User talk:Bkonrad/Archive17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] New Cork vote

There is a new move request and survey regarding Cork. This time it is proposed to move Cork to Cork (city) in order to move Cork (disambiguation) to Cork. You are being informed since you voted in the last Cork survey. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 07:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 state election

It was an honest mistake saying that Randy Richardville is a current senator, when he won't take office until 2007. I don't know how I let that slip by when I was proofreading it. As far as the Michigan Senate page, would it be feasible to include those senators who will not be serving beginning 2007, or would it be best to just leave it as it is until the seats officially change hands? —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 18:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Michigan Senate, a few options come to mind: 1) the changes could be added hidden in comments until January; 2) the newcomers can be added underneath the current member, with an asterisk or some other notation indicating their status; or 3) a temporary subpage can be made reflecting the Senate to be, and then in January just replace the current table with the new table. I don't have a strong preference. Might be worth looking at what the other states are doing or if there's any discussion on any of the politics related project pages. older ≠ wiser 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lousianna Purchase

Thanks for the clean-up! Bo 18:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congresses of the United States

Actually, you are in error. Please see Grover Cleveland & Presidential term ending days arguments on my 'talk page' (for expalantion). GoodDay 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I did and there was nothing there to contradict the ending date indicated in the documentation of Congresses. older ≠ wiser 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There's other resources, that back-up March 4th. I find it difficult to believe that Congress (ever 2-years, 1789-1933), didn't exist from 11:59:59 PM EST March 3 until Noon EST March 4. The Constitution clearing says, there's to be a Legislatvie Branch (at all times). GoodDay 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, please see Talk:List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Term_expiration_.28March_3_vs._March_4.29 for some discussion and evidence. Newyorkbrad 21:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That is good information, but the text of the articles is not describing the term of office of any individual office-holder, but the dates of record that the Congress was in session. I don't think we can say that the Congress was in Session on dates when the historical documentation explicitly says there were not. older ≠ wiser 22:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It breaks my heart, to historically (potentially) learn that for 12 hours each 2-years (1789-1933) & contrary to the Constitution's Article I, there was only 2-Branches of Government functioning (or is that existing). GoodDay 22:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm so sad for you. But IMO, such concerns are akin to worrying about the correct number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. older ≠ wiser 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose there is a sense in which you could both be right: in many Congresses (not sure about all, though), any meeting on the calendar date of March 4 was a continuation of the legislative day of March 3rd. That isn't dispositive, because sometimes a Senate legislative day lasts for weeks, but I suppose it could be relevant. Still, I believe a reader would expect this information in terms of real-world dates rather than legislative days. Newyorkbrad 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess my point is that the dates given in Wikipedia should match those given in the historical record, or else there probably should be a standard footnote to explain the discrepency. older ≠ wiser 22:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings, Bkonrad? Though I disagree with the March 3rd date, I won't dispute it any further. PS- as for the 'angels thing', I'm an atheist. GoodDay 22:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • A footnote that "the House and Senate adjourned on the calendar day of March 4, which was a continuation of the legislative day of March 3" could be used if anyone wants that level of detail. I am going to check at some point whether there were any years in which there was a legislative day (in the outgoing Congress) of March 4. I will be doing some research at the National Archives Building on Friday so I'll try to check then. Newyorkbrad 22:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Woodrow Wilson#March 4, 1921 for an account of Congress being in session until "just before noon", March 4. They are unlikely to have passed much; Wilson stopped signing bills early that morning. Septentrionalis 23:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bioguide

Hi, thanks for the message. I have been adding the bioguide tag because it is not obvious that the material is lifted directly from there. I have been following the Wikipedia and plagiarism news stories goign around so I wanted to make sure the articles I started were properly noted. I can stop though if you think it is not necessary. I notice many of the articles I went to add this to already had the Bioguide tag and also the link to the actual Bio at the Biographical Directory of the US Congress. LarryQ 19:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] good edit

WP is not a travel guide. MPS 18:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When does this become disruptive editing?

