User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bkonrad. 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Thanks for your help for this article and your hard work elsewhere, which I admire. I have looked at my '87 DeLorme (which is based upon USGS topographic maps, so is reasonably trustworthy) and believe the watercourse that you mentioned north of Austin Lake is an inflow, not an outflow. According to the DeLorme map, water from Long Lake flows south through upper Portage Creek into Austin Lake and thence into lower Portage Creek, then Portage River, etc. As you also discovered, there is a second, separate Portage Creek that rises in the nearby Gourdneck State Game Area and flows northward towards the Kalamazoo.

Although my map does not indicate that these two drainage regions are literally connected to each other, they are closely intertwined at this point, which accounts for the repeated uses of the name "Portage" in local geography. Bigturtle 17:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Irish-Americans. Thanks Arniep 19:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you recently moved the page Syracuse, could you please move it back as this broke the poll that was going on. Alternatively fix the poll. I'd do it myself, but the computer I'm on is horrifyingly slow and it makes it painful to edit pages. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers · 14:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for fixing the poll, but you missed my vote. - FrancisTyers · 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's why I left a note on your talk page. Some people get extremely upset about other people makeing changes to their votes or comments. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a query of the current title of the article and of the term genocide. I understand this has been discussed in the past, but those discussions have yet to produce and discernable outcomes. Firstly, the term "Black Wars" is not a recognised term for the frontier conflict that took place during the colonisation of Tasmania. I have studied this subject at tertiary level and the general consensus is that the term "Black Wars" have yet to achieve mainstream acceptance, the key term being "War", and the failure of the frontier conflict to satisfy the criteria for being classified as a war, hence the term "conflict" is used. Secondly, the term "Genocide" is far from being classified as an accepted title for the colonisation of Australia in general. It appears that this term is restricted to left-wing individuals or organisations. I will endeavour to include references to this in the future. I have not modified the "Black Wars" page as I feel unilateral action will be counter productive. I do however ask your assistance in altering the article to represent a neutral point of view, as both of the terms aforementioned represent a certain political and or historical judgement, and as yet are unaccepted by mainstream historians. A reply to my talk page would be appreciated. Regards, Maximus Meridius 04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Already been there. #3 on the Oppose side and have shared some comments. older ≠ wiser 03:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you could fix the double redirects after each move instead of en masse at the end? --Usgnus 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty good with en-mass. --Polar Deluge 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No big deal. Just thought I'd ask. --Usgnus 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope the en mass isn't too en mass.  :-) --Polar Deluge 14:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason for moving all of these Wikipedia:Manual of Style pages? Where is the discussion about this? —Centrx→talk • 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

They are minor moves which follow the Wikipedia namespace naming convention. The page names are virtually the same, except now they are subpages of the master page they belong to, which takes advantage of the Wikipedia namespace's backlink feature. I'm in the process of fixing the double redirects now. --Polar Deluge 15:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For changes of this magnitude, you should always bring it up on the relevant discussion page first, in this case Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Even assuming subpages are appropriate, other issues like having parentheses in the name of the subpage, which is non-standard, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/(dates and numbers), could have been brought up and resolved. Also, the many archives of these pages are still under the old name and need relinking. —Centrx→talk • 15:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The parentheses were retained because they were in the original titles, and to differentiate the pages from subpages that are drafts. --Polar Deluge 15:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You definitely should have discussed a change like this first. What "Wikipedia namespace naming convention" are you referring to? In general sub-pages are deprecated (and at the least are confusing). The MOS parenthetical subpages have been around for a long time. older ≠ wiser 15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Subpages are used throughout Wikipedia for active hierarchical systems (all portals are based on this, Reference Desk, XfD, RfX, most Wikipedia namespace departments, archiving, many user pages, etc., etc.). Even the main help page utilizes subpage structure, even though the backlinks had to be retrofitted by hand since the help namespace does not support the backlink feature! The subpage freature shows parentage, and provides a convenient link to the parent. These moves are obvious straight-forward minor adjustments to the MOS. --Polar Deluge 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

What is the appropriate use of the "bold" option, and why do you have such an aversion to bolding the original name of Lansing's three villages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Criticalthinker (talk • contribs) .

