User talk:Bkonrad/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] James Buchanan

Can you stop reverting the James Buchanan page until some consensus is reached on the talk page there? Thanks, NP

What I saw here was the duplication of the 2nd and 4th paragraph in the Biography section. I didn't notice that you had also removed the sexuality section. Your most recent edit only removes the sexuality section, which I have no problem with. sorry for the misunderstanding. older≠wiser 15:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Pell's Point

Thanks for the help on the Battle of Pell's Point. I like the improvements you made. --RoySmith 00:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to cats

Would you mind explaining your recent edits to pages like Tommy McAvoy and Ian McDiarmid. At first I thought it was vandalism, but on second thought it looks like you had a purpose in mind. However I can't work out what it was. AlistairMcMillan 21:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Yes, I'm also curious why you're changing the capitaliations in the categories for names like McWilliams and MacCarthy. What are we missing? Thanks --BaronLarf 23:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) Yes, I'm also curious why you're changing the capitaliations in the categories for names like McWilliams and MacCarthy. What are we missing? Thanks --BaronLarf 23:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Simple really. In wikiworld (and a lot of others) McWilliams is not the same as Mcwilliams alphabetically. Bornintheguz 23:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And yet the capitalization stays the same in the categories. Interesting. Thanks for the insight.--BaronLarf 23:28, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
But that doesn't explain you're changes categorization of MacNames to McNames. older≠wiser 03:12, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
Not entirely sure what you mean but if what I think you mean is right see my reply to AlistairMcMillan Bornintheguz 15:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dog River

Strange, the move went through so I didn't check for any inward links. Are any of the other references close to as well known as the fictional city? -- Netoholic @ 18:17, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

"Well known" as in "have an article yet". I guess I don't see the point in creating a disambig page with a bunch of red links on it, but I'll wait and see what you come up with. -- Netoholic @ 18:24, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
Actually, you know what, we should just merge Dog River, Saskatchewan into Corner Gas and be done with the whole deal. We can move Dog River back to Dog River, Saskatchewan, merge that content, then delete the Dog River redirect to leave the red links. -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

[edit] Toccoa, Georgia

Hi.

I notice that you removed the {{US-geo-stub}} I added to Toccoa, Georgia, saying 'not really a stub'.

I respectfully disagree; the article as it stands has an enormous amount of information about one thing (the demographics of Toccoa) and is otherwise very much a stub. It completely fails to tell a decent story about the place (when was it founded, what is its economy based on, famous people, all the other things expected in a decent place-related article).

I know that this very lopsided data is the result of a robot creating articles from (I assume) US Bureau of Census data, and that therefore many other US places are the same. But I don't think that makes this article any less of a stub.

What specifically drove me to add the tag was the fact I had just added a transportation section in order to record the fact Toccoa is a stop on the Crescent, and I was very concious there must be more to transportation in Toccoa. If we leave the article as it is after your change, I would expect a naive reader who doesn't know the area to assume Toccoa is inaccessible by road or air, for example.

I also notice you reinstated the population figure which is duplicated from the demographics section to the lead para. I don't have a strong objection to duplicating info, but I wonder what is gained by this duplication.

I value your comments -- Chris j wood 18:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CSD

Please make sure to check article histories for non-speediable material before speedy deleting articles! --fvw* 20:58, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Um, sure. I stand by my speedy delete. But if you want to drag it through VfD, that is up to you. older≠wiser 21:33, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] toll roads

Category:Toll roads in Ohio is a subcat of Category:Transportation in Ohio, thus Ohio Turnpike shouldn't be in the latter. Same for the Indiana Toll Road. --SPUI 14:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes I know they are also subcategories. I disagree that they cannot also be in the parent category. Personally, I think these cases are examples of unnecessary overcategorization, as both the Indiana Turnpike and Ohio Turnpike are the only toll roads in the respective states. As a user, I would expect to find them in the category "Category:Transportation in state" rather than having to drill down an additional level to a category containing only one entity. I considered placing these on categories for deletion, but decided to try and live and let live. older≠wiser 14:45, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Well, there are toll bridges in Ohio and Indiana; they just haven't been written up (or added to the categories) yet. Additionally, those categories are there so Category:Toll roads in the United States is regular. --SPUI 15:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That is well and good, I'll look forward to seeing the articles. However, both turnpikes are such major features of transportation in those states it is a little perverse to not include them at that level. older≠wiser 15:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USAPATRIOT Act

Why did you move USA PATRIOT Act[...]