Skyemoor has now pushed his "Jefferson founded the Republican Party" phase to the point of giving Jefferson and Lincoln the same entry on the List of United States Presidents. (diff). He also declares that Lincoln was a radical abolitionist. (diff.) After squabbling with him on DRP, I don't think he'll listen to me; would you have a word with him? Septentrionalis 04:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I admire your tenacity in dealing with him, though I don't think he holds me in any higher regard -- I've just tried to avoid getting caught up in aggravating disputes. I noticed that edit to List of United States Presidents and was about to revert it when I saw that you already had done so. I'll try to drop a line if I see things getting out of hand. older ≠ wiser 04:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Now also Thomas Jefferson. <sigh> Septentrionalis 18:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cities

I think the current discussion over at the cities naming convention page is going to drive me completely insane. I had thought that Tariq's proposal had reached a point where it had enough support, and was worded clearly enough, that it could be turned into a full proposal with a full vote, and we could actually see if we could move on. Now we seem to be enmeshed in a discussion around very abstract issues which is certain to never get anywhere. Any thoughts on ways to get back to the concrete proposal? john k 14:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota Fats

Re: 15:47, November 16, 2006 Bkonrad (Talk | contribs) (→Uncontroversial proposals - rm Minnesota Fats, this is not uncontroversial, please relist below if you want to pursue this)

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that it would not be an uncontroversial move. There is no other pool player whose main article title is their nickname, and I believe the naming guidelines in general at least discourage this (NB: nickname != stage name; it IS proper to have Winona Ryder be her main article title, not Winona Horowitz). Even more importantly, "Minnesota Fats" is clearly ambiguous. It's a moot point now; I've solved the problem with redir and disambig., at Minnesota Fats and Rudolph Wanderone Jr. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ

Erm, I think you're mistaken regarding personal names. It is policy to use the most common name for a person. For example, the article is at Pelé and not Edson Arantes do Nascimento. The name Rudolph Wanderone Jr. is known relatively few people, whereas Minnesota Fats is a pretty well-known name. Although I agree that since there is some ambiguity in the name, so a disambiguation page is probably appropriate. older ≠ wiser 03:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that there's a distinction, though. Pseudonyms/stage names (even rather implausible ones like Redd Foxx or Slim Pickens), and nicknames are not the same thing. Cf. Red Baron, Blood Countess, Richard the Lionhearted, Satchmo, etc. All redirects to main articles that use real names. I guess it's kind of academic at this point. The Minnesota Fats disambig was needed, though, since there's three (so far) likely targets for it, and one of them actually predates Wanderone - he got the name from Tevis's character, not the other way around. The situation on Wikipedia was actually getting quite bad - about half of the links I fixed that were going to Wanderone's Minnesota Fats page were actually definitely trying to refer to the fictional character! Zoiks.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the clean-up of my edit for the Dimondale, Michigan page. I'm not the best at using the right words, as you can see here. Lugnut215 01:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan

Hey, thanks for helping me out with the Michigan Timeline as I am a wiki-newb. On this note, could you tell me how to join the Michigan group? upshot

[edit] Phoenix

With respect to your change here, that's not consistent with how external links are done on the rest of that page, so unless you're going to go through and make it consistent, I'd ask you to revert to my change. Joeyconnick 20:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. older ≠ wiser 13:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major highways

why do i even bother --MNAdam 04:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a question/complaint or is this just a random visit? older ≠ wiser 04:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Personaly I think that Michigan should be displayed on the county pages, because it makes it clear that its a michigan highway... Someone who doesnt know what M-3 means might not know that it's a Michigan highway. --MNAdam 04:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
If they don't know (and care enough to wonder) they can click on the link (or hover over it) to find out. The parenthetical portion is not a part of the roads' names. older ≠ wiser 04:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do the articles have (Michigan highway) on them then? --MNAdam 04:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Long story. The end result can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways). The common name for the roads is M-x. But because many such M-x are ambiguous, all of the articles were pre-disambiguated by including (Michigan highway). older ≠ wiser 04:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About this "anon" you've encountered