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The guidance there recommends the use of bold to emphasize the title of an article and those terms which redirect to that article. In general, much like the use of "scare quotes", using bold for emphasis is discouraged. In some cases, where the terms are redirects to the article, they may be bolded to help readers figure out why they got redirected to a page with a different name. The terms you were bolding are not redirects and would seem unlikely candidates since the terms are so generic. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (emphasis) contains a proposed distillation of current practice.

BTW, it'd be nice if you could Cite your sources for the historical information you added. I'm not questioning the accuracy, just noting expectations for editors. older ≠ wiser 02:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Although it is true that conyers represented the 1st district at that time, It seems more misleading to say that conyers was the representative befor Stupak seeing as he represented (and still does) an area in metro detroit. Perhaps a notation could clear all this up? -chflitwick

I added this: Note: Prior to 1993, Michigans first district was located in Detroit and represented by John Conyers. If you are looking for reference to that, click: here

Now can i add the former representatives of the 11th district?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chflitwick (talk • contribs) .

I had already added a note in the intro. Using "click here" is poor style. I'll have a whack at it in a second. Not sure what you mean by adding "the former representatives of the 11th district"? If you want to create the article for Michigan's 11th congressional district and cross-reference it from the first ddistrict article, that'd be great. But I don't think it makes sense to list the 11th district reps in the 1st district article. older ≠ wiser 17:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I took your advice and created a page for the 11 th district but when i tried to upload the map (mi11_109.gif), it said the file was empty. Could you pease help me?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chflitwick (talk • contribs) .

Never mind now it says "The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension. Please check the file and upload again."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chflitwick (talk • contribs) .

We're writing about Wiki and I'd love to chat with you. Heather Newman, Detroit Free Press, hnewman@freepress.com.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hlnewman (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for telling me how to upload pictures. I uploaded a picture of Bart Stupak on the Bart Stupak page. it turned out fine except its way to big. could you tell me how to fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chflitwick (talk • contribs) .

I appologize for not bringing up the change to "Northwestern" for discussion. I'm new to Wiki, so I'm trying to still figure out the best ways to communicate with other users. However, I thought I would message you to begin some dialogue. Re "Northwestern," I do think it would be a good change to redirect, and then place a disambiguation page on the "Northwestern University" page. I personally can not think of an instance in which something on the current disambig page would be commonly searched for just with "Northwestern." But if that is the case, the disambig page at "Northwestern University" would easily allow people to find what they want. I think this format works very well with Stanford University, which has more than 20 disambig entries but still redirects a "Stanford" search to "Stanford University." Also, if you look at the "Northwestern" disambig entries, most are very underdeveloped pages, such as "Northwestern Corporation," which is literally two sentences about a bulk vending machine company. So I thought that it would be more efficient to redirect people who enter "Northwestern" into a Wiki search to "Northwestern University," since I truly believe a majority of the people who simply type in that search will be looking for the university (as evidenced by a Google page rank results for "Northwestern," and the proliferation of other Northwestern-related Wiki entries). I think this is a very good change, and would be happy to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

And if you could please just respond on this talk page that would be great. Thanks again. robms927. 27 July.

You can propose moving the page at Wikipedia:Requested moves. There are instructions there, although they're not exactly the most straightforward directions to follow. But don't worry, anyone interested can usually sort things out well enough. older ≠ wiser 02:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and the great information you provided me on my talk page. I'll follow through with your suggestions. Robms927 17:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I took your advice and went through the proper means of requesting this page move. I'd appreciate it if you took a look at Talk:Northwestern. I also added the request at WP:RM. Hope this was what you meant. Thanks again for your advice. Robms927 18:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not move pages by cutting and pasting the content. It separates the edit history from the content, which is a requirement of GFDL. If you think a page needs to be renamed and you are not able to move it correctly yourself, then propose it on Wikipedia:Requested moves. older ≠ wiser 02:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info. How do I go about moving pages correctly? —Dishwasherrat 04:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | Talk

