User talk:Jllm06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Jllm06, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  clearthought 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Awards

[edit] Original Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your valuable contributions to the articles Nature Center and List of nature centers in the United States, naming so many nature centers from around the world. Sebwite (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working Man’s Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Great work & BZ in breaking out the Arboreta category into separate state lists. That was HUGE! FieldMarine (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Westport Woman's Club

A tag has been placed on Westport Woman's Club, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No evidence of notability; notability template was placed on article in November 2007, and there has been no effort to provide contrary evidence.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Orlady (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birdcraft Sanctuary

Hi Jllm06, Glad to have your help in editing the Birdcraft Sanctuary article, which I seeing now should be named Connecticut Audobon Society Birdcraft Sanctuary instead. I appreciate that you linked the article to the current webpage for the sanctuary, and that by your edits you indicated a name change is appropriate. You applied name change edits to the NRHP/NHL infobox and in the link to the article from the List of National Historic Landmarks in Connecticut. However, to let you know, I think the name change should be applied to the overall article, which can be named after the current, common name for the site. But the name in the NRHP/NHL infobox for the article should be reverted to "Birdcraft Sanctuary", to reflect the actual, historic name on record in the NRHP/NHL system, and the List of NHLs also should use the official, historic NHL name for the site. That is consistent with practice in the NRHP/NHL infoboxes and NHL lists for other sites that have changed names over time. So, your edits will have effect, but I will switch where they appear. Check back with the article later, to see. Hope you agree with these changes, and that you will contribute more on NHL articles and/or on this one article. Cheers, doncram (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC) . P.S. Can you possibly obtain a picture or pictures for this site, by the way?

Got your response. It would indeed be super if you could add pics for the renamed article. If you do, please go ahead and insert one into the List of National Historic Landmarks in Connecticut, too. I specialize in historic sites, so u and i won't intersect that often. But, i notice 3 other museums in CT that are NRHPs. If u work on one of these, let me know so I can help. The 3 are: Florence Griswold House and Museum in Old Lyme, Connecticut; Peoples Forest Museum in Barkhamsted, Connecticut; and Barnum Museum in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Hmm, i see the 3rd of those 3 already exists as an article, and i can contribute my stuff to it already, okay so i am putting it on my list. Keep up the good work... :) doncram (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Great photos, thanks for adding them! I got your question on what is required in terms of referencing for articles about museums. In general, it would be just what is required for any other article. The trend in wikipedia has been to use "in-line citations" (footnotes) more and more, and particularly to document potentially controversial statements. Pls. do see WP:REF and WP:V, segment of Wikipedia's style guidelines. You seem to ask in particular because you have first-hand knowledge of these museums. Well, you are up against the "No Original Research" dictum (see WP:NOR), a corollary to the verifiability requirement. The upshot is that you only write stuff that is supported by reliable sources that others might conceivably check, and you really should not introduce your own firsthand observations.
Consider the text that I put a fact-check on: "The natural history museum contains mounted preserved animals displayed in dioramas depicting Connecticut's wildlife as it existed at the end of the 20th century, as well as the Frederick T. Bedford Collection of African Animals." It is a very specific assertion that there is a "Frederick T. Bedfore Collection", which is not a general term (I assume it is the only one in the world), and I do not see that term appearing in the CTAUD reference. Although it is not really controversial, I don't see it supported anywhere, and I think it is so particular that I don't think it is proper without support.
Now, since you have actually added pictures of dioramas, I guess it is kind of established that there are dioramas. But the limits of the range they cover, i.e. that they cover at the end of the 20th century but not in mid-20th century and that there are no post 2000 dioramas, is rather specific and not really supportable by selected photos, unless there is an assertion that the photo set is an exhaustive documentation of the dioramas. This is coming across to me as promotion by you of the museum. Indeed I do expect that it is your intention to promote this museum, and perhaps museum-going in general, which is fine, but for the wikipedia articles you need to limit yourself to stating what is verifiable WP:V
I assume that these assertions are true, I mean I believe you personally, but it seems to me that you should get the museum to change its webpage to make these assertions, not put them into wikipedia ahead of the museum. Or perhaps you could even write up your own observations of the museum, as in a "visitor's review" and get that "published" by getting it posted on the museum's webpage. If those assertions are in a museum webpage, I personally would consider the webpage to be reliable as a source, and then they could be stated in wikipedia. (But then they should be stated different words, or, if in the same words, in quotes.) If the assertions are in some kind of "visitor's review" authored by you, then perhaps that review could be quoted from, showing you as the author, even though it would be an informal source. (It could be verified however, that a quote from the review indeed appeared in the review, without assessing the accuracy of the assertions in the review.)
Please, also, it is better to WP:Be Bold. Please do not be unduly inhibited by my putting one "factcheck" on something that I thought should be supported. Note also I am not all that informed, I still feel like a relative beginner around here, and others may have different views. I hope these comments are helpful. doncram (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Florence Griswold Museum