User:165.21.83.240 has been engaging in excessive cruft vandalism as per the link I provided you. Definitely check out his link as he might be a possible obvious vandal. Cruft Vandalism is a term I use to describe an edit that has no credibility and/or verifiability whatsoever. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Reply to me. Thanks for your understanding. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 14:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chairman

Why do you keep changing Chairman to chair? The title is Chairman. Are you that picky? "U.S. State" sounds redundant don't you think? That's why I don't use it. I can understand the other edits, I have had some nice tips from you regardless. I'm not trying to make a petty argument...I'm just curious. Jjmillerhistorian 12:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care all that much about chair vs. chairman -- I guess chairman just sounds a little quaintly old-fashioned to my ear. As for U.S. state, the reason I do that is because if there is no indication of country, the internationalists on Wikipedia will eventually add phrasing like "from Wayne County, Michigan, U.S.A.". I find phrasing as "from Wayne County in the U.S. state of Michigan to be somewhat less ugly. Oh, and many of the same internationalists object to using "American" as an adjective to refer to things of the United States. And there is some merit to the objection, as American does not strictly speaking refer exclusively to the United States, especially when considered in an international context. older ≠ wiser 23:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
So the internationalists are picky...I see...as for Image:MIGOP LOGO.gif The MIGOP knows I put it in there and seem to like it. Speaking of which, I noticed today the current Chairman using the term "Chair" in an email. I guess it doesn't matter, but I'm not going to change it. When you edited the MIGOP page it looked a little messy at the top and bottom. I thought the big logo looked cool. Maybe internationalist don't like cool? Let them worry about it Jjmillerhistorian 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Chair and Chairman are used pretty much synonymously. Regarding the image, so long as they understand that licensing it under GFDL means that their worst enemies can legally modify and re-publish the image to their hearts content and they no longer have any recourse. The placement of images on a page is tricky, as they display very differently at different resolutions and in different browsers. Land's image was weirdly overlapping some text at first. While you might think it is "cool", centered large logos at the top of an article are poor form on Wikipedia for anyone, internationalists or otherwise. older ≠ wiser 02:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I see how it is. I'm still new here so my creating and editing might be poor at times. As far as the copyright goes I will check into it. I made an error when I said the bottom of the page looked sloppy. There is some glitch which, at first, covers the references with the category box. I just refresh it. I will try to arrange the photos better. There are too many gaps and it looks odd. I thought I did see a logo on another political party page similar to the MIGOP page. I can't remember if it was Republican or Democrat. Honestly, I didn't try to make it that big at first. I will keep an eye on that from now on. Jjmillerhistorian 12:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Refering to Elly M. Peterson... one site mentioned she was moving to Colorado, but didn't state she was actually living there. I contacted someone from MIGOP and they said their records showed her last place of residence was Des Plaines, Iowa. Of course, I don't know how old that record is. Do I need a site to say "She is currently living and her last known residence was Des Plaines, Iowa."? or will you delete that too? I think that should have been Des Plaines, Illinois. Jjmillerhistorian 12:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There would have to be a verifiable source for the information. Saying that you contacted X, Y, or Z about the matter is Original Research by Wikipedia standards. FWIW, if those records indicated "Des Plaines, Iowa", I don't think we could give them much credence in any case. Interpolating that to "Des Plaines, Illinois" would amount to another level unverifiability. older ≠ wiser 17:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I emailed the person on whether it was Des Plaines, IL or Des Moines, IA. I'm sure there was some mix up. Jjmillerhistorian 22:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan Reps

