have been deleted, this one got lost in the mix I guess but should be deleted. Lady Lotus • talk 12:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
That was fast! You're awesome lol thank you so much! Lady Lotus • talk 12:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
At John Church Company Building you replaced the useless hyphen after "wholly" that I had removed per WP:HYPHEN, which says "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary)". You also removed a full stop after "et al", which, according to something like consensus, is prescribed by AWB/Typos, and was discussed last month at WT:AWB/T#Incorrect fix of et al.→et al.., so if you have an issue with that situation, that talk page would be a good place to bring it up. I did not change the citation style, as your edit summary indicated. The tone of the edit summary could also be improved. Christhe spelleryack 17:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggested that you take your complaint about "et al." to WT:AWB/T, yet you brought it to my talk page. I did not originate the rule, did not participate in the discussion about it, and I am not the only AWB user who is likely to find AWB changing "et al" to "et al." inside or outside citations. If you want something done about AWB changing punctuation in citations, then WT:AWB/T is the place to go. Your use of the "Not a typo" template to preserve "wholly-owned" is not in line with the purpose of the template; that template is not intended to enable editors to fly in the face of the MoS and instead impose their personal tastes. You do not seem receptive to any of my suggestions, but, anyway, here is one more: adopt a more cooperative attitude. Christhe spelleryack 18:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
You ask hard questions! I don't know of any ideal university articles. Many such articles suffer from overly enthusiastic editing by current students, not to mention university public relations employees. One reasonably good one (based on a very superficial examination) is McMaster University in Canada. I hope that helps! --Orlady (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Question
Question
I would like to discuss the Wikipedia page concerning archaeological sites on the National Register in Indiana. Please call me Cathy Draeger-Williams at 317 234 3791 or email at cdraeger-williams@dnr.in.gov. IDNRDHPA (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
ANI problem
I have just placed a nowiki note around some sample text you placed on this board as it was suppressing the remainder of the page. However it has replaced four tildes you used to sign with my signature not yours. I have removed my signature with an edit summary but would invite you to replace your signature in the text. My intention was only to nowiki your sample text and I have no idea why anything else happened. Sorry. Britmax (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for that, I thought it might be a glitch somewhere. Going to bed now. Britmax (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
It was like 2005, I had no idea how to do wiki markup and was most likely drinking heavily at the time. :-) Bacchiad (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Do what thou wilt etc. If we're still using those templates I hope someone merges or deletes them for something better soon. Thanks for checking in though. 15:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
You know that "Folk Mataraman Institute" is a band and they are pasting their spam all over the Internet? It's also and obvious cut and paste job because their paste stopped in at the beginning of a word. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Favor - this file was uploaded by this same user also claiming ownership. Saying he's the guy in the photo but clearly he isn't because if that were the case he would also be the girl that took the photo of Cumberbatch in the previously mentioned photos. Wondering if you could look into that getting deleted too. Thanks LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
— Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 16:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Lady Lotus's talk page. Message added 20:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.
Hello, Nyttend. User:Danny lost (aka trespassers william) wasn't trying to withdraw his nomination of The Vatican Splendors at AfD, he just appears to have run afoul of some technicalities. He says so on his talk page where I asked him what he intended. I'd like to try and salvage the article. I will oppose deletion. What I would like to ask you is: how much longer does the AfD have to run before a decision is made? Thanks for your help! --71.178.50.222 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but did the original article have a talk page? If so, can someone restore it? Thanks, again. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
User subpage deletion needed.
<redacted> looks like a major mistake by a new user. I doubt they wanted to post their cell phone number like that. Should this be deleted? It doesn't meet any CSD criteria that I can find. Thanks. (If this conversation disappears along with it, I'll understand why.) --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Redacting the link, but there's no need to destroy the whole thing. I've deleted the page and will attempt to delete the log entry, although I'm not sure that I'll do the right thing. I'll ask for outside input if I make a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That's probably something you should send to oversight, Nyttend; they know how to nuke things like that. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 23:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought of that, but I wasn't sure because this was self-revelation of information. However, since you're suggesting it, I know it's not a crazy idea, so I'll ask them. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ban of user 75.104.131.93
I am on a dynamic IP system, that address has been reassigned, and I created a user account. However, I do not wish to be in violation of the rules. Please lift the ban and I pledge to follow the rules in my quest to see that unnecessary German language translations are removed from English language Wikipedia scientific concept articles.FBitburg (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Just FYI...
Your close of the IPBE thread on AN changed the section header for some reason; I've changed it back. Not sure how that happened. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 22:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. As you've unblocked at your discretion, I've nothing to say on that, and am happy to leave that at your discretion (of course presuming you're an uninvolved admin, something I haven't and probably won't investigate at this time). This is merely for future reference.
While I know it isn't required, it would have been appreciated if you had dropped a note on my talk page that you were going to reverse an admin action. (See also WP:RAAA and WP:EQ.)
And as for the location (the talk page), I would point you to WP:TBAN, which very clearly uses the word "discussions" in its example, and even uses the words: "...and their talk pages." If you feel that TBAN is too vaguely worded, or that you feel I am misinterpreting what is (in my estimation) laid out fairly clearly there, I welcome discussion.
Regardless, as I said this is merely for future reference.
Thanks for the note. It's been a long long time since I had any kind of interaction with Bugs or Medeis (I vaguely remember sending TRM a note not long ago), and the last substantial thing I remember saying to Bugs (year or two ago?) was basically "this is your last warning for personal attacks", rather than something that would bias me in his favor. I'm sorry that I didn't notify you as expected; I'd just assumed that you would quickly learn from my note at the WP:AN thread, since you'd started it as a request for input on the situation. No disagreement with your interpretation of WP:TBAN; I was attempting to say that this is a thoroughly different situation. The proposal that you closed as "yes" wasn't at all written as a topic ban from discussing Wikipedia reference desks — the wording indicates a desire to keep them off the desk, a page ban that just got misnamed. This is thus different from a topic ban on weather, which prohibits people from discussing weather on talk pages or non-meteorological articles. Nyttend (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments.
And my apologies, I wasn't suggesting you were biased (though I suppose I can see how that could have been interpreted that way), I was merely trying to be thorough in my comment of "leaving it to your discretion".
I went to AN last, after reading my talk page and checking on the status of the block (in case comment was required). I saw that you had unblocked and left you this note above.
And on your point about topic ban vs page ban. I think you've a valid point there. What was being discussed was banning the editors from the pages related to the reference desk, rather than the topic of the reference desk. But just as the proposer apparently overlooked that fine point, so did the closer. (As an aside, I think it's fair to say that in wikipedia parlance shorthand, it's not uncommon to see someone use the phrase "topic ban" when they mean "page ban". But that's little excuse : )
Under normal circumstances, I'd immediately go and clarify the closure (and note it to those affected), but with the 3PO underway, with more than a few questioning the closure itself, I think I'll wait a bit for more input. - jc37 07:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
<complicated>Actually, I didn't think you thought I was biased</complicated>; I thought you were basically trying to say "I'm AGF-ing", and I was basically trying to say "You're right, and here's side information in case you care". No need to apologise. I can understand the situation of (<normally would clarify> and <won't now due to contention>); it just seemed that your initial closing statement was all you were planning to say by yourself (i.e. you hadn't left anything out; any modifications would represent a change of mind), so I expected that you meant to say (and were intending to continue saying) that he was restricted specifically from editing the Reference Desk, and then decided by yourself later that the ban ought to go farther than that, doing it of your own accord and not simply because your interpretation of the discussion had changed. Of course I fully understand that you couldn't respond to all of the comments at WP:AN, since they were coming rather fast and quickly together, so I wasn't thinking you were ignoring people's comments. Way past bedtime for me; it's almost 3AM, and I have work at 9AM, so please don't expect any more responses for quite a while. Nyttend (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Good morning Nyttend, I know it would be a bit of an inconvenience, but would it be possible to pull Template:Did you know nominations/Valley View (Romney, West Virginia) from the Prep 2 queue and return it to the nominations page? I'm still working to locate an image for the hook, and forgot to note this on the article's nomination template. If this is possible, I'd greatly appreciate it, and I apologize for the trouble. I'll cross post this request with other DYK administrators. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Response
Hi. I responded on my talk page to the query you posted there. --Orlady (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for handling the Rajpurohit article and for providing clarification on the ANI thread. I had read the 3RR exceptions but I had missed the copyright violation one. I apologize for taking so long to bring up the issue and will handle any copyvio issues more proptly in the future. Thanks again. Ishdarian 03:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Archaeology
Sorry to hear that the Tennessee Anthropologist no longer exists, they kindly let me put copies of some articles on the Bat Creek nonsense on my website. Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend, I wanted to let you know that your concerns here appear to have been addressed. Will you be continuing the review, or should I call for another reviewer. Please let me know if the latter. (If the former, I'll see your post there.) Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Fenwick Club
Hello! Your submission of Fenwick Club at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! EagerToddler39 (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you