Just to butt in -- there is a Florence Griswold House article AND a Florence Griswold Museum article. There is some overlap in the subjects, and I suppose they could be combined, although if enough information were added, there might be enough for two articles. Personally, I'm undecided. Articles can always be merged, and then if they get too big, they can be separated again (but I'm not sure and my interest in it is limited). Noroton (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake. They've already been combined. The Florence Griswold Museum article is a redirect page. And I see you've been there. Nover mind. Noroton (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of museums

I see you have done great work improving the List of museums in Connecticut. As you may be aware, this article was recently separated from List of museums in the United States. You are encouraged to participate in discussion at Talk:List of museums in the United States regarding formatting of the separated pages. Topics including standardized formatting for state pages are being discussed, etc. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

After getting the same message from FieldMarine, I started participating in that discussion too, and I'd also welcome your input there, whatever opinions you have. In discussions there, I found out that there's a sortable table feature on Wikipedia that allows users with one click to organize a table by particular column, so that by clicking on "Location" you could immediately reorganize the table in order by town (either alphabetically or in the reverse). I had no idea this function existed when I created the other two lists on List of museums in Connecticut and with this function, those two extra lists would be obsolete. We could also have one table instead of eight different county tables if we can get "County" as one of the columns. If the editors in that discussion want to enforce a uniform standard on all state museum lists, then it's not worth changing the format on Connecticut lists until that uniform standard is set, so I'll wait. Please take a look at that discussion page that FieldMarine mentions and stick your two cents in. And thanks for your work on the Connecticut list page. Noroton (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Museums by type

Hi -- I reversed a category edit you made to Category:Museums by type, adding it to Category:Lists of museums. "Lists of X" categories are used for collections of lists -- articles that are lists -- not just parent categories. See WP:CLS for more explanation of differences between categories and lists, and feel free to drop by my talk page if any questions. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Nature centers" categories

I note you have just created Category: Nature centers in England, and in Scotland, etc. First, if these categories deserve to exist, those in the United Kingdom should be spelt "centres" not "centers". But, note also that we already have Category:Nature reserves in the United Kingdom and lots of subcategories, including Category:Nature reserves in England, so I'm not sure if we really need a new category anyway. --Dr Greg (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be nonexistent:

Edit summary usage for Jllm06: 0% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 5 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organizing related categories into logical hierarchy

When you get a chance, take a look at Category talk:Gardens for a discussion on organizing categories related to this subject. If you know anyone else interested in this subject, have them take a look at the discussion. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bryce Canyon National Park

You reverted without answering the posted question. Why remove the US category so it is not listed in the full USA NP list? -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zion National Park

Same question as for Bryce. You keep removing them from the USA full NP list and listing them only in their State. Why? Please do not remove anymore until you explain your actions. If you disagree, please feel free to discuss it in the article's Talk page instead of creating potentially conflicting edits. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 02:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good effort you are doing. Seems to me that is is still important to keep the already existing national listing in Category:National parks of the United States. I don't see why you have to remove them from it. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 02:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The goal should be to have a complete list in both the National and State levels. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 02:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: a comment of yours at Talk:List of museums in the United States

In the first comment on this diff you talk about "potentially long lists" which leads me to think I didn't communicate clearly enough what I meant by the Boldt-Blofeld boxes (BBB). The BBB refers to the box with links to each of the state lists. One is at the top of List of museums in the United States and another type is at the bottom of List of museums in Connecticut, which doesn't have the states in columns. This is different from the tables with museums. Unless we add new states to the Union, the boxes I'm talking about can't get any longer. Or have I misinterpreted your comment? Noroton (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Little context in Nature centers in Alaska

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Nature centers in Alaska, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Nature centers in Alaska is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Nature centers in Alaska, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Museum discussions

I've asked Ben Boldt to comment on the discussion at Talk:List of museums in the United States when he gets back. After he's commented (or if he still hasn't been back to Wikipedia after a few more days), I think it's time to wrap up the discussions and decide that we have a consensus on what the lists should look like to start out with. I've begun adding lots of museums from the online list FieldMarine had linked to, starting with List of museums in Rhode Island and List of museums in Maine. Sound good? Noroton (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Connecticut musuems

I'll check it out. Thanks! I think I want to visit some of them now. I've heard a lot of good things about some of the smaller art museums, including Florence Griswold, Hillstead and the one in New Britain. Thanks for your edit on one of the museums I added (the one in Somers). I've got this long list of historical societies in Connecticut that I'm going through (I created a page in my user space: User:Noroton/drafts2 if you want to see it). As I confirm that they've actually got museums, I'm going to slowly add them to the list (unless you do first!). I stuck a ton of items in the Massachusetts list and now I wonder if I did the right thing, because it's incredibly bulky now and there may be a number of items there that don't belong. I'm slowly adding features to the various state lists, and I've noticed some great work you've done on them.

