User talk:PacknCanes

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Cleanup resources
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• Wikipedia:Five pillars

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

Hi, Brian. I noticed on the Cleveland page that you went back and forth on the state route/highway designations. Whether a state road is a "highway" or "route" doesn't seem to have a universal definition and usage, even among we engineers who design them. ODOT calls them state routes. I've seen them all called routes, as in "Route 66" for U.S. Highway 66, and the FHwA designation "Interstate Route 77" for I-77. I've seen them all called highways. Personally, I typically call them state routes, U.S. highways, and interstates to differentiate. The designations in the Cleveland article would probably read "state route" if ODOT had written them. Your entry - your call. MARussellPESE 12:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right about that, Michael...I think every state DOT calls them something different. :) I actually just had a brain fart while editing that section and substituted "state route" where it should have been "state highway". The only reason I did it that way was to conform to what seem to be the Wikipedia style guidelines for highways that aren't Interstates -- their articles are always titled "(name of state) state highway ###" (or U.S. highway ###, or (name of province) provincial highway ###)...you get the idea. Personally, I just call them by the numbers, which is terribly confusing to anyone who doesn't know what you're talking about. Thanks, though -- PacknCanes 15:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian,

I'm glad to see that we are getting some constructive suggestions for the Cleveland article. I hope we'll be able to build some momentum for addressing the remaining shortcomings so that the article about this city can shine! Mamawrites 19:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the article and did some copyediting. You can see my comments on peer review. Pentawing 05:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Concerning the headings for neighborhoods, I'll leave it to you to decide, but I just think that a single sub-heading doesn't look right (especially if there isn't a second sub-heading to accompany it). As for the cityscape, I was thinking about the general appearance of the city (modern or classical architecture, park-like or industrial setting, etc.). It doesn't have to be long nor does it have to be included. If you do decide to include it, see Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Louisville, Kentucky, for examples. Pentawing 03:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The population estimates are five years old, and surely fluctuate by hundreds, or even thousands, each month. Therefore at the top, express as 'more than', and not to the last person (thousands is precise enough for your purpose here). In the demographics section, cite the exact count in the census, but use past tense—'were' etc—when referring to the 2000 census. 'Cleveland was hit hard by white flight and suburbanization,'—during what period, exactly? Relate directly to the info in the table.

Unless it's a very thorough edit, I'll be back to give a few more examples as reasons that it still isn't FA standard. Surely you can find a collaborator who's good at editing? One of your local librarians or school teachers?

Tony 07:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You nailed the Cleveland cityscape, Brian. Am changing my Oppose to Support. Well done. MARussellPESE 19:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Thanks for starting the cityscape section. Sorry I couldn't get to it, but I've been absolutely swamped today. I have a few changes I'd like to make, but they'll have to wait until later today or tomorrow. Thanks again! - EurekaLott 22:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I've sourced the image. I fear it's a temporary URL that may expire without notice, but at least it's tagged. - EurekaLott 13:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations on Cleveland being featured. Now that the article is featured, I would suggest that you archive the current talk page. As a side note, since you got Cleveland featured and your user page suggests that you might do the same with Raleigh, North Carolina, you might be interested in this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. Again, congratulations with getting Cleveland featured. Pentawing 03:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The credit belongs to you, my friend. It seems the path to featured article status is as much about good communication as it is about quality content, and you have a knack for smoothing ruffled feathers when the inevitable miscommunications occur. Good work! - EurekaLott 14:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo, Since you seem to be the resident expert on copyright law, could you do me a favor? I'd like to use this photo in the article about Cleveland. It was taken in 1927, so has the copyright run out on it? I seem to remember somewhere that there's a limitation of 70 years for anything published before the late '60s (?), but I'm not sure. If it isn't public domain, I just won't use it; I don't really feel like jumping through all the hoops necessary to fair-use it. Thanks! PacknCanes | say something! 17:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly an expert on copyright law -- it's an extremely complex subject even for someone with a law degree. For this particular image, I can't tell for sure if it's public domain or not. Everything published before 1923 is public domain, while those published between 1923 and 1963 without the copyright being renewed are public domain. Two ways to find out for sure would be to check the Library of Congress, or to contact the site owners. For a basic overview of what is and is not public domain, Cornell's got a chart at [1].

That said, the Library of Congress has a compilation of 161 public-domain photographs of the building compiled by the National Park Service, at [ http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.oh1517]. You can probably find something suitable there. --Carnildo 19:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments to do with the article and the small copyedit! In your comments about the article, you suggested that the "Attractions" section be changed... do you want to give it a go? G 15:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Top job! I think I've eliminated all the one-sentence paragraphs as well as the external links... anything else to have a go at so you can change your objection? G 01:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PacknCanes

I thought I'd alert you to the fact that User Redwolf kindly nominated me for adminship last week, which I accepted. Regrettably, this has coincided with a stouch with several huge egos whose FAC I helped on, and then critiqued after they'd trashed my entire contribution. I normally shun conflict, but here, I'm emersed in it, and I feel utterly destroyed. One of the protagonists appears to be drumming up support for his cause on other people's talk pages.