See my explanation on Talk:USA PATRIOT Act#Move (and please continue the discussion there). Why did you move it back?

--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 17:55, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

I have responded to you there. older≠wiser 18:04, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Omro, Wisconsin

Sorry bout that, the city within the town thing confused me... Never seen that before...

[edit] Papua Province

As I've answered your question on the page, it was Gzornenplatz & John who insisted on the 'Indonesia' and the brackets. If you would like to propose moving it to "Papua Province", I'd be happy to vote for it.

I just object to "Papua (Indonesian province)" because it actually can be read to mean that 'Papua' is a province of Indonesia, which of course it is not. Because the Indonesian name for the government there is 'Papua Province' which makes sense.

But to be honest, foremost because the brackets are ugly & make life differcult as compared to using a comma and the states proper name. IMO.--Daeron 21:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no special interest or knowledge of Papua to propose a new name for the article, it just seemed odd that there was no article named Papua Province, yet you were suggesting Papua Province, Indonesia, which is not ordinarily done. Generally, the simplest names are preferred. I don't agree that Papua (Indonesian province) is ambiguous. It follows guidelines set out at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The parentheses indicate that more than one thing is known by the name "Papua", and the contents of the parentheses describe which one that particular article is about. As for the aesthetics, I guess that is a matter of personal opinion. Personally I really, really dislike how the comma-stacked format looks. And As I have explained elsewhere, rather than "make life difficult", parenthetical are actually much easier to work with than comma-stacked names. older≠wiser 21:39, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
That's O.K. I do have interest & knowledge of West Papua, and some knowledge of the rest of Papua; you can ask anything you like.
  • The article was West Papua when John & Wik wanted to revert it more than 3 times per day, so they started moving it; see Papua Province, Indonesia ; West_Irian ; Irian Jaya ; Indonesian New Guinea ; Papua (Indonesia) ; Irian Barat ; Postage stamps and postal history of West Irian , etc. which are now all re-direct pages.
  • They had decided that West Papua was anti-Indonesian and pro-Melanesia (black Pacific), and so are still deleting & replacing "West Papua" with anything else they can think of.
  • Truth is "Papua (Indonesian province)" is not ambigious, it specifically and expressly wrong, because it states that "Papua" is a Indonesian province. Indonesia only has a province inside of Papua which it calls 'Papua Province' - it is a fraction the size of Papua (half of Papua is also seperate nation).

--Daeron 22:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no desire to get involved in an ongoing dispute over this. Regarding your last point, I disagree and think you are misunderstanding how parenthetical disambiguation works. It does not imply that Papua is an Indonesian province. It indicates that the name "Papua" can refer to more than one thing and that the article named Papua (Indonesian province) is about the "Papua" that is an Indonesian province. You yourself have mentioned that other sources refer to it as "Papua, Province, Indonesia". That comma between Papua and Province indicates that the province is also known by the name "Papua". Surely you are not claiming that the province is always and exlusively known only as "Papua Province". It is because there is ambiguity in what the term "Papua" can refer to that disambiguation is necessary. So the parenthetical disambiguation of Papua is IMO appropriate. But as I've said, if there is nothing else known as Papua Province, that would a better name than Papua Province, Indonesia. Although it is not without its own controversy, it is analogous to Georgia (U.S. state) and Georgia (country). Two things that are known by the name "Georgia" and the parentheses indicate which is which. older≠wiser 22:58, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Detroit