Thanks for the edit on Clevenger, I was a little sloppy there. I was going to create pages for MI US Reps in alphabetical order, but decided to work on each district by chaining them together etc. I also want to find more of these errors like the Samuel Clark page. I thought it existed as the politician, but it was a Canadian sociologist. So I fixed it, which you may have noticed. Jjmillerhistorian 12:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I finished the 1st District and the final Territory delegate. I was curious as to why you are directing the Congressman pages to separate District pages instead of the Congressional page. I've been using the link given to Gerald Ford's succession box. Jjmillerhistorian 12:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. older ≠ wiser 13:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, thought you were the one. Isaac E. Crary can be linked to Bart Stupak using the succession boxes, yet the middle part of the box is sometimes changed from United States Representative for the 1st Congressional District of Michigan to Michigan's 1st congressional district. I was mistaken by a change you made on the article not the box. Someone else is making those changes. I was going to try and make them all similar, but some people have other prefrences so I will leave those the way they are. Example: I changed John Biddle (Michigan) and Markles changed it right back. Some other Reps were changed back or are already linked to the district page. It's not a big deal, I just want to know if there is a peticular way to do those succession boxes so they follow the same idea. Some will end up going to a different page. I used Gerald Ford's box and figured that was the best way to go. Jjmillerhistorian 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keweenaw Waterway

I am a Michigan Tech. student in Houghton, and I was able to use our archives for this information. I was just wondering why you edited my research on the Keweenaw Waterway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdstank (talk • contribs) . 14:08, November 30, 2006 (UTC)

Your edit simply removed most of the existing article content, including all of the links and categories. If you'd like to add to the article or modifiy the content, that'd be welcome, but simply replacing all the content with your own is not such a good thing. older ≠ wiser 15:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for moving Lombard language page

Dear Bkonrad, thank you for moving Lombard language page to its right place. Cheers, --Clamengh 16:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WSkyemoor

Skyemoor has now demonstrated that he won't accept Jeffersonian either. Would you be willing to co-sign an RfC on this single-purpose account? Septentrionalis 19:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Primary Topic Rule

I have figured out how to handle George Bush type problems. See Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Primary_Topic. TonyTheTiger 20:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counties

I put a overlay map of Ohio with all of it's counties inside of Cleveland Ohio because Cleveland is but one city among 39 others inside of Cuyahoga County and there are 87 other counties inside all of the state of Ohio, so what would be the reason for not needing and removing it, as it might help guide people through the state of Ohio and all of it's differing counties. What rule of yours or of Wikipedia did it violate since you removed them all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 03:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Because Cleveland is only one city in one county in the state. There is a map to show where Cleveland is located. If anyone is interest is finding out about Ohio counties there are any number of ways they can find out more. The connection from a single city within a single county to all the other counties is a little too tenuous to warrant placing a large image of counties in Ohio on the page. older ≠ wiser 04:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this your rule Bkonrad or Wikipedia's rule or a rule put into force and effect by many users of Wikipedia. I can maybe see your point to some extent for cities and for states. But what about just the individual state itself. A small little thumb nail in the upper right hand corner does not clearly indicate what all of the counties are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 04:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it important to be able to see the different counties when you are looking at an article about a specific city. that just doesn't make any sense. older ≠ wiser 13:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You did not provide a clear answer to my question ?. The answer to your remark is because this is an encyclopdia designed to inform and to educate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. If you feel the content is so important for those particular articles, pose the question on the acrticles' talk pages to see if anyone else thinks it is a good idea. older ≠ wiser 18:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cocktails Project

