User talk:Nationalparks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives
  1. September 6, 2005 – June 21, 2006

Contents

[edit] National Park Photography

For excellent photos, I, Smurrayinchester, award you the photographer's barnstar. Keep snapping!
For excellent photos, I, Smurrayinchester, award you the photographer's barnstar. Keep snapping!

Your photographs look great! I especially like Image:Coalbanksign.JPG and Image:Trumanhist.JPG, but they're all so I good I must award you this... smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Nationalparks 17:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Help researching info on MIT graduate Ed Seykota

I need help writing the article about Ed Seykota, I need help researching his time in MIT, I need access to MITs library. I want copies of his thesis, papers etc. I also need official documentation about his degrees at MIT. Please help.

trade2tradewell (at) yahoo (dot) com - Replace "at" with "@", and "(dot)" with "."

Thanks

--Trade2tradewell 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the library catalog and thesis directory and couldn't find any thesis by him. According to the article, he was an undergraudate here, and many (most?) undergraduates do not write theses. The libraries do not store papers we write for classes. There is also no way that I can get documentation that he went here. Nationalparks 20:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon Dunes NRA

Hi, I'm confused. You reverted my additon of the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area[1] to the List of areas in the National Park System. Is this because it is administered by the USDAFS and not by the NPS? I take it the NRA designation does not necessarily mean it is part of the national park system? Katr67 14:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Should it go in the "disbanded section"? If so I'll leave that to you. Katr67 14:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area is indeed administered by Siuslaw National Forest, part of the United States Forest Service, not the National Park Service. As far as I know, it was never run by NPS, so it wouldn't belong in the disbanded section. I will add it to {{USNRAs}}. You are correct that the NRA designation doesn't mean that it is automatically run by the NPS. You can see other examples on that template. Even the "National Monument" designation doesn't mean it's run by NPS. For example, Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument is run by the Bureau of Land Management. Hope that helps. Nationalparks 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Very helpful, thanks! Several of us are working hard to make the Oregon articles the best they can be--thanks for contributing the templates and improving the article. Katr67 15:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piscataway Park - DYK

Thanks for adding to the "Did you know..." feature on Portal:United States. Since the article was recently created, it also meets the criteria for the "Did you know..." on the Main Page. Suggestions for the main page can be made at Template talk:Did you know, if you're interested. -Kmf164 (talk contribs) 03:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea. I suggested it, but I hope it's not too short to be considered at this point. Nationalparks 03:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piscataway Park

Updated DYK query On June 24, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Piscataway Park, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
  • Thanks so much for the contribution! -- Samir धर्म 04:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thanks for the National Parks Barnstar, glad you thought my edits were helpful!

Regarding the coordinates field in the Protected Area Infobox, what would you put for the larger units? It's easy enough to get prescise coordinates for the smaller units but I'm not quite sure what I should be entering for some of the recreation areas and preserves. --Nebular110 20:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. You could put coordinates for the visitor center, for an entrance station, a notable feature, etc. I guess the best advice is to use your judgement. Nationalparks 20:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge St. Croix National Scenic Riverway into St. Croix River (Wisconsin-Minnesota) article

Hi Nationalparks, I just came across the Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway article you created on April 21, 2006. I have suggested it be merged with the St. Croix River (Wisconsin-Minnesota) article. The river is, by definition, inseperable from the National Scenic Riverway and the river article itself has already received a fair amount of attention... I'm not familiar with the policy on such topics, but it seems like the most appropriate way to deal with it would be to modify the original river article to include more information about the Riverway, rather than clutter search results and give users multiple pages which they must consult and which editors must monitor and work on. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter. - the dharma bum 18:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just thinking that the major consideration for having two distinct articles is that the Namekagon River is also a part of the Riverway... Nonetheless, it would be nice to somehow combine it all, though doing so might be quite the project. Still would like to hear your thoughts. Cheers. -the dharma bum 19:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I would prefer for each of the National Park Service areas to have their own article. In my opinion, I'd like to see the Riverway article expanded to include more info from here, rather than have it merged. Nationalparks 20:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Riverway article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas, and will be receiving an infobox sometime in the near future from our project. The infobox would not be as appropriate on a merged river page. Nationalparks 20:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I just added the infobox. Nationalparks 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, merging the articles about St. Croix National Scenic Riverway and the St. Croix River is incorrect. The river and the Riverway ARE two entirely different topics. The St. Croix River is over 170 miles in length, from its headwaters to its confluence with the Mississippi. The first 20 miles or so is under mixed ownership that varies from private, to county to state lands. The National Park Service (NPS) administered area of the St. Croix River is 127 miles in length, from Gordon Dam to just north of Stillwater, Minnesota. The final 25 miles of river, more of a recreational lake actually, are administered jointly by the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources, not the NPS. The entire 100+ mile lenghth of the Namekagon River,the largest tributary of the St. Croix and solely within Wisconsin, is also part of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Combined,these two rivers form a single NPS unit that is over 225 miles in length, and has over 450 miles of shoreline within its boundaries. St. Croix Riverway was one of the original eight areas protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, and the only one of those eight that the NPS was given to protect. The NPS also administers over 90,000 acres of land, including shoreline and islands, through public ownership and scenic easement. As this is obviously NOT part of the river, it could only be explained as part of a description about the Riverway. Likewise, there are somewhere over 140+ designated primitive campsites maintained by the NPS adjacent to the rivers. Again, this is specific to the Namekagon and St. Croix rivers combined, as a Riverway, not something found along the 170+ miles of the St. Croix River. This just touches the tip of the iceberg, but clearly shows that the St. Croix River and the St. Croix Riverway should NOT be mergered... Poetrycreek 06:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Poetrycreek

Yes, I agree, as I stated above. The articles should not be merged. Nationalparks 06:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] whoops!

sorry for the Bertucci's test. Forgot to delete it!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.188.5 (talk • contribs) .