Use the Move button at the top of the page. See Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page for more details. older ≠ wiser 11:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, right. I believe I made that mistake initially when I had some difficulty with the Move function and then corrected it consulting that particular WP page. Thanks again for your kind assistance. — Dishwasherrat 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | Talk

I have submitted myself for Wikipedia:Editor review/Dalbury. As I did not behave well with you in the past, I invite you to add your observations of my actions, if you so desire. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in your comments about the U.P. never being a part of the Wisconsin Territory. The historic maps I find match up to what you're saying, but they don't match up with the timelines suggested in articles about the Toledo War. What sources do you use? Cheers.--BaronLarf 03:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Found your link to the Congressional Act. Good catch. --BaronLarf 03:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You were previously involved in discussions relating to whether the wording of templates such as {{otheruses}} should simply say "For other uses" as it currently does or should read differently. I've started a discussion on the issue at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#"Other uses" of what? and thought you might be interested. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I just got it merged and have quite a bit of work to do here. The bolding helps. If you wish, I'd welcome assistance. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought there seemed like a lot of SF's on the list. I won't add anymore to the SF list unless I find another source confirming that it is a State Forest. Frankie816 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me with the move on the Urban (disambiguation) page. Can you take a look at Wizard and Wizard (disambiguation)? I think it needs to be moved as well. Thanks! Dreadlocke ⁺ 18:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. You can also post request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If the move is uncontroversial (as malplaced disampbiguation pages often are), an admin may do a speedy move. OTherwise, it may languish there for a week or so (depending on the backlog). You can also post a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 22:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Most excellent! Thanks for your help! And thanks for the pointer to the move and dab request pages. Dreadlocke ^☥ 22:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for the help : )

I'm working on removing what few links are left to the redirect (disabiguation page). All that are left seem to be talk page references and 2 links to articles listing examples of disambiguation with "(disambiguation)" in their names. At what point can the redirect be deleted? - Jc37 16:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to delete the redirect. older ≠ wiser 16:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The talk page (Talk:Wizard (disambiguation)) wasn't moved. - Jc37 21:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

... because you certainly deserve them!.

Well at least you have one now. :) And more in spirit. -- Natalya 01:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

maybe you are interested in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#WP:RM Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input.

Right now, I'm mainly marking articles that were already labeled "stubs" with the lighthouse stub template; I want to make sure that they're properly covered and categorized. I think I've appended the template to maybe two or three articles which I think would be well-served by further expansion, no matter their current length. However, in most instances, I've been leaving the template off of a previously unstubbed article for just the reasons you point out. --AlbertHerring 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• No problem - I'll draw up a template and propose it to the other WikiProject:Lighthouses folks. I just wanted to make sure that the stubs we needed covered were picked up. --AlbertHerring 21:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi; I'm the guy who built this list, and still building it actually....I'd put in the Geography cats because these are a big part of the toponymy of this region (PacNW/BC plus the outliers in CA, UT, ON, MB etc); why aren't these categories suitable? Just asking?Skookum1 05:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the categories are (I think) for articles about the actual places. The list appears only secondarily to be directly about the places. It seems first a list related to Chinook culture. Looking at the other entries at Category:Lists of placename etymologies, none of the other entries are a list related to names based on cultural origin, but rather based on geographical region. Perhaps this is a new sort of list and we need to consider how best to categorize it. I suppose I could see it categorized in one or more of the Pacific Northwest categories because of the importance of Chinook culture to that region, but it seems odd to include it in the Michigan categories based on a place name. Similarly, at present, I don't see any entries for Minnesota. If you do readd any of the categories, you should at least sort them--I would suggest using top sorting because the article is not about a specific place by is a list of places. older ≠ wiser 11:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the point about about the categories having to refer to specific articles; in fact so many items on the list actually have articles (mostly unlinked) or will have articles that a Category of Chinook Jargon placenames will eventually be called for. But check out Chinook Jargon and word-articles like Skookum and Skookumchuck, as well as the Chinook Jargon section of the BC section of Canadian English; this isn't about Chinook culture, which is limited to a small area of Oregon and is purely Native American in nature; the CJ is much bigger than that and is a part of the regional identity in the Pacific Northwest/British Columbia. As for Minnesota, I thought I saw "MN" in one of the state listings in Topozone; for Skookum-something, but I don't see it now; blurry eyes I guess; amazing that Skookumchuck turns up in New Hampshire, by the way. Not sure what you mean by sorting categories....Skookum1 19:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was using Chinook culture in a very general sense not at all at odds with it being a part of a broader regional identity. What I mean by top-sorting, from Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ:

How do I sort the article differently on the category page?