Hey. I know I already thanked you for making me a template editor, but just wanted to say I really appreciate it. I had been considering asking for it myself but was afraid I wouldn't qualify based on the guidelines. Not all Wikipedians would be as cordial. I think I'll find it very useful. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Since I noticed you've been adding those missing listings to the county lists, don't forget to update the counts at the state and national lists too. I took care of the Connecticut and Michigan listings already, so don't worry about those. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 03:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize you were doing it that way. That makes sense. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 03:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I noticed you added a photo of Island, Kentucky that you made yourself. I hope someone told you to visit the Dairy Freeze while you were there. Awesome cheeseburgers, and the only place around here that you can get deep-fried cheddar cheese balls! Acdixon(talk·contribs) 14:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Bummer that you weren't through at the right time to get a good cheeseburger. The Dairy Freeze does have breakfast, but I've never had it there. If you ever happen to be through there again, give it a go. I know how those long drives are, though. I have to do a round trip between my home and Versailles, Kentucky (about 320 miles, total), for work sometimes. Plus, you lose an hour from crossing time zones on the way. Not much that can entice you to stop and make the trip even longer. Were you able to find the Robert Thomas House? Acdixon(talk·contribs) 19:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Lotta history in Russellville. Bet you got some good shots there. Let me know when you get them uploaded. I went there on a picture-taking mission once, but I hadn't done proper research before I went, so I only got a few of the important sites. Bowling Green would be another good place to go. Wish I'd been active on Wikipedia when I was in grad school at WKU; probably could have saved you the trip! I know what you mean about the cold weather. It was a balmy 8 degrees when I got to work this morning. Brr. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 19:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Fenwick Club
On 23 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fenwick Club, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Cincinnati's Fenwick Club was established as a Catholic alternative to the YMCA? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fenwick Club. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I see you merged those histories. Could you merge histories of talk pages aeromobil and Klein Aeromobil as well? Thanks. Alex discussion ★ 01:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
No. Let me explain why; it's a technical reason, not some petty refusal on my part. All of the edits I moved to Klein Aeromobil were originally at aeromobil — I deleted both pages, restored the aeromobil edits that I was going to merge, moved them to Klein, and restored the deleted Klein edits. I was originally going to move everything from aeromobil to Klein, and my decision to leave a few behind was intentional. This is because the timestamps overlapped, and as WP:PV says, histmerging some overlapping stuff would produce severe confusion. Let me demonstrate the result by pointing you to a few pages:
User:Nyttend/pagehistory1
User:Nyttend/pagehistory2
User:Nyttend/pagehistory3
User:Nyttend/pagehistory4
User:Nyttend/pagehistory5
I created pages 1 and 4 with the original chunk from Demand-Gest House and created pages 2 and 3 with identical text from Jeff Kimball House. I then proceeded to make a few edits to each page, being careful to make the same edit to each pair: I cut the "Preservation" section from each article, and then I cut everything below References. I did nothing more to 3 and 4, while I then performed a complete history merge by moving 1 and 2 to page 5. You can easily see my editing patterns by looking at the histories for pages 3 and 4: everything proceeds in a nice linear fashion, e.g. this diff. However, all the diffs in the history of page 5 are gibberish. Look at this one, for example: my edit summary was "Cutting a chunk", but it looks as if I completely replaced one page with another, and "cutting a chunk" resulted in the article actually gaining 776 characters. My point Any time you have pages with overlapping timestamps, a histmerge is catastrophic. Histmerges are only ever safe when all of the edits at page 1 were made before any of the edits at page 2 were made. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I get your point. But sadly, we're losing this precious revision when DYK was confirmed this way... In my opinion user who renamed Draft:Aeromobil to Klein Aeromobil did it pretty hasty and inappropriately. He should've first merge it with already existent page Aeromobil (at that time tagged with some copyvio tag) and only then rename it at will. (But I still don't see any valid reason for such a rename, as only fewer people will be directed to the desired page.) PS Can I ask you something via email, because I find it somehow private? Cheers, Alex discussion ★ 01:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually we've not lost any revisions; every revision is visible (i.e. there are no deleted edits in any of the page histories), and this was the revision displayed when it first appeared at DYK. Or are you asking me to merge the talk page histories as well? I'd advise against that: when articles get histmerged, we normally don't move their talk pages. I don't understand why you think the rename was inappropriate or unhelpful: the Draft namespace is only for pages that aren't ready to be articles yet, so if I remember rightly, they're noindexed and thus difficult to find with search engines, but pages in mainspace can easily be found by Google within a few minutes of their creation. Finally, send your email. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Done. Check your inbox. Alex discussion ★ 03:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Aleksa Lukic's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.
PS If you don't want to leave me your email, you can create a free account on Yahoo or similar site, it's copletely free and anyone can do it, and then you can send me mail anonymously. Regards, Alex discussion ★ 17:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Nuclear testing: India, Pakistan and North Korea
The page that you edited (Nuclear testing: India, Pakistan and North Korea) was initially created, by me, in order to hold atomic testing history for those three countries. A few days later I decided it would be best if the data were on three different pages. Someone came along and placed links top those three pages there. I was looking for a way to delete it (I fairly new to file level editing in wiki), and along came another editor who put it under quick-delete. I placed a message on the QD page saying that was perfectly alright with me, then along you come and delete the link top the comments page as well as the quick-delete header. It is not a disambiguation page; it was merely a page with three useless links on it - useless because the reason for the page is gone, and it is an orphan besides. So, why don't you just delete the page and its talk, and we'll all be happy? SkoreKeep (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Your assistance please
THis ANI is driving me crazy. i can't even begin to do the edits I've been wanting to do, because i'm so caught up in this. All i know is that i'm being accused of Gaming the IBAN with Chris. And no one other than Verso.Sciolto aren't providing reason at all. And i just want it to end so i can continue editing. I don't understand how my involvement with Sailor Moon has to do with gaming the article. And I've asked time and time again there reasoning, and i've provided a summary plus reasoning....this is exhausting and no one, not the ones casting their votes have provided enough reason. So all i ask is that if someone can clarify where exactly i'm gaming the system by taking advantage of the IBAN?
Keep in mind, i'm not asking you to support me, to oppose me in the current AN discussion, all i ask...is to explain to me where these editors are coming from.Lucia Black (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
First off, please note that I didn't check any of the diffs/links when I left my comments early in the discussion; I was simply asking if you'd done anything worthy of immediate sanctions, and since you hadn't, I was saying "I'm not going to pass judgement". More comments as I do a bit of reading. Nyttend (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't draw anything useful from the discussion — it's so long and burdened with so much side discussion that it really can't be the basis of anything useful. With that in mind, I've emailed Salvidrim! with a procedural proposal; should he agree, I'll perform it, and should he disagree, I'll come back to trying to help with the current discussion. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
As you'll probably see before you read this comment, I've closed everything in the discussion except for the proposal. I just couldn't imagine anything concrete happening from the original thread and its numerous tangents, except for the proposal that you be indefinitely blocked. Since this has a specific goal, I expect it will have a solid result, regardless of whether you end up blocked or whether the block idea is rejected. It's my hope that this will make things far simpler for everyone, including you, and give you a "speedy trial". If I can help in any other procedural matter, or if you want my outside input, let me know and I'll try to help. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough but i'm afraid a lot of points have been ignored by just casting a vote. And as you can see, most editors will be voting out of irritation of me being part of this ANI rather than me actually being disruptive.Lucia Black (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
To respond to your initial question, I simply don't understand where people are coming from. I don't understand where you're coming from. I don't really understand anything of this dispute, and the massive discussion didn't help at all. That's why I closed it and immediately reopened the proposal at the end: it was the only thing that could end in you getting sanctions, and it was the only thing that could end in you getting no sanctions. It was the only thing that could end in anything at all! Also please note that I'm not attempting to make this anything more of a vote than normal votes: yes, people are offering input in a "support"/"oppose" type of format, but things like Salvidrim's "Support, Oppose and Neutral" are accepted, and we're going to pay attention to comments made with the votes. Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Naming conventions
I have looked at the page of the Wikipedia project, and at the website of NRHP. I searched "St. Michael's Catholic Church (Cedar Hill, Tennessee)" on that site, and it immediately corrected it to St Michael's Catholic Church, Cedar Hill, Tennessee".
Whoever established the naming convention on the Wikipedia site in the first place was ignorant of (or simply ignored or didn't bother to check) the normal, worldwide convention in naming places (particularly state buildings and churches).
It remains incorrect, regardless of some early decision on Wikipedia. Establishing inappropriate forms and styles and then maintaining them happens quite a lot here. And when it happens, it is to the discredit of the encyclopedia. Amandajm (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I searched for "St. Michael's Catholic Church (Cedar Hill, Tennessee)", fully expecting because of the information that you gave, that this would find a page with that name. It didn't. Moreover, it didn't bring up any article on the church itself. It corrected my search to "St Michael's Catholic Church, Cedar Hill, Tennessee".
In other words "St. Michael's Catholic Church (Cedar Hill, Tennessee)" doesn't work on the NRHP website, and therefore the format should be discontinued on Wikipedia. If the Wikipedia article on NRHP promotes this use, then that needs fixing. Someone needs to go through every US church article on Wikipedia and put this inappropriate format to rights.
As I have said before, the location of a building is part of its identity, particularly in the case of a church. It needs fixing.
Nyttend, what I am telling you is: this is a stupid and inappropriate naming convention that does not comply with real-world usage, encyclopedic usage or the way in which churches are listed in the relevant government documents or those of heritage bodies.
Whoever established this on Wikipedia got it wrong in the first place, and it needs to be brought into line. Churches are generally known by the name of their location, along with their saints name. In the case of cathedrals, they are generally just known by their location, unless there are two cathedrals in the town.
You cannot over-ride common sense, common usage and common knowledge with some foolish wikipedia convention that wasn't thought through in the first place, and is now being badly misapplied. Look up a few church websites, find some that include the location, and see how it is done.
I have checked a couple of state capitol buildings and notice Texas State Capitol, not State Capitol (Texas) although both get a result. This example, however, shows how ridiculous the convention is, when misapplied. Churches belong to their location, in the same way as the Texas State Capitol belongs, quite exclusively, to its state. This is the correct way to do it, in the case of every church.