Do you think we should remove the pictures on the Connecticut list from the sortable table and to the right margin? It doesn't really matter to me.

You've really done some great work here. If you're interested, please check out my posts to FieldMarine on his talk page (and on mine). I asked him about some details of what to put on each state museum list talk page. I asked him because he had typed something up on the Alabama talk page. It seemed a little too detailed to bother discussing on the U.S. list talk page, but if you're interested, feel free to look over the comments and put in your two cents worth. Noroton (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I see what you mean! this list! Noroton (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ... and Idaho Museums -- a suggestion

Hi Jm,

I see you've done some great work adding to the Idaho list. I'd like you to consider a tweak to it. You put in the counties rather than my favorite, regions, and I'm fine with that, but in this state in particular you might want to consider whether it would be better to use regions. Someone has created Idaho-region articles which have precise boundaries, based on the Idaho tourist authority map, which that editor has also recreated (see Category:Regions in Idaho.

Not only could we list regions, but we could link to the article on those Idaho regions the same way we do to county articles. The reason I prefer regions over counties is that there are so many of them in Idaho that I have doubts most readers would recognize where the counties are, even readers from Idaho. People can always click on the county link to find the location, but if you're going down the list constantly following links, you could get confused. If a reader sorts the list by region, the reader might still have to click to find out more about the locations, but I think it's less confusing. Ideally, the best place to find out what musuems are located in a particular county would be the county page.

This isn't something I feel strongly about -- it just really intrigues me, and it seems to me that a lot depends on the individual state. For List of museums in Hawaii, I inserted an "Island" category rather than region, because that seemed to make most sense, and I changed List of museums in Delaware from region to county because it only has three counties and it's such a small state.

If you agree with me on Idaho, I'd be happy to do the work. Again, thanks for your great work, including correcting some of my edits at the Connecticut list. Noroton (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer having the photos. Instead of removing them, I've put them elsewhere on the page, simply because it was the consensus to take them out of the tables. I figure that since I'm making all these changes, I'd better follow consensus overall, which (I hope) will keep more people happy and avoid conflict. But consensus also said that people heavily editing individual states could pretty much do what they wanted. I'm fine with them where they are in Connecticut. At List of museums in Colorado, one page where I moved them, I think the page looks marginally better (mostly because there's a larger picture up top). Noroton (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About that List of museums in Connecticut, and a request

About that list of museums in Connecticut: I am in awe. Tremendous job. Thank you.

I recently created List of science museums in the United States and, more as an experiment than anything else, I created three different columns on the subject of "type". The idea was to try to better capture the subjects covered in the museum in a way that would allow someone to search for those that might have a secondary focus on something. But I have a lot of doubts that it can work well, and it may just be confusing. If you're interested, please take a look and tell me what you think on the talk page there. Noroton (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] protected areas

I waited a day to see if anyone else had comments about Protected areas at the state level. None so far. I am not sure how anyone can figure out how readers use categories to find specific items of interest; WP does not do any kind of tracking analysis or reader surveys. Categories are good for grouping things together and categories exist everywhere in WP. Hopefully, 'protected areas' is a common enough term to entice readers to look into if they are working their way through category trees, as opposed to search requests which often show more articles, than categories. Some editors have said categories are mostly for editors while readers mostly use search requests. I have no idea. Hmains (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You're on a roll

with museums in New York. Thanks so much. More red links for me to have fun with -- and I love it ;) TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it -- makes me branch out from the ones I know intimately. I've fixed up some of the red links -- may need to sort out moves to get the page names to match proper names but that can wait a bit. I know Asia Society is the first one that comes to mind. When I saw it red linked on 'your' list I was confused because I thought I'd fixed it it, then remembered I did.. on the NYC list :) TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've had red link fun today, three fewer ;) I like your project TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
ETA and will do re: borough categories. When I first was on a kick with creating the city articles it hadn't been determined whether those sub-cats were going to be kept so I didn't want to do what was only going to be undone. Will do the boroughs going forward TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, completely forgot about that cat. It's going to be a massive list and my personal quest is to make all red-lists blue. I'm hoping to use your listing as a basis for eventually fixing the disaster that is List of museums and cultural institutions in New York City TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bevier House Museum

Hi! Just a note, I undid what I think you tagged here as an error. The museum is in Kingston, ~120 miles north of New York City. I'm guessing it was a c/p paste issue when you were cleaning up the other NYC articles. Otherwise please let me know if there's something I missed TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiCookie

Just stopping by with cookies for those editors who started new articles today.
Just stopping by with cookies for those editors who started new articles today.