Use a "pipe-trick". For example, to sort Pope Gregory IX after Pope Gregory VIII on Category:Popes under G, use the syntax [[Category:Popes|Gregory 09]] on the article pages. The extra text is only used for sorting and is not displayed. The pipe trick should always be used for articles beginning with "The", to sort them by the rest of their name rather than sorting them under "t". For example, the article about the novel The Pillow Book gets category tag [[Category:Japanese literature|Pillow Book, The]].

It is sometimes desirable to force the most important articles or sub-categories to appear at the beginning of the sorted list on a category's page. To do this, use a space as the sort key. For example, [[Category:Whatever| ]]. Other special characters, such as '*' and '!' are also used for this purpose.

Because it is a list article rather, it should be sorted by either the main term "Chinook Jargon" or top-sorted by using a space or a star (*) so that it sorts ahead of other entries in the category. Which one to use depends on the category. If it is a category of other lists, then you'd sort by the main term; if it is a category containing actual place names, to distinguish it from the other entries, you top-sort it with a space or a star. older ≠ wiser 21:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In AmbigDexter we have an enthusiastic new editor who has set his heart on disembowelling DAB pages based on a legalistic policy intepretation. ELO, Leaf (disambiguation) and many others have been in receipt of his attentions. I have placed some guidance on his talk page, without effect. Perhaps you might like to try because this is wasting the time of many editors. BlueValour 23:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Good catch on my edit, you're absolutely right. Newyorkbrad 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what the deal is with Hasbro, but he seems immune to reason. His writing skills don't make his views any clearer, either. I've no idea how this is to be dealt with. john k 21:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just approaching the topic from a fresh, living perspective, rather than a crusty old book. I assumed that Wikipedia is supposed to be a new form of encyclopedia, rather than the old. I am sorry for insinuating that some editors had an agenda or motive. The fact however remains that people are impressionable about these types of things, usually defaulting to stereotypes instead of inquiry in order to re-examine the traditional presentations. Hasbro 21:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hasbro, relevant policies and guidelines have already been pointed out to you, in particular, Citing sources, Verifiability, Reliable sources and No original research. It's not that we don't like you or your claims, but we simply cannot accept them on the basis of your somewhat speculative line of reasoning alone. Presenting some evidence from reliable sources to support your claims will go a long way towards resolving matters.

John, my apologies for bringing you into this. older ≠ wiser 21:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My issue is not any of those problems, as explained before. The dispute is POV. Tackle the issue that way and we may come to some reckoning. BTW, it was I who notified John Kenney. Hasbro 23:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

While you may deny that your unwillingless to provide any verifiable sources is not your problem, that is in fact precisely the problem. older ≠ wiser 01:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

...Again, even that is a matter of POV. Hasbro 01:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What POV? -- have you provided any reputable sources to back up your claims? No. Where is the POV? older ≠ wiser 01:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You present a tunnel-vision of the situation. I don't know how else to describe it. Hasbro 01:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And you are bafflingly resistant to reason. What is so difficult to comprehend about the need to provide a reliable source for your claims. It is quite simple really. All your grandiose rhetoric doesn't mean diddly-squat if you can't back up your claims. older ≠ wiser 01:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto from my end. Hasbro 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I and others involved in these discussions with you have already provided citations supporting our arguments. You, on the other hand, have yet to provide even a single specific citation to a reliable source. older ≠ wiser 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you are misspeaking yourself on that and using a red herring to avoid the points raised. Hasbro 02:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you provided any specific citations? Nope. Are verifiable sources required? Yes. No misspeaking and no red herring. older ≠ wiser 02:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight. I tire of your pedantic squabblings over a couple minor perceptive adjectives, used to broad-brush a few people and their business way back in the day, about the basic social scene they were involved in. I call it an NPOV dispute, whereas you go off on this needless tirade, that has nothing to do with my vantage point as an editor. Hasbro 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You can call it whatever you you like, but that doesn't change anything. You have not provided a single source to back up your claim. Until you do, I don't expect that anyone will take what you say as anything other than speculation. older ≠ wiser 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