Hi Nyttend, I came across this article a little while ago when patrolling recent changes. To me it looks like someone's sandbox. I reverted to what look like the last plausible version, but a new user and IP (possibly the same individual) wants me to wait for them to source it, but in addition to the horrible formatting, it is not close to encyclopedic. What should be done? Thanks. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I just saw your solution, which is great! --I am One of Many (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014
Hello, I'm WilliamJE. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Wirtland (micronation) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ...William 17:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Have you done something to the page? I'm trying to revert your making it into a redirect but keep getting an error message....William 17:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I've done nothing to the page except for redirecting it. The page has never had substantial coverage in secondary sources, and the AFD was kept because of the interference of sockpuppets. Please do not continue to restore it, and it would be appreciated if you didn't treat me like a vandal. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
You made a page into a redirect and started a AFD without an explanation. The template was deserved. As for redirecting the article, it has been opposed by multiple editors. Your administrative functions don't give you the right to do what you did. Start a proper AFD if you want....William 17:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The page is reverted and the AFD tag removed and I'm not a sockpuppet. Your statement 'Please do not continue to restore it' is in clear conflict with WP:BRD but you're an administrator and this is just another case of an administrator not thinking rules apply to them....William 20:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Your series of unfounded accusations is the reason for the warning on your talk page. WP:BRD does not apply to spam, and meanwhile I never accused you of sockpuppetry. Just try reading the top of the original AFD before attacking me for things that I didn't say. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfounded? You have redirected for no reason and when somebody reverted it you vioalated it(and your spam excuse is bs and was never mentioned) started an AFD with no reason for starting it. You're an experienced editor and administrator. Your AFD was incompetent. Take me to ANI....William 22:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
You nominated the page for deletion here[2] with a blank AFD page. Then you actually came back and edited it again[3] and neither time did you give an explanation. You made the page[4] a redirect without explanation. Then after someone reverted[5] the redirect you did it again[6] in violation of BRD. When yet another editor calls you on it, you further declare[7] intent to violate BRD or that you WP:OWN that page. You're the editor who should be blocked but that doesn't ever happen to administrators around here....William 23:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
William: Another user created that AFD but failed to tag the article. All that Nyttend did was finish up the process that the other user had started. Your persistence on attacking an administrator for taking care of some of the grunt work required for the basic administration of Wikipedia is making you look bad. --Orlady (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC
You don't be absurd. Nyttend was the one who nominated the page for deletion here[8] without giving a reason. He even made a second edit[[9]] and still couldn't explain himself. Ignoring those edits tells me again Wikipedia administrators first job here to protect your own....William 01:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the history. My apologies. But you still should know that your behavior toward him has been inconsistent with the civility that is necessary if Wikipedia is to survive. --Orlady (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
William, that is not what happened. Nyttend was going to send it to AfD, but changed his mind and created a redirect. You reverted Nyttend, sent it to AfD and then you closed it. And then someone sent an email that started off wiki attack on Nyttend at wirtland (go to publications). Apparently, Wirtland does discriminate based on religious and political views. I am One of Many (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Finally, someone comes along to investigate the history while paying attention: you assess the situation correctly. I've been trying and trying and trying to get William to look at the history, but every time I say that I didn't make a bad deletion nomination, William repeats his accusations. When I observe that WP:SOCK violations have been responsible for this article's continued existence, William takes it as an accusation against him, saying "I'm not a sockpuppet". Turning to the broader issue: when someone from their PR department is still monitoring this article so closely, and when they're openly advocating for its preservation, why should we trust that anyone who edits this article is doing so in good faith, unless they're an established editor? Obviously William's established, but the same is not true of User:Remux (who created the AFD), and there's no good reason to see his edits as a good-faith objection to the redirection. I need to note that the wirtland.blogspot.com hit piece does catch one thing incorrect that I've said — I'm not in graduate school anymore, because I finished up my programs and got my degrees last year. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
There have been reverts lately; extend time or upgrade protection? --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Protection will expire in ten days. Will you extend expiry time? --George Ho (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Tempest
I understand that attempting to improve the encyclopedia is not just thankless, but occasionally results in complaints when you are making improvements. That said, I think it is the responsibility of admins to set a good example, and I don't think your interaction with WilliamJE meets that standard.
I understand that interacting with William can be frustrating. I'm fairly even-keeled, but I was seconds away from blowing a gasket. (Not worth getting into).
I fully understand that I do not know the full history of your interaction with William, and perhaps that would help me understand some of the problems, but I'd like to share with you how I saw the recent interactions.
Wirtland (micronation) is an article that has been in existence for over four years. I fully understand that this age doesn't create any special privilege, but I note several edits by respected admins, including you, so it seems reasonable that removing it should not be done capriciously.
In this edit it appears you are nominating it for deletion using AfD. The edit summary does not indicate why (not does it have to), but one would expect that such a longstanding article, when nominated for deletion, would have a reason. That doesn't have to be in the edit summary, but should be in the AfD summary. I do realize you never got that far, but I also want to note that editors can be forgiven for thinking you were nominating an article for deletion when you have an edit summary Nominating for deletion)
You apparently changed you mind, and rather than nominate for deletion, you wiped it out and replaced it with a redirect. I find this quite surprising. We may differ on whether the age is an issue, but if someone slapped some spam into a new article, and someone else replaced it with a redirect the same day, I would not raise an eyebrow, but a four year old article? Not an everyday occurrence.
The article was taken to AfD by another editor. Curious, but not worth pursuing except to note that when you add an edit summary that say you are taking it to AfD and it ends up at AfD the same day, it is a forgivable error that someone might think you did that.
Perhaps there was some intervening discussion which explains the attitude, but your response I've done nothing to the page except for redirecting it. The page has never had substantial coverage in secondary sources, and the AFD was kept because of the interference of sockpuppets. Please do not continue to restore it, and it would be appreciated if you didn't treat me like a vandal. failed to meet what I consider to be acceptable discourse form an admin. The request was reasonable and your first sentence was both defensive and inaccurate. You clearly had edited the page other than the redirect. Replacing the entire contents with a redirect was a quite significant edit, and deserved a better response. I don't get the reference to sockpuppets, but I'm not interested in going there unless it is somehow relevant. Your request that William not restore the article was unwarranted. It leaves the impression "I'm an admin, don't question my actions". I hoped that wasn't your intention, but you provided no policy reasons for insisting that an editor in good standing should be prohibited from reversing what he honestly thought was an improper edit. I don't follow why the accusation that he treated you like a vandal. Am I missing an edit?
The tone goes downhill, and while I wish William were more circumspect when conversing (and I have said so) I expect admins to set an example, and I see more heat than light form you.
I fee like there is something I'm missing. If a four year old article really is too spammy to survive, why not simply AfD it and find out?
You may be aware that William is convinced that admins get away with abuse. I've personally disagreed with him in the past User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_35#Something_for_you example, but while I have complaints about his style, and his inability to get all the facts exactly right, I think he has a point here. He was concerned about the elimination of an article, asked politely and you did not respond appropriately.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Bayh
Thanks for clearing this stuff up. Speaking of Bayh, I have noticed that there are six Bayhs and although they are all related they are not all listed together on a page. I believe that a family page is in order, and I thought that with you being an admin and being familiar with the topic, you would like to create the page for this.Hoops gza (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I submitted you to ANI
I submitted your actions to ANI here. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
NRHP row
I was avoiding editing the main template, which is transcluded on thousands of pages, because the job queue has to re-build all the pages it's used on one by one for each edit to the template (That's why sandboxes exist in the first place). If you wanted to center the date, you could have just put it in the sandbox, and it could have gone in with a single edit when we decided what to do with the refnum. Just letting you know for future reference; don't worry about it this time.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, if high-use templates weren't edit protected, we wouldn't have to worry about someone not the necessary having user rights. The reason they are protected is to prevent someone from slamming the job queue. So yes, sandboxes facilitate testing and allow non-admins/templateeditors to request changes from admins that don't know anything about template code, but the main reason they were created in the first place is because of the job queue. Regardless, it's not a big deal like you broke the servers or anything haha.. but on some templates (e.g. ((Coord))), which are used on a lot more pages, it's not a good idea to make small edits like yours but to group them together in one batch. It's just good practice to use that philosophy on all templates.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
From (the relevant) Template talk:High-use: "We had frequent problems with admins doing fast repetitive experimental edits on [templates with many transclusions]. Thus causing widespread disruption to page layouts. And even pushing up the job queue so much that we got noticeable effects such as editing got slower for everyone and category list updates got seriously delayed. (Back in 2007 such edits even caused server crashes. But the devs fixed that so now the servers at least do not crash anymore, instead things just get slow.)"
Maybe it doesn't say it anywhere in policy, but the job queue was one of the main drivers pushing people away from editing these templates. But really, this is not something we need to be arguing about haha. No harm, no foul.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Well if it was an argument, I won. :P--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Pendleton House
I added a few references and removed the NRHP-only template.
How does this line sound: "By the 1930s, the house and surrounding neighborhood had declined,[10] but as of the late 1990s, the house has been converted into offices and apartments.[11]"
Could you raise the protection level of Template:NRHP Focus so only those with the templateeditor right can edit it? Now that it's transcluded in all our lists, it has the potential for damage. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Block review
Hi, I notice that you recently blocked Rajpurohit-Veer (talk·contribs) following a report at ANI. They're back doing dreadful stuff at Rajpurohit just as if they've never been away, although the issues have been explained to them on several occasions and in several venues. Are you in the mood to review the situation? - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
You may consider this my notice
I just addressed at ANI how you abused your tools. Go ahead and try refuting it....William 03:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Move Commons (2).