Hello. I understand the reasoning behind why you moved Long Island Iced Tea (cocktail) to Long Island Iced Tea. However, as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cocktails, we are attempting to make the naming of all cocktails follow the same standard formatting: Name (cocktail). As it stands now, cocktails are very random as to how they are listed. Some (such as LIIT) are listed strictly by the name. Others, are listed as Name cocktail. Others are listed as (drink) or (beverage). While LIIT is not an easily confused name, many of the cocktails are very easily confused with other terms. It makes it a real challenge to keep List of cocktails and several other related pages all properly linked. By standardizing all the cocktails names, it really helps us maintain the project's pages. Obviously, certain beverages (Sangría comes to mind) are not truly cocktails, thus they are not indicated as such (even though they are listed, which is still something that is being sorted out). I do not wish to get into an edit war with anyone, so I would request that you please put the page back to (cocktails) and redirect the non-disambigued term to it again (redirects are cheap). That would really help me out, and I would really appreciate it. Thanks! And thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia a great place. I see by your contribution history, you perform a lot of gnome work. :-) --Willscrlt 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be contrary to general naming conventions. If there is no need to disambiguate, the title should not use parenthetical disambiguation. Convenience of editors is always secondary to readers. Since there is a redirect from Long Island Ice Tea (cocktail), that link will work as well as the common name for project purposes. older ≠ wiser 11:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thaddeus Lesinski/George Romney

No page exists for Thaddeus Lesinski, the lieutenant governor of Michigan under Governors Romney and Swainson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tjl82090 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Mongolia

That's fine... revert the copy/paste. However, the correct naming is aymguud (or sing. aymag). There is even a wiki entry for subnational entity of aymag. Similar to how Ukraine and others use the proper name of the subnational entity. So if possible, please assist in this move request. Thank you. Rarelibra 21:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Bkonrad—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 15:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human name dab pages

I like the way Robert Johnson has evolved. IMO it is the best human name dab page I have worked on. I would like other hndabs to be formatted like what we collaborated on. I have sent some queries to WP_Disambiguation and MOSDAB. Your comments would be appreciated. TonyTheTiger 22:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drenthe, MI

Your recent edit(12/12/2006)to article Drenth, Mi works. However before making multiple edits to a recent edit, why not try the discussion page in the future. This way we dont have a work of blockheadedness! I will do the same. Thanks user:knowpedia

[edit] Emerson

I would appreciate it if you would reconsider the move of Emerson (disambiguation) to Emerson. It had been listed at WP:RM for only a day [1], and there may be others besides myself who consider Ralph Waldo Emerson the primary meaning - and that Emerson should redirect there.

Part of this, of course, is that I am stung by this piece of incivility, and wouldn't mind seeing Ace get his comeuppance; but I am also genuinely puzzled at your haste. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey stranger!

Re Charlotiana: I noticed that myself as well as a bunch of other stuff that I found interesting. I feel like I've heard of "Vandalia" but I essentially am mystified. It'll be interesting to research the old nomenclature and see what it reveals. Good to see you again. jengod 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spring Arbor

Just so you'll know...

Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP) is a Census Designated Place used for statistical purposes only by the census, though, while not official municipalities do get listed on wikipedia. The Spring Arbor and Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP) are duplicate entries, and one need to be deleted.

If the person that created the page doesn't answer me, than one of the entries will be deleted. --Criticalthinker 00:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what the various entities are and am not arguing to delete Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP) -- I only suggested that it was named rather atypically for CDPs in Michigan. Spring Arbor, Michigan and Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP) aren'r exactly duplicate entries -- they had been split apart for a reason. I may not completely agree with the reason behind it, but there was some rationale for it. older ≠ wiser 21:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Stanton

Instead of deleating all of the information, just put the template {{fact}} [citation needed] where citation is needed. It is very disruptive to delete such large ammounts of data. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks! Kaspazes talk 14:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree, unverifiable information should not be in an encyclopedia. However, unsourced material should. Add the template that I suggested, and remove any unverifiable information. If you protest, kindly respond on my talk page. Thanks! Kaspazes talk 16:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The information does not do any harm, and even if it is unverifiable, it poses no harm to the article, and could be undoubtubly true. Further research is required, and either of us could be right. I still suggest doing what I said in the first place- putting the [citation needed] template. If you can prove that the information is wrong, remove it. However, it poses no threat to the article or its' information, so I suggest just leaving it there, as it can neither be proven nor disprived. Kaspazes talk 16:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Maura Larkins

What is your motivation for erasing my article on Cheryl Cox that had only been up for a couple of minutes? You erased a quote from Education Week, which is not connected to Cheryl Cox, in order to put in quotes from Cheryl Cox's campaign statement and Cheryl Cox's own office!