...As I have stated about your own posturings, including those of others. Sheer numbers don't speak for the true matter at hand; birds of a feather flock together. So it is with you lot. I'm no more budging than you are on the same issue, so remember that hypocrisy. Hasbro 02:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please leave me alone. I've nothing more to say to you. older ≠ wiser 02:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat; just remember that it was you who first crossed my path. Hasbro 03:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The city of Los Angeles is just that the city down town city hall and all that. venice has its skaters and dog town stuff. but they are a seperate city they have a hall and all. you can redirect to the the dog town venice page or whatever you want to call it . But when it comes to Dog town los angeles that search icon should be reserved for the projects. now you might hit me with the famous skater stuff fine . but it does not bring them any closer to Los Angeles . Besides there is now a published author from Dog town los angeles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FirstKnight (talk • contribs) . UTC 12:17, August 25, 2006

Huh? Sorry, but I don't understand anything of what you just wrote here. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

wasn't it hilarious? heres the link.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detroit%2C_Michigan&oldid=66682528

As a matter of fact, no. This and this and this and this are the sort of edits that will lead to you being blocked from editing. older ≠ wiser 17:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. My head was spinning with all of the number in the Detroit, MI and Metro Detroit article that I forgot. I also meant to update the population density. I'll get to that soon unless you do first. Thanks. Ufwuct 00:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you're a regular poster in the naming convention discussion and I wanted to get an opinion from a more established editor to see if my concerns are unfounded. Over on the discussion page for the Seattle article, a request to remove Seattle, Washington to just Seattle as has been made. There are primarily three users who are advocating this change USER:Polaron, User:Usgnus, and User:Serge Issakov. Looking at their contribution history (and number of requested moves for cities WP:RQM), I fret that this is a larger project to try and circumvent the naming conventions process.

What's most troubling is the method. There is the emotional appeal to civic pride and vanity "World Class City" arguements, as if the title of the Wikipedia article dictates whether or not your city is a "World Class City"--which can be a powerful sway on locals who obviously think highly of their home. Then, once the article's name has been changed, it is used as an example like Chicago to go to other city pages and get them to move under the same auspices. It's a divide and conquer approach rather which I don't feel comfortable with. I always thought that the purpose of having name conventions and discussing them was because of the greater benefit of having the consensus of the Wiki community gives legitmacy and more importantly consistency. Am I on the wrong path? Agne 03:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO you are on the right path. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. Back in May, you commented at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. The issue has lain dormant for over two months, and is still unresolved. I have attempted to summarize the findings of fact, in the hopes of resolving this debate. Your comments here would be welcome. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is my talk page and I reserve the right to remove abusive, bothersome, annoying, or inane comments without any response or regrets.

I got blocked for removing something that an admin wrote. It was an "official warning" - so I got the block. There is some policy, but I was not aware of this policy. Currently I have an admin (User:Lar), that from time to time post civilty warnings on my page. E.g. if I comment a wrong statement with "WRONG". I would really like to do what you write - simple remove his warnings and attacks, but he marks them as official and so I can't. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The categorization system is having growing pains. There seem to be several different view about what our category system should be; a way to browse, an index of articles, a classification system, and/or a database search tool. Each of these views leads editors to different conclusions about how categories should be populated, and many conflicts result. To deal with these problems, Rick Block and I have been working on a proposal to add the ability to create category intersections. We think our proposal will address these problems and add some very useful new features. We are asking editors and developers concerned with categorizaton problems to take a look. We'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 06:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)