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It just spreads good cheer. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Museum list formatting

I, on the other hand, find it extremely difficult to edit or add anything to the articles you've gone through because they're so scrunched up it's difficult to distinguish characters, especially when I'm trying to go down a column. As descriptions eventually get added to more items, that problem is only going to increase with the lists you've edited. Over time, more work will be done on these pages than anything you or I do, and it's easier for future editors to edit the pages the way I leave them than the way you leave them -- they can find what they're looking for easier, they can figure out the pattern so that they can add to the list easier and it's easier for them to see if they've made a mistake, even before hitting the "Show preview" button. Orlady had mentioned in an early discussion on the List of museums in the United States page that the more vertical / fewer strokes way that I afterward adopted was more approachable for other editors, which is why I adopted it. Your way discourages other editors from adding to the list. I don't know why you find it easier, but I'll accept that you do.

Do you expect to go through all or nearly all the state lists? If so, I'll refrain from going through the ones you haven't done and convert the lists later (even though it's more work). I don't want to make it more difficult for you. In turn, can you at least put single spaces between the "||" marks and whatever you type between them? That would help. Noroton (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what you're doing is more important than what I'm doing, so if it's difficult even to add the spaces, don't bother, I can do that later. My computer screen is actually a wide screen now, although I normally don't make the window extend over the whole thing, so it's probably pretty normal. If you find it easier, feel free to even convert back a list to your preferred style, and I can go over it later. I think it's going to be easier if I follow you. I expect to be doing the Oregon list (I'm asking for a consensus at WikiProject Oregon now and it looks like I'll get it), but other than that one, I won't be adding to the lists until after you do. I'm more interested in working on Region and Type columns. You can, by the way, mix up the styles, so if you find it convenient you can simply add items the way you've been doing it to a short list and not have to convert it back to your style (I dunno if doing it that way would be frustrating or not, but it's doable). I still think you've been doing great work. When every state has a long list, I expect to go through them and create lists by topic, such as (perhaps), List of mining museums in the United States, or List of contemporary art museums in the United States, or List of toy museums in the United States. Have you ever thought about doing similar Canadian province or Australian state lists? Noroton (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] categories....

one of these days I'll add all the ones I'm suppposed to. In the mean time, don't hit me ;)

The Categorisation Barnstar
thanks for all your help with the museums TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 17:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


I don't know if it's a complete list, but I find them at Wikipedia:Barnstars. I don't like the standard ones, prefer instead to find ones more suitable to t he particular task(s). I'm guessing Museums... is a sub-set of visitor attractions because many things are visitor attractions, not all of which are museums. I don't know necessarily that we need both for all areas. Would people be more or less likely to search for one or the other category? There was recently a discussion (I'll find the link if I can) about over categorization as it related to children's museums, don't know if that's likely to be an issue here. I'm eager to use the NY list to fix the NYC museums and cultural institutions, which is currently a mess. Want to raise this at the Museums discussion page for more input? I'll put this on your talk page in case you're not watching this. Thanks again! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


Northern Neck Thanks for the links to museums in the Northern Neck article. It looks really good and is a vast improvement. That must have taken awhile.16:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

  1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
  2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnWtalk 07:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of museums in Michigan

Yes, go ahead. Thanks. I am in favor of your idea of using the sortable table for the List of museums in Michigan as your List of museums in Connecticut. The only suggestion I would make is to sort museums using List of regions of the United States by state instead of counties if you prefer, the regions have several counties together and it might make it more simplified. A column for city and region would probably suffice. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hoffmaster State Park

Jllm06: You removed the notes, and now the reference doesn't display. This does not make much sense. It would have made more sense ot make the article longer with more exposition, which would have cured your concern that the 'article is too short.' This was, in my opinion, a poorer choice than the alternatives. Think about it. Aren't we supposed to have references that the readers can see? 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Stan

I agree with you about the contents box on an article that is that painfully short. Maybe we can make this article more informative. It'll have to wait, though, as I've got other fish to fry right now. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Stan