The only newspaper article you checked was one from the notoriously biased San Diego Union Tribune, and you cherry-picked information from that article.

I was also quoting from the Seattle Times when you stepped in and replaced information that had only been up for a few minutes with campaign material.

Please, at least return to me the article you erased. I would like to use in another place.

By the way, are you sure you have the right Cheryl Cox? Have you confused Cheryl Cox Educational Consultants in Texas with Cheryl Cox, mayor of Chula Vista? What is your personal interest in Cheryl Cox? Why not write your own article instead of replacing someone else's?Mauralarkins 20:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The article, such as it was, contained not a single verifiable source, and contained a considerable amount of negative bias. Without appropriate attribution and verifiable sourcing for such statements they were removed. What drew my attention to the page was that an anonymous user had blanked the page completely. [2] This user had also made suspicious edits to the Barbara Comstock article. I restored the article, stripped back to what could be verified from easily available sources. There was no "cherry-picking" involved, other than to present a minimalist stub of information in a neutral manner. Whatever information you add MUST be verifiable, and especially anything that present derogatory information must be attributed to reliable sources. There were NONE WHATSOEVER given in the article at the time. older ≠ wiser 21:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maura Larkins

I am concerned about your article about Cheryl Cox because it "creates the potential for a problem of such minor personalities using Wikipedia as a self-promotional vehicle (whether done directly or through surrogates). older ≠ wiser 16:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)"

The least you could do would be to add a page about Steven Padilla from his campaign statements.

Mauralarkins 22:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't especially care whether there is an article on Cheryl Cox or not. You are welcome to propose deletion by following the directions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. In general though, being the mayor of a moderately large municipality is noteworthy. I care nothing whatsoever about Steven Padilla. If you'd like to try and create a page for him, go right ahead. older ≠ wiser 03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] to Bkonrad

Surely you jest. Why would I waste my time searching for a variety of articles about a subject, and then writing an article, when you're just going to delete it and replace it with campaign statements and biographies, written by the subject, that you found on Smartvoter? Did you think those statements and biographies were written by unbiased people? You need to look deeper into your sources.Mauralarkins 03:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I have only the vaguest idea of what you are talking about. Everything that was ever added to the article is available in the edit history. If there is something that you think is so very valuable there, by all means, go an retrieve. I don't see anything of the sort. The content that I placed in the article is deliberately a stub, to be expanded by those who know something about the subject. But what it there IS, at the very least, verifiable. You may take umbrage that the source is not to your liking, but that is no one's problem but your own. If you want to modify the article with verifiable source, go right ahead. I'm not stopping you and I doubt that anyone else will either -- so long as the information in verifiable and is within the guidelines for biographies of living persons. older ≠ wiser 03:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people by name (2nd nomination)

Hi Bkonrad; I just responded to your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people by name (2nd nomination) (just letting you know in case you don't have it watchlisted). —Mets501 (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maura Larkins

It's fine with me if you guys delete the Barbara Comstock page. I didn't start the page, and I chose it randomly to see if it would get deleted even if I added links and quotes showing that this person worked at the DOJ preparing DOJ statements about the Patriot Act. I'm personally glad that I learned about Barbara's existence, because I like to know about people in politics and people in power. But my experiment was simply an effort to find out if Wikipedia would decide to limit others' knowledge of her, and my experiment is producing some very interesting results. I'm a liberal myself, so obviously Barbara Comstock is no hero of mine. I'll be interested in the outcome no matter which way it goes.Mauralarkins 21:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)