If the nomination fails Monday night, which appears likely now since the 75/25 voting balance is borderline, I'll be trashing my personal page and not returning: it's just too embarrassing and unpleasant to go on.

So, if you have the inclination, the war zone is at: [2]

Thanks Tony 01:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PacknCanes. But I find the whole process extremely destructive on a personal level. Tony 05:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it doesn't allay my grief. How fun can turn to distress and depression in an instant. The process is flawed when it turns into a referendum on someone's perceived personality, character, maturity. There's a herd mentality at work, too.

I think it should be depersonalised, at least to some extent. There's too much scope for unsubstantiated tittle-tattle and highly POV 'moral' judgement. Numbers, ticks against various criteria, and no allowance for changing your vote on the whim of what others in the herd say, would be a start. Much stricter guidelines for comments. I'm outa here when this thing fails Monday night, feeling kind of ... angry, and hating WP.

Good to talk, tho. Tony 06:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, dude. tony1 at iinet dot net dot au

Tony 13:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that piece of encouragement. The article size limit is due to something I picked up from Nichalp, who implicitly pointed out that anything over 40 kB can pose a problem. Though current high-speed connections and browsers do not have a problem with large article sizes, there are some people who do not have such luxury (e.g. they have early versions of certain browsers and (GASP!) dial-up connections). Anyways, I decided to take care of some concerns, but I am hoping that the article does make it to featured status, given that I have other projects in the pipeline. Pentawing 22:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I contacted Nichalp for his take on this issue since now I am unsure what to do about it. My concern is that he tends to object to articles above 40 kB in size (such as for Louisville, Kentucky and Chicago, Illinois). If you wish, you can also talk to him about this in order to resolve the issue. In fact, I would appreciate someone helping me with this since now I find myself being pulled in every direction. Pentawing 23:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to place the article size limit to 45 kB and start expanding. I realize your concerns about article sizes, but unfortunately Nichalp happens to be seen as an expert when it comes to city articles, and his opinions (no matter how much one disagrees with them) are generally respected (especially by Raul654, who controls which articles finally become featured). Nevertheless, I appreciate your willingness to help if possible and respect your concerns about possibly starting a flame war. However, I also realize that sooner or later this issue is going to come up, where people are going to wonder why article sizes matter (a holdover from the early days of Wikipedia, but I think it should deserve another look, given that I recently read about the fact that 32 kB can only contain about 6000 words, compared to a normal encyclopedia which has about 50,000 words per article). Again, I'll let you know what I encounter with my contact with Nichalp. Pentawing 01:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Boston is finally featured. Nevertheless, Nichalp said that the article has ballooned and that it could be summarized (the article is currently at 41 kB). At the moment, I am a bit weary of working on the article further and will move to other things unless something major comes up. Nevertheless, I will try to figure out something that could hopefully resolve this issue (maybe a balanced mix of having the article give as much of an overall of the topic as possible in conjunction with summarizing materials into sub-articles when the article reaches a certain size such as 40 to 45 kB), though if you have an idea that could help, I would appreciate it. Pentawing 22:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the article's talk page, I saw that you decided to try to improve the article to FA. However, the sandbox where the new format is located (which I found after looking at your "user contributions," which is one of the links in "toolbox") isn't linked. If you wish for more people to help out, I would suggest you link the temporary article directly to the Raleigh, North Carolina, article's talk page. Pentawing 01:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Raleigh page needs to be changed as I40 and I440 no longer overlap quote" I-440 will be defined along the northern alignment only (between I-40 exits 293 to exit 301) " Questions message me on Facebook Roland E French Jr's Facebook Profile (I dont have time to create a Wikipedia profile, but I live in Raleigh and I can confirm the I40 I440 change)

also there is confusion / discussions as to if I540 will become I640 when the outerloop is completed, and this fact should be added to the Raleigh article quote" The conventional wisdom circa 1997 was that when the I-540 beltway around Raleigh was finished, its I-540 numbering (for "spur") would be changed to I-640 ("loop"). However, in 2002 there appears to be little advantage to the motorist for this, and thus no plans for a number change " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.242.14 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a great job with the Raleigh page. It's looks better than the Charlotte page. Raleigh have many attractive and nice shopping centers. I would love to see a culture/attractions section on the Raleigh page-with the upscale shopping center and restaurants on Six Forks Road and Crabtree Valley Mall. Tracey (April 4, 2011) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.189.141 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all fellow Clevelanders! Be sure to regularly contribute and/or expand the new Cleveland portal now online! -- Clevelander 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland, Ohio has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Loodog 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You have received this newsletter because you have added your name here. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter, please remove your name. From the automated Animum Delivery Bot (delivered on 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)). [reply]

Note: You have received this because your name is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Newsletter/List. If you no longer wish to receive this message, remove your name. --Animum Delivery Bot 02:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Harris Teeter logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).