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hello! Nyttend,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
It looks like there are a couple of confused bots working for AFC and the Teahouse. --Orlady (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Anon126's talk page. Message added 23:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fulton County Courthouse (Ohio), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vestibule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marion, Illinois 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:
Federal installations in the city include the [Marion Veterans Affairs Medical Center]] on Main Street, the [[Richard G. Wilson]] U.S. Army Reserve Center on [[Illinois Route 13]], and
[http://www.westohioumc.org/organization/3225 Church Profile: Groveport UMC], West Ohio Conference], 2014. Accessed 2014-02-27.</ref> In 1995, the building itself gained recognition as it was
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
"New"
Regarding your ITN edit, the wording "previously unknown" is fine, but I'll note that "new" wasn't incorrect.
Random House Dictionary:
having but lately or but now come into knowledge: a new chemical element.
Collins English Dictionary:
having existed before but only recently discovered: a new comet.
Thanks for the note, but I think there's a major difference: even when natural elements were still being discovered, we could presume that nobody had previously known about a "new" element (the ancients weren't going around synthesising europium, for example), and we often have no clue whether humans have ever seen a specific "new" comet. In contrast, the poems quite obviously were known and had simply been lost; it's like saying that Halley's Comet was "new" in 1758, the first time it was recognised for what it was, the first time someone saw it and knew that it had been seen before. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand the distinction that you've drawn, but not how it's relevant to the definitions above or sets them apart from the wording "previously unknown". —David Levy 03:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Um, my distinctions demonstrate how it's different from the definitions. It's not now being discovered for the first time, unlike a new chemical element or (presumably) a comet. "Previously unknown" doesn't say when the unknown status happened and doesn't mean "never before known": since the poems weren't known ten years ago, they're previously unknown. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Um, my distinctions demonstrate how it's different from the definitions.
Your distinctions rely on information not contained in the definitions. I understand how discovering a lost poem differs from discovering a chemical element or comet, but those are merely examples; their specific natures and the circumstances of their discovery aren't intrinsic to this meaning of the word "new".
Here's a relevant definition from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
Just found, discovered, or learned: new information.
It's not now being discovered for the first time, unlike a new chemical element or (presumably) a comet. "Previously unknown" doesn't say when the unknown status happened and doesn't mean "never before known": since the poems weren't known ten years ago, they're previously unknown.
Neither "for the first time" nor "never before known" appears in the definitions above.
No material difference exists between "having but lately or but now come into knowledge" and "previously unknown". (The related publication Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, whose entry is included on the second page linked, uses even closer wording: "having but lately become known".)
This is why I don't object to your version of the blurb in the slightest. I'd even say that it's an improvement, as it avoids potential ambiguity. But "new" wasn't incorrect. —David Levy 04:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This is what I was talking about. "Just found, discovered, or learned" — not "just re-found, re-discovered, or re-learned". "having but lately become known" — not "known 2000+ years ago, forgotten, and re-discovered". And I'm sorry if I'm coming across as hostile/complaining/unhappy/etc. I'm not at all any of those things; it's just that I'm not quite sure how to say this in a way that conveys the casual/friendly/not-a-big-deal perspective that's in my mind right now. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This is what I was talking about. "Just found, discovered, or learned" — not "just re-found, re-discovered, or re-learned".
You're imposing conditions that simply don't exist. When something is "found, discovered, or learned", that doesn't mean that it never was possessed in the past.
"I found my wallet" doesn't imply that the speaker never encountered the wallet before. "I learned how to ride a bicycle" doesn't imply that this information was never known by others previously. The ITN item, as currently worded, correctly indicates that the poems were "discovered".
"having but lately become known" — not "known 2000+ years ago, forgotten, and re-discovered".
The latter is specific. The former is nonspecific; like "previously unknown", it doesn't say when the unknown status happened and doesn't mean "never before known".
And I'm sorry if I'm coming across as hostile/complaining/unhappy/etc. I'm not at all any of those things; it's just that I'm not quite sure how to say this in a way that conveys the casual/friendly/not-a-big-deal perspective that's in my mind right now.
I'm relieved to read that, as I had exactly the same concerns about how I was coming across. :-) —David Levy 05:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
If you have a few minutes, please comment in the "Talk" section for Leith, North Dakota about city vs town vs hamlet issue. Possibly put a "watch" on it too. Thanks. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey Nyttend, I responded at length at WP:ANI but wanted to let you know that the reason I reported the IP this time is because they are a block-evading sockpuppet of an already blocked IP. I know that AIV is generally for vandalism but I thought that since the IP just came off of a block for sockpuppetry and started it all up again that AIV would be an appropriate venue to report it and get it resolved faster than re-opening the SPI or reporting it to ANI. SQGibbon (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Randolph County
I've finally started to focus on getting all (or at least most) of Illinois articled; I've been meaning to do this for a while but kept getting distracted by other projects. I was planning to work on Randolph County soon; it might actually be the next county I work on once I finish Marion County. I actually found the links to the Piney Creek nomination forms myself, after a bit of searching; it's a good thing too, because the nearest library with that book is a state away from me right now. Thanks for the suggestion though.
Speaking of Randolph County, I've noticed that you've written several detailed articles about some of the component sites of the French Colonial Historic District. Since you've probably done way more research into it than I have at this point, are you interested in writing that article, or should I just go ahead and write it? TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 22:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that one out to me, I'll expand it when I get to Randolph County. I've been expanding the NRIS-only articles I've come across, but really short articles with two sources are harder to catch. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 23:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
It's the former, though I'm also on Pacific Time right now, so it's not as late as it looks. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 19:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
General photo question
Hi there, I have a photo question and you were the best person I could think of to even ask. I'm writing articles that involve demolished buildings. The only photos are available from Kent State University's Special Collections & Archives Department and all of their photos have copyright notices on them. Getting permission to use the photos won't be a problem—I used photos on my blog and they seemed thrilled someone was even using them—but I'm not sure how that works here since it isn't that simple. Would it be a case of just getting an OTRS ticket? I just want to make sure I don't create more work for myself than I need to. Thanks! --JonRidinger (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. To be honest, I'm not all that surprised. Most of the photos are from the 1920s and 30s, with one from circa 1965, but it sounds similar to what IUB has in terms of policy. I don't see KSU granting a Wikipedia-type release. What role would fair-use play, especially since all of these facilities no longer exist, so there's no way to get another photo? My understanding of KSU's policy is that it's more of a way for them to know where the photos are being used over any infringement concerns.
Also, I scanned some photos and negatives from our local historical society awhile back. They have some photos on their website you can buy, but not the ones I scanned. What is the copyright status of those, if any? One photo I know is pre-1923, one is likely from the 1940s, but the negatives are from 1969. Perhaps a lower-resolution version should be used instead? Thanks, as always, for your time! --JonRidinger (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Good to know. It may just be easier to go the route of fair-use since all the buildings in question no longer exist and I don't think Special Collections will object to their use in the article as long as they are cited. The historical society pictures all come from their own archives, meaning they were likely donated, but nothing on the photograph indicates where they got them, at least in the photos and negatives I scanned. The negatives I scanned weren't even in the right file, so it's doubtful anyone even knew they were there, even less that very many could even identify what was in the negative (construction photos of Dix Stadium that I don't think even KSU has). The historical society does sell copies of pictures from their archives, but it's not really a money-making enterprise, more a matter of simply paying for the service of getting a printed photo. If I went to the historical society myself, I could scan and print the photo for no cost.
To answer your question, the Kent Historical Society is located on East Main in the 1882 Clapp-Woodward House, between downtown and KSU. A new municipal courthouse is being built right next door, set to open next month. The Franklin Township Hall is still home to the administrative offices for Franklin Township. Thanks again! --JonRidinger (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You may be remembering the Mantua Township Hall, which I believe you got a photo of. It looks very similar to the Franklin Township Hall, and is used by the local historical society (though right now I believe it is being renovated). --JonRidinger (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burton House (Newberry, South Carolina), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crawlspace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Krishna Ballesh
Hi! It was tagged as A7, but the tag was removed and then incompetently replaced by the creator of the article. However, I think that was a mistake, and that it should have been a G4 – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna Ballesh. I've tagged it again. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_of_Burden:_Pedaling_towards_a_Horizon has been deleted. Also mentions that the content has some copyright infringement issue. Actually we are from Accessible Horizon Films and this is our documentary and we posted this to IMDB as well. So i do not understand how this would be a copyright infringement. Even in our article we have given links to this IMDB page. Men of Burden: Pedaling towards a Horizon (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: Substantial chunks (from original revision until latest) copied from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0819786/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl)
Thank you, 59.92.86.236, but I can't simply restore it because you said so. This isn't some arcane rule imposed for arbitrary reasons: it's to protect copyright holders. Anyone can come out and say that they're from the company in question, so we can't believe just anyone. If you really are Raghu Jeganathan or associated with him, you can do either of two different things: (1) Use Raghu's email address to contact permissions-enwikimedia.org. In the email, state that the text in question is released under the "Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 3.0 License" (this is Wikipedia's normal license; all text is supposed to be under this license), and state that you're Raghu or that Raghu has authorised you to do the releasing. (2) Log into IMDB as Raghu and go back to the review page. Once you're there, edit the original review (or somehow add a second one) saying that the content is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 License. Note If you find this confusing, or have any other questions, please feel free to come back here and ask for help. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nyttend, we have received an email to permissions-en from the contact address used by Accessible Horizon Films on their Facebook page and elsewhere, confirming that the deleted text (which I have not personally been able to read) is released by the company on a CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence. The reference is Ticket:2014021510002011. As the deleting admin, I'll leave it to you to advise the contributor further and decide whether to undelete the text as in the absence of a copyright issue this is no longer a "G12". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Since you're confident that this is copyright-safe, I've undeleted it; the page isn't the best, but it's nothing worthy of deletion (not spammy, for example) in the latest revision or in any other revisions that I can remember seeing. I don't know what needs to be done as far as ((OTRS received)) or similar templates; please add those if applicable. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Hello! Your submission of David Yeiser House at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Lagrange613 08:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend, I don't know how to do this, so I am hoping you do and can assist me. I've created some drawings of some historical U.S. military badges and my initial drawings had historical inaccuracies that I have since corrected. --I don't want these older inaccurate versions being used incorrectly.-- Is there a way that my older drawings can be deleted from Wikipedia? If I don't have the right permission to do this, the drawings in question can be found at File:Former USMC Rifle Marksmanship Badges.png and File:Former US Army Pistol Marksmanship Badges.png. The older versions are not accurate depictions and I would love to have them deleted leaving the most current version on the page. --McChizzle (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
1 and 2 are the current versions of the images. 3, 4, and 5 are old revisions of Pistol Marksmanship, and 6, 7, and 8 are old revisions of Rifle Marksmanship.