Hi Bkonrad, thank you for youre edits on the Detroit temp page, it's still a work in progress but i hope to role it out shortly, if you have any other comments and are ideas i would love to know. Thank you. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 01:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just thought I'd drop by and thank you for the supportive comments re over-referencing. Always nice to get support from an editor whose work one respects. Filiocht 15:31, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hello. You recently blocked me from editing the Wikipedia because I 'shared an IP address' with Special:Contributions/Captain_Silly, a vandal. (The IP address you noted was in fact the proxy server for Durham University's network, so I guess you blocked a whole lot of other academics and students from contributing for a while, too.) Anyway, the reason I'm leaving a note is that the edit restrictions page notes that the first step for a blocked user is to email the admin who blocked him to make enquiries, and you yourself can't be emailed through Wikipedia. Can I suggest you add an email address for yourself to the system before you do any more blocking of users, particularly brute-force blocking? Thanks. --Ngb 08:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 3RR

You have been blocked for 24 hours for breaking the 3 revert rule. If you wish to apeal please contact another admin ny emailGeni 02:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I was aware of the mailing list post. I found it a good deal too critical of my actions in light of the fact that both of us were editing for the exact same very good reason - to correct a major visual problem as we saw it. I hold no ill will toward you about your reasons for making your edits. The problem I had was with your action of blindy reverting me without helping to get to the root of the issue. In this dispute, you clearly broke 3RR, and were justifiably blocked. I don't really care whether the dispute was "over" or not, because it is your tactics, not the dispute that was the violation. I posted numerous times on the talk page, and also proposed a couple variations to the table to try to resolve the issue, and you blindly reverted (leaving snide edit summaries directed at me, also a "no-no"). You broke the rule, don't go try saying I was in the wrong for reporting it. I'd expect that you'd do the exact same thing if things were reversed. I've been blocked for a 3RR violation once myself (though it wasn't as clear-cut), and it's not the end of the world. It is there to send an important message.

All that said, for me, it's over. If you want to feel negative towards me for making the report, you're free to. I would like to encourage you instead to look at this situation and decide that I am not so bad after all. In hindsight, I hope you can see why I have nothing to be ashamed of in the way I handled the situation. Give me the benefit of the doubt in the future, and you'll have it from me. No hard feelings from this end. -- Netoholic @ 05:17, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

See User talk:Bkonrad/3RR for a lengthy response.

[edit] Sig

It's quite easy, in fact: in my preferences, I made my sig {{User:Rdsmith4/Sig}} and checked the box that says "Raw signatures (without automatic link)" - this removes the default [[User:Rdsmith4| and ]] that the software otherwise tacks on the front and back of a sig. Four tildes thus produces a sig and timestamp. — Dan | Talk 22:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not at all - glad to help. — Dan | Talk 22:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please do not do this. While I'm sure you think it convenient to have an auto-updating signature, it is an avoidable drain on the server and database resources. First of all, the database must maintain a list of linked pages wherever you have signed (see here & here). That will grow very fast over time. Second, whenever you do update your sig, the webservers have to process all those pages and links again, because the caches are out of date. Thirdly, your signature page is also a vandalism target. Please stick with a simple, static text signature. -- Netoholic @ 15:36, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Having found a lack of information about signature guidelines and policies, I've centralized most of what I've found at the existing Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages in the "Things to avoid" section. It should really be apparent why using a transcluded signature is bad form, since there is an avoidable system impact when using them. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Just a quick "thank you" for voting me for admin. Now all I've got to do is find out how to use these worrying new powers... Grutness|hello? 06:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

"Edit summaries are not the place to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. Doing this will actually exacerbate the situation, because it naturally encourages the other party to respond in the same manner - in other words, by making an edit and using the edit summary - and what might have been productive dialogue instead becomes an edit war. The proper place to discuss changes to article content is on the talk page."

In other words, describe your change in edit summaries, but do not engage in dialogue. -- Netoholic @ 18:21, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

[edit] Western Reserve

Hi,

Thanks for your interest in the Western Reserve article. You seem to know what you're talking about, but lots of other sources say the Reserve wasn't included in the Northwest Territory until 1800 -- for example, this page of the Ohio Historical Society. Mwalcoff 20:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your reversion to "professor"

Hi,

I wrote that section because when I visited a college as a high school student they mentioned that one particular professor was a full professor at age (IIRC) 40 or 42. Perhaps that's the point that is early enough to be unusual? I really have little formal knowledge. Pakaran 14:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I'd say that is about normal. What is perhaps rather more unusual (but still not that uncommon) is to become full professor very much before age 40. older≠wiser 15:30, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)