Not a problem. Nationalparks 13:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did the chicken cross the road?

Hi,

The reference is at the end of the origin section. I am removing the tag. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the ref to correct place. Thanks for pointing out. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images: Santa Fe Trail

Hi, I've seen your picture Image:Santaferuts.JPG and would like to know if there is more where this one came from. Have you been to other places along Santa Fe Trail and taken pictures you are willing to publish? If so, please load them up at the commons and put them into the new commons:Category:Santa Fe National Historic Trail, where I just put your image. OR are there already suitable pictures somewhere, I just didn't find? I'm currently trying to improve the german language article on the Santa Fe Trail at de:Santa Fe National Historic Trail and could use illustrations. --h-stt !? 11:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC) PS: You may answer here or at my talk page on the german Wikipedia

You can see some more Santa Fe Trail related pictures at the pages for the various sites on the trail, such as Fort Union National Monument and Bent's Old Fort National Historic Site. Nationalparks 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll copy your pictures of Fort Union and Cimarron River to the commons and continue looking. --h-stt !? 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The Cimarron River picture that I took (Image:Cimriv.JPG) is not actually the same Cimarron River that's related to the Trail. There are at least three different Cimarron River's in the US. Nationalparks 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. I'll remove it from the category. --h-stt !? 20:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It's there to represent one of the three Cimarron Rivers. The one that the picture is representing (the one in Colorado), though, is not the one that's related to the Santa Fe Trail (which is the one in New Mexico). Nationalparks 20:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 27 July 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eastern National, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Norwalk, Connecticut

Hi. I have seen that you had been following the Norwalk page....I'm not sure if you have looked at recently, but I am trying to begin a slow clean-up of the page...I am afraid it was becoming too much of a long list of bullets rather than an article. Another wikipedian an I are somewhat in disagreement over the future of the page it seems. I'm inviting you to weigh in, if you would like to. It's ok if you disagree with me, I am really just looking for a 3rd party opinion.TJ0513 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut. Nationalparks 04:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm promising myself to make the last edit with that 9/11 stuff on History of Norwalk, Connecticut for a while, I don't think anything is going to get resolved. I should have stopped long ago. You are right about getting a third opinion...I was thinking about a poll, but in the scheme of wikipeida, I don't think anyone cares about the Norwalk, CT page. I'd feel kind of lame. There's a joke in academia, "why is it so competitive in academia?...because the stakes are so low..." You kill to get published in a journal maybe four people will read...I feel the same applies... TJ0513 01:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Well I see our friend has resorted to just plain vandalism since his site was blacklisted. Let me know when he appears and I'll block him. pschemp | talk 01:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. To help keep a list of the IP addresses involved, I have started Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Npgallery. Nationalparks 01:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kendall Band portion of the Kendall/MIT stop

I added a section to the [talk page for Kendall/MIT stop] about the Kendall Band, please check it out. Mra 19:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] MIT

The article on MIT has undergone some significant changes over the last month to prepare for a peer review and nomination for Featured Article. Because you have contributed previously, please review the changes and the discussion board. Madcoverboy 18:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning 1

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Arlington High School, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your actions are not permitted on the Arlington High School Page. Wiki Policies state that you can not "blank" an entire section. This is considered vandalism. Your name will be placed on a watch list. Questions? Mgarnes2 20:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The section in question was not appropriate for the page, at least as it was written. It had no references, was not copyedited, and included a talk page warning message in the main space. It contained speculation and POV, as well. Nationalparks 20:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, this is the diff in question. Nationalparks 20:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, there is no Wikipedia policy that says a section cannot be removed, especially if it does not belong in the article, and has the problems I discussed above. Nationalparks 20:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Refer To The Wikipedia:Vandalism article, which clearly states "Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit."Mgarnes2 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Except for the part that comes just after the part you quoted: "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself". As I explained above, the deleted material did not meet Wikipedia standards. Further down on that policy page, it says (under Bold Edits), "While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism." To be clear, I removed mainspace warnings meant for talk pages, and I removed a poorly written, POV, unreferenced (and possibly unverifiable) paragraph. That is perfectly legitimate, and does not deserve a warning. To go one step further, the paragraph that you put in was previously removed in this diff. This means that I am not the only editor who feels this way. At that point, you should have raised the issue on the talk page of the article. Nationalparks 23:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


This continues here. Nationalparks 01:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/t/User_talk%7ENationalparks_a4c4.html"