If I understand you correctly, you want 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 to be deleted, while leaving 1 and 2 in place without changes. Is that correct, or should I do something else? There shouldn't be any problems with this idea: it would be unhelpful if you were asking us to delete other people's non-vandalism versions, or if the result would impair attribution, but an "oops, I made a mistake; please get rid of the mistake so it doesn't fool people" is perfectly acceptable. Just please let me know if that's what you want, or tell me that I'm misunderstanding. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend, You have it 100% correct! I would like to keep 1 and 2 and have the rest deleted. Thank you for your help! --McChizzle (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nyttend! The other images you refer to had the over versions, that were under dispute, deleted. For the Artillery Badge, both versions remaining are drawings, one is black and white and the other is colored, and both are historically accurate. --Thus, I don't mind having both versions remain.-- The only image I have that is under dispute in the File:Naval Aviation Observer (Radar) Insignia.png. After creating a drawing of this badge, I figured out how to create an image of the badge using an existing public image (the Marine Corps Aerial Navigator Badge) and using Photoshop to create the center device (based on photographs from a variety of other sources). However, User:Stefan2 has an issue with that, or did not understand what I did; so I don't know what to do other than to justify my actions. Any suggestions? --McChizzle (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Not quite sure what the objection is myself, so I can't give you any suggestions; sorry. I saw that someone had already deleted the revisions of these images that led to the WP:PUF discussions, but that actually wasn't my point; I was simply saying how I'd found it. Thanks for the clarification on the artillery qualifications. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend, Now that I think of it, there is another image that I turned into a digital painting (what a pain, but worth it), that I need to have all of the other versions deleted, the historical Air Force Aide-de-Camp Badge. Also, there is another graphic I created where I made some historical errors in the past that should not stay on Wikipedia, the U.S. Army's Team Marksmanship Badge. Would you be willing to delete the older versions of these graphics for me as well? --McChizzle (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Nyttend! I appreciate your help. --McChizzle (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Rajpurohit-Veer block evasion
Hi, could you possibly take a look at the note I left here? Georgewilliamherbert is unavailable at the moment and it looks like you were the last prior admin to have been involved. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at it and for considering the sleeper angle - that bit passed me by, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Pocahontas Medal
I have provided all of the data I have on the medal at the deletion discussion thread. I am again, most appreciative, not only of your effort, but the fact that you took time to explain data, and gave me some info which I could also help other wikipedians with. Thats all I really could ask for honestly as far as any editing effort goesCoal town guy (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 20 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
but I'm out of my depth and cannot see where you got the "25.6" from (25.6 what?). I might have just deleted it, but I wanted to draw your attention to it because you probably had something in mind. No need for a response, I'm just hoping you will fix the convert. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Why I did the Pitkin County NRHP list with all those cites ...
I really wish that before you had made this edit, you had bothered to contact me and ask me the question you left to the edit summary. I wouldn't have found out about it ten weeks later and had to restore some en dashes that were inexplicably converted to hyphens, leaving at least one article an apparent red link.
Why I did that was very simple. I have been, for some time now, prepping that article for a future FLC nom (I've put that aside for the moment for various reasons, but I will eventually return). It occurred to me when doing so that we had no readily available cites for the listing dates and locations of the properties, so I found them and did so. I don't think saying "we use the NRIS for all that" would cut it at a featured-content nomination, especially when there had been no easy way for the reader to figure this out from looking at the page, much less find the link to click on. Even the links to the nomination pages at the Focus database don't seem to cut it. As far as I can tell, no one has yet nominated any of the NRHP lists for FL status, so there's no way to be sure that not footnoting every individual fact is OK. Maybe when I do, we'll have some clarity on that. Till then, I'm erring on the side of what is clearly supported by policy as I understand it.
All of which is to say that I went to the trouble of reverting your edit. It seems that the bot will have to come by again and do some of its parameter fixes, but that's OK. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I see. Shouldn't be a problem. I used as a source only the official documents, anyway—the dates come from the archived PDFs and pages that NPS keeps on its website of past NRHP action announcements, and the addresses from the nomination forms. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:AN
Hi. Letting you know that I have objected to your wording here for the record, although not your closing the question. I commented outside the archive. I am letting you know since I don't know how you would handle that as a technical matter, and I do not really want to object to your closing the issue as such, with which I agree. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
These pages are redirects. I think that Wikipedia does not have talk pages for redirect pages.Hoops gza (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not know that. Thank you for letting me know. Sorry for the trouble.Hoops gza (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 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) 09:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry about that one. I hate it when they hot link from Wikipedia. The "linked from" page worked this afternoon - weird. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Commons image is also slightly "inappropriate", because Commons placeholders are all supposed to be protected as redirects to File:Name.jpg; you can see an example by going to File:File.jpg. I've gone to Commons:COM:AN/B and requested modifications/protection for Image.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
NRHP in Washington
From the looks of the latest update to the NRHPPROGRESS maps, it seems you did a hefty 1-2 on Washington state by removing all the AR images. I wouldn't be surprised if someone gets mad haha. Maybe they won't notice, though. I think the idea of using AR images hasn't really been resolved, so a bold move like that may provoke conversation at the project talk page.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Helping Hand Barnstar
Thanks for helping me on Wikipedia during the past few years! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI: The Helping Hand Barnstar is to be awarded to users who help new users.
Could you take a look at this?
We have an editor who is literally stating that a community is BOTH a CDP and an unincorporated community, which to my understanding is like saying smoky smoke. A Census-designated_place is usually unincorporated, BUT, you dont need to state a place is a CDP AND unincorporated...See Yorkshire, Virginia..My fear is, this could mushroom into a real issue given the many CDps in VA and WV and KY.AND Yes, the editor in question has HUNDREDS of edits in VA aloneCoal town guy (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I do this myself with a lot of CDP articles; for me, it's not so much to say that a CDP is unincorporated as to say that it's a community, as opposed to the handful of CDPs which are more statistical constructs than actual communities. (Then again, my go-to example of the latter was going to be Greater Galesburg, Michigan, until I saw that the editor in question had changed that article too, so perhaps these do need to be reviewed.) TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 03:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Coal City, West Virginia, thats my go to, a literal amalgam of at least 4 towns...AND YES the editor in question went there as well....It is literally impossible for this place to be and unincorporated community and CDPCoal town guy (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE, almost every CDP in Raleigh County WV had a double designation...I have reverted those...gee, only 54 counties to go....Coal town guy (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Same editor is reverting my edits back to multiple designations, I m done hereCoal town guy (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend
I would like to discuss the unincorporated communities/census-designated places with you. I tried on my talk page but without rationale success. Can we do so here? Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
See my comments at Talk:Yorkshire, Virginia. In short, you're adding redundancies to tons of articles, and CTG was improving things. Come back here if you want a fuller response, and I'll be happy to provide one; I'm not telling you to go away. Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way to quickly fix the incorrect edits? My concern is that this is a sweeping issue across multiple states and possibly hundreds of articles?Coal town guy (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think wholesale reverting is necessarily the best apource, it's causing some clatreal damage. Hmains's edits didn't juist add redundant "unincorporated community" and the like. Part of the edits were to refine the categories, and this revert (for example) removed the target from Category:Census-designated places in Raleigh County, West Virginia. I think Hmains created some of these categories in the first place, I have no opinion as to weather he should have, but as long as these categories exist they should have the proper articles in them.
Also, mass-reverting right now would comes close to edit waring, especially after the confect you and Hmains already had; there's nothing urgent here. Nyttend and I share your concerns with Hmains's edits, how about you let the two of us deal with Hmains. I think I can address Hmains's categorization concerns and get him to agree to removing the redundant "unincorporated community"s. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, well thats great, but it does not address the issue of being factually correct. You also have reverted edits back to a double designation. The place in in VA Buckhall, VirginiaI know quite well. The CDP resides inside an unincorporated community, that could not possibly mean, they are BOTH a CDP and an unincorporated community..No. It means that a CDP singular, is defined in the boundaries of an unincorporated community....I changed it back, if you want to change it AGAIN go nuts. The solution is not, well we know ts wrong, but it would just take too much work...Uh, no. The solution is, agreeing on a definition and going forward working together to fix something we know to be false....The info box, also states, settlement type singular not plural...Telling people its an unincorporated CDP is total overkill, redundant, and virtually useless. Smoky smoke, fiery fire etc etc etc Promoting us versus them is not an option. Reverting edits after 2 other editors say, not a great idea, at the near instant its done, hey, thats fine by me. I do not own anything here. Hence why, you win, you are the victorious one. No edit warring from me, sorry. BUT expecting bad data to be seen as welcome to wikipedia where being correct is too much work does not a good thing make. As to conflict, no. You win... Coal town guy (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Part of the issue is that the result of Hmains' edits is consistent overcategorisation: almost every community in the country is now in "[municipality type] in COUNTYNAME County, STATENAME" and also in "[municipality type] in STATENAME". This despite our standards of not having a page in both parent and child category — otherwise these might all be in "[municipality type] in the United States", which would be overkill because it would be so large. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
So does that mean, they should not be corrected? At this point, it does not matter who does the edits, if its me, I would bet beer money at this stage, it will get reverted almost instantly, because of course, I have a "conflict" about factually incorrect data.....Which of all things to be conflicted about, OK....I learned long long ago, the edit war tango is not my bag.Coal town guy (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The disagreement between us is very minor, I thought you're reverting Hmains at Buckhall was mealy collateral damage in reverting those articles Hmains's edited. Don't you mean the unincorporated town resides inside the CDP rather then the other way around tough; if that's what you meant I agree. Nether the town nor the CDP are both a CDP and an unincorporated community, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. You do not need to convince me that it's redundant to state "unincorparted CDP", you're preaching to the choir.
My point is, there's been conflict, not disagreement conflict, between you and Hmains, whereas there hasn't been any conflict between me and Hmains. I 99.9% agree with you on the redundant "unincorporated community"s, and there's no conflict between me and Hmains, so let me handle Hmains. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
"Let you handle Hmains"??? Uh, sure.......??..IF you know its incorrect.....WHY are you doing it?, EDIT, if you go to the American Fact finder and GNIS, the CDP data is genuine, its seen currently as a CDP, as least as late as 2012......, as to the unincorporated part,irrelevant....... Coal town guy (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
You yourself said "[t]he CDP resides inside an unincorporated community" (I presume you meant the other way around), and the reason I did it that way with the infobox was that the the article covers both the unincorporated town specifiably, and the (vastly larger) CDP. It was not to try and say that ether the town or the CDP were somehow both an unincorporated community and a CDP. I really really don't feel that strongly about the infobox thing tough. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I do not mean that because, I did not say that. Looking at the geo coordinates pretty much tell the story...A CDP designation can change, be removed and added again......It cant be both regardless of the GNIS data showing both...WHY do you populate an info box if its not a big thing? Doing the same wrong thing over and over again, still makes it wrong.....Expecting a correct result is not possible in that scenarioCoal town guy (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
You said it in your 21:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC) post, and I agree that nether the CDP nor the town are both. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, so WHY were they both there?????????Coal town guy (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Because the article covers both the unincorporated town of Buckhall, and the (vastly larger) CDP of Buckhall which contains the town. Could we drop this, I'm not seeing where we have any major disagreement, and I really really don't feel that strongly about the Buckhall infobox thing. You're wasting time and effort that would go to fixing this mess with Hmains's edits. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thats because the CDP is the unincorporated entity........it is not both. AND yes, it I see it has been changed....again Coal town guy (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
[unindent] Your words about an unincorporated/CDP dichotomy are confusing. There can be settled areas outside of municipal limits, and municipalities can include territories outside the settled areas, but we generally restrict and extend our coverage as far as the municipal limits. The same should be true of CDPs: cover everything inside the boundaries, even if it's outside the populated place core, and don't worry about what's past the boundaries unless we make a quick mention that would be equally appropriate if the CDP were incorporated with the same boundaries. Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Responding to CTG. A pity we've lost "thou", since at least I would have been able to say "thy words" to clarify that I wasn't responding to both of you. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
English, at least American English, isnt my first language, but after 39 years of speaking/writing and learning it I believe I must agree.....So, we could as I understand it, do an incorrect action with a known false result over and over again in some effort at thwarting physical laws knowing full well its wrong......OR find a method at correcting the issue. Either way, I am open to any decision or suggestion as long as I dont have every keystroke reverted because of course, all the cool kids do the wrong thing..... I thought we might "shake things up a little", and oh gee, I dont know, present data factually......Coal town guy (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend II
As I said, I would like to discuss this with you and not all these other agenda diversions and fighting. In those cases, where the article (before I touched it) was in both census-designated place and unincorporated community categories, I added whatever was missing into the article text: if census-designated place was missing I added it; if unincorporated community was missing I added that. I did this only after working on many articles that had both these categories and had both census and unincorporated in the text. I was following what I already saw and extending it further. Now if there is agreement that a place is EITHER census-designated place OR an unincorporated community and NEVER BOTH, I can do the following: 1) anything else I edit will show one or the other and not both; 2) anything that already exists (either from my edits or before me) I can fix (probably a lot easier than others trying to do this).
I can do this, but I believe that others will not agree this plan and will start chasing me for taking away their double designation of census-designed place and unincorporated community. Can I refer all of these other editors to you, Nyttend, to tell them they are wrong and I am doing what you want me to do? If not, then what? Hmains (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Let me copy something I said above, which I didn't expect you to read because it was addressed to Coal town guy. There can be settled areas outside of municipal limits, and municipalities can include territories outside the settled areas, but we generally restrict and extend our coverage as far as the municipal limits. The same should be true of CDPs: cover everything inside the boundaries, even if it's outside the populated place core, and don't worry about what's past the boundaries unless we make a quick mention that would be equally appropriate if the CDP were incorporated with the same boundaries. Also, did you see my comments at Talk:Yorkshire, Virginia? In short, CDPs are a subset of unincorporated communities, since (aside from Census Bureau errors) they're only declared in unincorporated places; it's redundant to say "an unincorporated community and CDP", just as it would be redundant to say "a municipality and city". You say you've done this after finding "unincorporated community and CDP" in various articles; I suspect that the "unincorporated community and" bit was typically added by people who didn't understand what CDPs were. Whenever you have something classified as both unincorporated and CDP, I'd ask that you "downgrade" it to just CDP in infobox, lead, categories, etc. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I will undertake to do this for CDP and unincorporated communities in all states. This will then match the county templates which put places in either CDP or unincorporated and not both. I will save this conversion as I know there will be objections from other editors, others who previously told me places could/should be both and not either. Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmains, I now observe that I ignored your question. Please refer all of these other editors to me. Also, please be careful with New York locations, almost all of which are listed as hamlets and CDPs. If I remember rightly, "hamlet" is some kind of quasi-legal designation in New York law, so please don't change how you approach New York locations because of this conversation. Thirdly, please note that New England villages are yet more different (even if we ignore Vermont's incorporated villages), since the term "village" is used for basically any population center, whether in a town or in a city. "Village and census-designated place" for a New England location really shouldn't be touched casually: if I were going around editing them, I'd probably do just one at a time, waiting a day or more in case someone objected, before I did another one. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know of variations like this. There are various combinations of some-type-of-place and CDP. I am only thinking here of CDP and unincorporated not CDP and something else. Thanks again. Hmains (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I am very very appreciative of everyones input here...If I may ask, WHEN and I do mean WHEN, in the future, I encounter an article, and that article has in the info box or lead, HEY, I am a CDP and an unincorporated community, it is now, OK (yes or no) to remove the redundancy? Again, I very very much appreciate the effort and mutual understanding. I apologize, fully and without reservation that if my comments came across as surly, rude, not polite etc etc, they were not meant that way. My only desire was to correctly portray a geographic locationCoal town guy (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
After not peeking for several days to see why there was so much activity on Nyttend's talk page under the topic heading "Nyttend", I'm coming late to this topical discussion. (Perhaps Nyttend should redesignate this page as "WikiProject Nyttend", if it's going to be used for multi-participant content discussions.) I've not dug into various user talk pages to figure out who did or said what (and when and why), so I'm just weighing in with my own thoughts.
IMHO, dual categorization is appropriate for many CDPs. CDPs are units for the collection and reporting of data; they aren't communities, although in many cases they correspond to communities (including New England villages that are concentrations of population in legally established towns, New York hamlets, places that were formerly incorporated municipalities, resort communities governed by homeowner's associations, unincorporated rural communities, and places like Hilo, Hawaii that most people would call cities, but that lack city government). I have never met a person who would say in conversation that they reside in a "census-designated place" (and I'm older than most of you, so I've met a lot of people). I'd wager that less than 1% of the American population has any clue what a CDP is, and I imagine that the identification of communities as "CDPs" is one of the perceived peculiarities of Wikipedia that drives away prospective contributors. If we are going to categorize places as CDPs, that should not preclude the use of a second (yes, redundant) category that corresponds to ordinary reality -- and that can also include places that may be similar in most respects to nearby designated CDPs, but for some reason haven't been designated.
I contend that places like White River Junction, Vermont are first and foremost "villages" or "communities", and I would prefer categorization that reflects that natural reality that can be comprehended by regular people. I'm puzzled to see that White River Junction has been in the redlink category Category:Census-designated places in Windsor County, Vermont (a category that apparently was never created) for several months, and is no longer in any category for Windsor County. What would be wrong with including White River Junction in a state-level category for CDPs, but for the county level simply including it in Category:Populated places in Windsor County, Vermont?
FWIW, my favorite example of a CDP that doesn't correspond to a community, much less an unincorporated community, is Oxoboxo River, Connecticut. --Orlady (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Good points, BUT consider the following NOT uncommon scenario, the place I grew up in was a community, THEN we became a CDP along with 4 other communities, THEN they took away the CDP designation, THEN they made us a CDP again, BUT they redefined the CDP to be smaller. One year later, same drill, BUT this time, they made the CDP larger. SO, how would an article here reflect that? Do we have say former cdp but now unincoporated? OR the reverse, formerly unincorporated, but redesignated as a CDP?? IF, and I understand, IF we start to over categorize, then there will be certain places that will be needlessly complicated. Worse yet, WHAT IF, we say, well, it was formerly part of an incorporated community (designation 1), then became an unincorporated community (designation 2) which them became a CDP (designation 3) and after a few years goes back to an unincorporated community (designation 4, former CDP).....IMO, and I stress this with utmost respect, would you want to be the person looking at the category structure for that?Coal town guy (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
When you say "former cdp but now unincorporated", you seem to be saying that you think that a CDP is a form of incorporation. It isn't. It is a unit defined for compiling and reporting statistical information. The kind of situation you describe is not uncommon (although the details are unique); this is why, for example, we have separate articles for Wakefield-Peacedale, Rhode Island (a CDP) and its constituent villages of Wakefield, Rhode Island and Peace Dale, Rhode Island. I would say that the West Virginia community you describe is an "unincorporated community" (of some sort) that is (or was formerly) treated for census purposes as a component of the census-designated place called InsertNameHere. --Orlady (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
AHA, see what you mean...My poor communication. I agree, CDPs not a form of incorporation. BUT when anyone uses multiple names, Unincorporated , former CDP, CDP, the logical thing would be, oh, what are they etc etc That was my concern, a multiple designation would make some think, oh, here we have an unincorporated entity, OH, and then we have another term CDP, while the CDP is unincorporated; a new user, or really a majority might see the CDP designation as something other than an unincorporated community, which you point out very wellCoal town guy (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I hope you all don't mind another interloper here. I mostly agree with Orlady. CDPs are statistical abstractions. IMO, strictly speaking it is incorrect to describe a CDP as a community of any sort. It is a name used for aggregating statistical information. Almost no one would say they live in a CDP. The problem on Wikipedia arises because we often use the same names for articles about CDPs and the corresponding unincorporated communities. older ≠ wiser 16:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Very good point, BUT on the info box template, settlement type, lends itself to the exact interpretation you are talking about. Meaning, OH, its another item in addition to an unincorporated community...which would be incorrect as agreedCoal town guy (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
TBH, I would not consider CDPs as a "type" of settlement. It is a type of statistical data. older ≠ wiser 17:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I had a bunch of comments. Then I kept getting edit conflicts while the tone of the conversation kept changing. The "a CDP is not a community" argument doesn't provide much insight as to what exactly is a community. Many editors appear to ignore the city/CDP distinctions and develop content more along ZIP Code market lines, data the Census Bureau collects alongside city/CDP-level data. I've also seen the same usage outside of Wikipedia, but I've long observed that "unincorporated community" is used on here as a grab-bag for anything which defies clearer categorization. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Orlady has very correctly pointed out that whatever decision is arrived at, it should be one that allows editing to take place with little experience. Otherwise, the categorization on places alone could be so intricate most editors would say no thanksCoal town guy (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
[EC] Good suggestion about unincorporated community, Bkonrad. It's been almost 9 years since that page was redirected to unincorporated area. There's a lot more content now -- more than enough content to justify reconfiguring the contents of both articles.
Not only do the different U.S. states have a diverse array of arrangements for local government, but the identification and recognition of places has changed over time. "Unincorporated community" is a very meaningful term in the state (Tennessee) where I currently live, where almost half the population lives outside of legally constituted municipalities. A lot of those people live in places that are clearly identifiable as concentrated settlements, but lack official status, and can be described as "unincorporated communities". The term isn't meaningful in every state, and we've run into trouble when editors tried to apply it to places that don't fit the definition, such as villages in New England that are located in New England towns with active local government and formerly distinct cities that are now components of a consolidated city-county. It also sometimes gets mistakenly applied to places that existed historically but don't exist any more -- not necessarily ghost towns, but rather just places that no longer exist.
Post office names and zip codes are a very poor substitute for place names, as the postal service has bad habits of deciding to stop using long-standing community names (sometimes they insist that an entire county must use the name of the county seat in its postal addresses) and arbitrarily changing zip code boundaries. That may not bother national companies that buy marketing data that is aggregated by zip code, but it's not a sound basis for encyclopedia articles. --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Oregon
The above is a bit tl;dr for me at the moment, and I don't want to stir the pot, but here's my two cents, via an ancient discussion re: how we've done it in Oregon, in which I blame namedrop Bkonrad's CDP wording. Valfontis (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Snow shovel
On 14 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Snow shovel, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that there are different designs of snow shovels for shovelling and pushing different types of snow? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Snow shovel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Your response to my concerns about the wholesale hack job that was done to the Mansoor Ijaz article today was the first non-emotive, rational response that did not have a rude tone. So I ask you to help me understand how is it that one day someone wakes up and decides to just arbitrarily re-write my life. Banks and other financial institutions that I deal with are constantly reviewing the Wiki article to see what I'm up to. The changes made today have now materially and factually mistated what the truth is. I've already had calls from two of my partners this morning inquiring what the hullabaloo is all about. Imagine that these irresponsible actions have a material impact on one of our transactions -- does Wikipedia not understand that it is a resource that people rely on for information? Accurate information?
I am not at liberty to discuss the details due to confidentiality undertakings, but it is simply factually not correct to "erase" the Formula One section from my page. If the deal had failed, for example, the bullies that wanted to paint me with every untoward supposition not justified by facts would have used the very same space to assassinate my character with glee. But no one would have been there to erase that -- negative news is okay because it is presumed to be true, when positive or constructive data is presumed to embellish the truth. Complete nonsense, with due respect.
If you look at how the article has been altered today, there is no material justification for it. Certainly not to the extent and the way in which it was done.
I can give five examples immediately of business people I know whose articles in Wikipedia mention the company they work for, how well it does, whatever is available in the public domain and its all okay for them, but not for me. Where is the fairness or accuracy in that?
You make valid points. But neither is it correct to erase any part of my life either -- just because I don't conduct my business affairs as visibly as I do my media and citizen diplomacy affairs does not make it any less fact, fact that when it is covered has a justifiable place in the article. I had even thought of a constructive way to address the issues raised by those who had made the edits today, but then it all got so out of hand that I just threw my hands up and gave up. Did you ever think to look at what kind of edits were made and that it reflected a concerted agenda of someone?
Let's write down Mansoor Ijaz's life. That was what today's edits were all about. It really is very disconcerting to see that there in fact is no self-policing possible in Wikipedia because when an affected person who is the subject of an article has a legitimate set of concerns, no one listens, and no one does anything to act. Thank you for at least giving me a broader perspective. Unfortunately, no one else seems to take into account that I have been involved with Formula One for over three years now. Now it is erased that my investment firm has survived since 1990 through every market up and down that one could have imagined. Just erased at the whim of an IP address that has no knowledge or understanding of anything I did in my professional career.
--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I have read your comments. It is clear that I should just drop the subject because no matter what I say or do in this case, it will be considered by Wiki community editors to be wrong. I wrote precisely what John Reaves wrote to me -- he inquired whether there were any issues about sourcing in the article before he protected it and I gave him the clarifications I thought were appropriate before he locked it. The vandalism rate on my article has been high because the political matters on which I either commented or intervened in my lifetime made me the target of a lot of hate and libelous behavior. I appreciate your academic approach, but it doesn't really address the issue I have with how an editor or contributor can just hack up the article and no one is there on the other side to say, look or actually read what is written there before the article no longer even makes sense. Just read the first paragraph of the article now -- Woolsey is mentioned without any context or proper sourcing or even a full name. But no one seems to care that the hack job is of such poor quality, and I am barred from fixing something that affects my person because of the COI tag and rules. I opened my Wiki account in my own name precisely to insure that no one would misconceive any edit I made as being against the NPOV policy of the Wiki system. Instead of reading what is written and acknowledging that nothing I as an editor added or fixed did anything but add relevant information or fix obvious errors of other editors that are not careful about their work, I am assailed, the article is hacked up and no one -- not even someone as thoughtful as you have been -- seems to care to do anything but lecture me about how Wikipedia works, even if little of that has been applied to the article that carries my name and is no longer complete or accurate in its point of view. So be it. I would ask two final questions and then I will leave you alone -- first, how can I close my Wiki user account? And second, how can my lawyers request that the article carrying my name is deleted so it cannot be allowed to become a forum for defaming me?
Left multiple messages at my talk page for you. Thank you, Sir and God bless. I see you are a man of faith. I am too. May the Good Lord be with you and your family. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
(unindenting) Good morning, Sir. Question: at what stage of editing and reconfiguring the article we are working on right now do the COI and Complete Rewrite tags get removed? The rest of my comments and suggestions are at my talk page and in the Sandbox. Thank you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Good afternoon, Sir
You must be busy. Would you let me know when we can chat by talk page? I've been busy putting some Sandbox suggestions together and re-worked things with input from TheRedPenOfDoom. Would like your input as well and then to see how we might be able to implement...
Good evening, I have responded to all of your points on my User talk page. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Before I sign off and get a few hours sleep, I have a question. Are we allowed as normal users and sometime editors to point you as an Administrator to a potential problem in another article? --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I wanted to draw your attention to Article Husain Haqqani, particular emphasis on the Memogate section of that article, which I believe does not reflect accurately the circumstances surrounding the findings of the Judicial Commission and his alleged culpability. It is a re-write of history that I believe does not fit the quality standards that are now being applied, for example, to the article we are editing now... When you have time, please have a look at that and please then compare to the Memogate section in Article Mansoor Ijaz, and the Memogate (Pakistan) article itself. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Good afternoon. Hope all is well in Indiana. We had spectacular sunshine and warm Spring weather in Zurich -- allergy season starts soon. I wonder if we could take some time this day to finish up the Professional life and Media section edits? Red Pen is off to other things. I will then spend some time over the weekend thinking about cuts to the International negotiator section. I would also like to ask when will the COI tag become a redundancy that can be removed. I think it's pretty clear now that I am "Wikified" and will not be doing anything more than technical corrections or editing out improper additions if they come. Much appreciate your response... --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Good afternoon, Sir. Just a short note, as requested, that you don't forget me in your busy editing day. I've revamped the first part of International Negotiator already. I will leave the Bin Laden Assertions section to you because that is the one which was born of all the hate statements I had to endure from former Clinton administration folks and their supporters when I went against conventional thinking on that stuff in my op-ed writing. I am currently working on Kashmir.
By the way, I have a question. What does it mean when it says at the bottom of a particular page during editing that this page is part of "X" hidden categories, etc?
Look forward to doing some more editing with you. Best, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Left a short message for you at my talk page on the final edit -- kindly have a look. Thank you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Section Break
23 March 2014
Good evening, just a short note here on a few items:
I found some better references for the Kashmir section from The Economist, which I believe is one of the premier news journals in the world today.
I included the technical data for The Times of India news articles whose links are dead. If you want to see the text of those articles, please let me know how.
I trimmed Kashmir further and did the same hard edit on the Sudan sub-section, so these two sub-sections are now final from my viewpoint.
I suggest you remove the Assertions on Bin Laden section -- this essentially repeats things contained elsewhere in the article, but also contains a large number of inaccurate statements that are an amalgamation of the Al Franken types wanting to cast my efforts in the most negative light possible, and (probably) old Clintonites who wanted to insure their version of history was preserved. If you feel it is worthy of a sub-section, I'm happy to edit it properly, but it will then be no more than a few sentences. And if you feel a particular thought (that is truthfully expressed) in that section needs to remain, I can integrate it elsewhere if you identify it.
Do we want to do something with that Fox News / media presence expansion I suggested?
I'd like to explore that idea you once shared with me about creating a separate section at the bottom of the article which deals with my presence in the global media in general -- I don't remember the exact way you proposed doing that, but instinctively I recall when I read it that it made sense, and since we have now eliminated Media commentator by consensus, perhaps that is the place where we can be more specific about my collaborations with some of my colleagues, like Woolsey or Abrahamson, etc.
Thanks for taking a few minutes on my article before going on to other things. I think over a week's time we have chiseled it into a far more accurate, general interest point of reference that covers the overview of my life's work -- my thanks again for your willingness to stay with this to the end.
--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I have now re-written the Memogate section as well. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep: I am requesting that the images be kept and my deletion request be removed/no longer considered. A number of Wikipedia editors and I have now worked together for the past 10 days to completely re-write an article in which many of these images either appear or appeared (or are now embedded as links in the text). I would therefore ask that the Wikimedia administrators leave all images intact. Thank you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you can weigh in there or with a Wikimedia administrator and make sure they got this message that the images stay in place. Thanks. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm all done on the Sudan references and integrating the bin Laden Assertions section into Sudan. Waiting on your responses to my notes on Memogate and Fox News now. Please feel free, if you agree, to move the Sudan section over to mainspace and don't forget to cut the existing Assertions... sub-section. Thanks. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Good afternoon, Sir. Thank you for your help on moving over the Sudan and Memogate sections.
You forgot to delete the Osama bin Laden assertions section as it is now completely redundant. I want to say it has been an absolute pleasure working with you and getting to know more about how the Wiki project works. Thank you and please do let me interact with you again, and let me know if there is anything at all that I can do to assist you as well. --212.203.89.36 (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend:URGENT REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE Good afternoon Sir, well, it seems no good deed goes unpunished.
The article is just now being completed and again we have anonymous web users starting to wholesale delete materials. The same IP Address that initially did wholesale deletion of the Formula One section is again at it from the same address doing the same things today.
I am asking therefore to have the page protected from these types of wholesale edits. Thank you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
And I'm opposed to any semi based on the current edits (I also noted this on Mansoor Ijaz's talk page). Furthermore, the F1 deletion improved the article in my view. --NeilNtalk to me 18:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Section Break II
@Nyttend: please see a few remarks at my talk page. Thanks. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Good morning Sir, I have now finished the paragraph I suggest be included as next to last in the Professional life section (or under the sub-section as noted on my talk page, if such sub-divisioning is agreed). Please review and comment, and if appropriate, include in the article. Thanks. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: We are missing your sage presence, Good Sir. Hope all well in Indiana. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Good afternoon to both of you, I hope you both enjoyed a nice weekend and that Nyttend got the photos hoped for. I write to both of you because you've both assisted in the re-write and re-development of the encyclopedic entry. And I wanted to raise your attention to the fact that there is one area of my life that has not yet been covered by the article, an area which has played a critical role in my grounding and view of the world throughout my professional career.
My charitable work has been part of my way of life since I was a teenager, but became more prominent and visible as I was able to put larger amounts of my private wealth behind the initiatives I care most for. I give a lot of my net income each year to charitable causes on grounds that I never want to die with too much money in my pocket.
Do you see this as a fair topic to add a paragraph or two -- properly sourced of course -- at the end of the "Professional life" section? We could for example name a new sub-section that could be entitled "Charitable work" and would pull down the memberships and academic pursuits stuff from the previous sub-section on "Political life" into it as well. If you feel it appropriate, I can craft a few paragraphs and provide sourcing and leave it in my mailbox after FRF is done with the current paragraphs left there for his review. Thank you. Have a good week of Wiki-editing.... --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: hello Sir, I have left some new material in my Sandbox on the Mansoor Ijaz article to include a paragraph on Charitable work -- I would appreciate your comments, if you wish to, as FreeRangeFrog is also looking at it and I thought your experience in editing the article until now would be useful in determining relevance and scope. Thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Some eyes please
Could you check my recent edits, I have been trying to prevent what I see as outing a BLP. Any help, advice appreciated. Also should any of it be over-sighted? Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention on this, I was trying to be cautious, and consensus has been to avoid outing her. Could you offer insight if with the sources we have on the talk page at Talk:Belle Knox##Add_name.2C_or_delete_article reporting her name is fine for Wikipedia? Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. I have a question about the category structure for Mississippi articles about unincorporated communities. Nearly every unincorporated community from the Mississippi River to the Alabama border has been added to both the county category, and to the state category (for example, Bowdre, Mississippi). This seems to defeat the purpose, since the county categories are all children of the state category, but there are over 600 unincorporated places in Mississippi in both categories. Am I correct that all these places should only be in the county category? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. It's funny, I've seen edit wars over a semi-colon, yet the use of categories seems a wild west. I'm about to bring to life "Trotter's Landing, Mississippi" and want to get it right. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mansoor Ijaz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Kira J.
Hi,
I would like to thank you for supporting me in the discussion on Kira J. But, having seen the discussion in fi-wiki, and knowing a bit about Kira’s projects and the general setting and the current world situation, it is obvious that something has to be done with the article. However, I don’t want to have a public discussion on it, so could I please ask you to contact me at an address found here?
Found a few decent started sources...these are a start, I am sure I can get some more
Book, Kentucky Encyclopedia by John Kleber, parts of green river data is on Google Books
Listing of coal towns in Butler County, I do not know their proximity to Green River...here
The Green River Pioneers by James Ramage
Butler County Historical and Genealogical Society, 1987 by Lois Russ
Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Kentucky 1889
Butler County Roger G. Givens, Nancy Richey 2012 pages 7 -9 have some great data, those pages can be read on Google books as well.Coal town guy (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I have actually helped some folks at Arcadia, I like them, they actually like to get into the history, elbow deep, its rather impressive honestly. A few of them used to come to the field and it was honestly impressive to see them there, ESPECIALLY in the places where the cool kids did not go yet. There is a series they did on Southern WV and they were really there....Coal town guy (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
You created MediaWiki:Movepagetext-noredirectfixer with "unless it is empty or a redirect and has no past edit history". Why mention empty? If parsed as "unless it is empty or (a redirect and has no past edit history)" then it's false: You cannot move over a blank page with an edit history (at least I assume so). If parsed as "unless it is (empty or a redirect) and has no past edit history" then the combination of empty and no past edit history is impossible: You cannot create a page blank as far as I know. It must be created with content before it can be blanked in a later edit. The MediaWiki default seen at MediaWiki:Movepagetext-noredirectfixer/en-gb does not mention empty. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't expect you to delete it. Your creation edit summary said "Added a link". That was on redirect, but it may not make much difference to have the link. I wonder whether the MediaWiki default at the time had the pointless "empty". I haven't examined whether the history of MediaWiki defaults can be looked up somewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. I see you were one of the last to edit Windham Center Historic District. Would you have a moment to look at some of the recent edits. I reverted some edits after yours, and offered the editor some help on their talk page. My concern is that referenced information was deleted, and replaced by poorly written text. Now the page has been tagged. I'm not canvasing support, just asking if you'd have a peek. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Active Pen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mansoor Ijaz, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vanity Fair, Black Hawk Down and Revolutionary Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
You might want to think about revoking talk page access, as the user has continued to make borderline personal attacks on the talk page. Werieth (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Succession to Muhammad Page
Hi Nyttend
I added some content into the Succession to Muhammad page but Kazemita1 keeps on removing it citing copy right violation even though I gave the references and the whole page is already full of quotes from various books. I want to avoid an edit war. I want to improve Wikipedia so that it contains researched scholarly content, that is useful to the readers. This whole article is full of people pushing their opinions. There needs to be a critical analysis of the content on this page. Various books have been written on this issues through out the ages and this content needs to be put into a table so that people could compare what was said when and by whom and why. Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Fenwick Club at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC) EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mayville Historic District 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.
Hello, I'm WilliamJE. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Wirtland (micronation) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ...William 17:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
wikimedia.org. In the email, state that the text in question is released under the "Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 3.0 License" (this is Wikipedia's normal license; all text is supposed to be under this license), and state that you're Raghu or that Raghu has authorised you to do the releasing. (2) Log into IMDB as Raghu and go back to the review page. Once you're there, edit the original review (or somehow add a second one) saying that the content is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 License. Note If you find this confusing, or have any other questions, please feel free to come back here and ask for help. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
_Insignia.png){kind=link}
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
