User talk:Markvs88/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive for User talk:Markvs88 from 25 August 2011 to 25 August 2012.

No problem

Although I know wonder if the claim on the Danbury Fair Mall page is accurate in it being the biggest in CT. I think with recent renovations/additions, the CT Post mall exceeds it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.232.89 (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's possible, but we have to rely on references. Also, the net gain of space is probably less than we'd think: consider that the new theatre is about the same size as the old Fourplex (though it's better laid out of course), and the old supermarket/Caldor space. Hopefully there'll be another study in the near future. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Peggy Adler

I really don't think you should just revert like that with no edit summary and marking it minor, did you use rollback? I think you should have explained your edit and not marked it as minor because normally that suggests you are reverting vandalism. I'd really appreciate it if you'd post either to the article's talk page or the editor's talk page explaining your revert, her edits all had edit summaries. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dougweller. Yes, I used rollback, as I considered those edits vandalism. Her edits on this page are often onerous and reek of ownership. IMO, she should be banned (even though I worked on the article and voted to keep the article as she IMO passed notability) as this is turning into an autobiography. Since Ms. Adler apparently doesn't/hasn't read any of the various pages I've pointed her to, I feel no obligation to make her feel nice-and-comfy since she doesn't seem to care about learning how to edit Wikipedia. I know I'm being a little blunt here, but I hope you apprecite the honesty. However, you are right, I could have left a entry on the talk page, but user:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah beat me to it so I scrapped mine. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Doug, the edits I made were not vandalism. The content of the article was never changed. All that the edits did was: 1) to correct errors (i.e. one book had two separate reference points to the LOC. I corrected it to one; another had two reference points to two different book titles at one book title. I merely entered the second book title so that the reference point matched the entry); and 2) The reference section now has all of the references clearly defined in blue text and the extraneous material that was in black text and should never have been visible, now no longer is. The reference section has a cleaner, more descriptive and professional look this way without changing any of the links. In fact, I'd be willing to 'streamline' reference points in other articles for appearance and accuracy if you folks will allow me. Other than these particular items, the article remains the same. And I gave an explanation for each and every edit I made. I'm trying to stay within the multitude of Wikipedia guidlelines. What I do not understand, though, is if this is an excyclopedia, why would anyone connected with it tolerate editorial mistakes and an unprofessional appearance? Wouldn't everyone want this to be the best product possible? I've got a lot to learn here. But can't everyone else learn something new, as well? Best Wishes, Bxzooo 15:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

Peggy, that you're calling me Doug and still can't sign your comments reinforces my belief that you really don't know what you're doing on Wikipedia. That's not meant to be offensive, but it is the way that I see things. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Markvs88

Markvs88, I was not calling you Doug. I was following your lead. You wrote to Doug Weller here -- immediately above my post and so I wrote to him, here, as well. I felt it would create continuity in the talk/dialogue. Sorry you don't see it that way. Bxzooo 17:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

So... instead of continuing the same thread, you start a new section and assume that I would know that you're writing to Doug on my talk page? Wow. Just... wow. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Markvs88, Sorry for starting a new section before. I'm still learning. Constructive criticism is much more useful than barbs. I believe I can learn from all of you . And that all of you can also learn from me. So let's try to keep this civil and we & Wikipedia will be all the better in the end. Bxzooo 19:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)(talk)

Orphaned non-free image File:StratfordCT High Logo.JPG

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)\

Removing my Trivia section

Hi! Tell me two things: what is MOS, and why you have deleted my Trivia section from Colonial Vipers Article. I know, I haven't give any citation about presence of Vipers in game "Epic", but in game it's no information about this. But, If you look on this intro:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtOWXHqf5vY&feature=related

And this gameplay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5-9xZSpzJs (especially in 3:00)

you will see, I have right!

Regards! OSH8019 (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello OSH8019,

I removed the section for these reasons:

1. Trivia sections should be avoided per the MOS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections). You could make a section called "In popular culture" or something, but it would require citations.
2. On Wikipedia, anything lacking citations can be deleted at any time.
3. When I reverted it, your addition lacked citations.
4. BTW, you cannot cite Youtube because it is a self publishing site per WP:SELFPUB.

I'm happy to discuss this matter with you, and any further questions you have. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How I can add this section also? I can't find any citations, because they doesn't exist. On this clips it's visible, these starfighters are Vipers. And other crafts comes from Battlestar Galactica too. I want add this information, because I think, it's worth to tell others about it. Regards! OSH8019 (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you for a fact that McDonald's "special sauce" is French salad dressing. It's fact. But it's uncitable. That's the situation you're in now: unless you can find a source, it's going to be removed... and that's true even if I leave it in. Other editors will do the same thing. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

99.20.222.41

actually user: 85.99.71.46 is not me, even though i am planning to add to Branford's climate..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.222.41 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. Right now the similarities are striking. But if you cite your information I have no complaints. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

they where test edits you, i clearly reverted them when i was dumb,btw who are u to keep judging my edits? looks like your the one who has nothing better to do on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazb665 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not supposed to test edit at all, that's what wp:sandbox is for. Who am I? Among other things, I patrol for wp:vandalism. It actually takes very little time. Looks like you're someone who needs to have multiple accounts to vandalize wikipedia in a not very effective fashion? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

i forgot the password to my first account....simple as that and my edits are constructive if u just read the links. is it that hard to just read the links??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazb665 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes. Because recovering the password is so difficult.

And instead of talking over why your edits aren't useful, you go edit warring. That makes perfect sense too... say, shouldn't you learn the rules before you decide to go breaking them? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

breaking what rules?? what are you talking about??? please make more sense when you type — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.222.41 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So, are you bothering to click the links I'm putting up here? Probably not. You don't even know how to sign your name, and you're a wp:sockpuppet. Enjoy your block! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

New Haven climate

Listen, You can't win. You can't beat me. That’s why I'll always be a winner and you'll always be a loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.222.41 (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to "beat" you. You keep beating yourself. Also, I have no idea what you mean by "winning"... do you have so little to do in life that you think that what you're doing makes the least bit difference? You get blocked, articles get locked... and your posts are reverted. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

hey look who's talking, you do as much reverting as i do so yeah and by that i mean i will make sure i always have the last edit because no one but you has a problem with my edits.....that are referenced.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.222.41 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep taking it personally if you like, that's not my concern. You'll get blocked, articles get locked... and your posts are reverted again. BTW, not just anything can be considered a valid reference, and some travel site that doesn't even have an author clearly doesn't pass being a reliable source on climate. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Danbury Fair (shopping mall)‎

This is in response to your comment on my talk page on from 20:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC): Hello, Newzack. I've reverted your edits on this page because they were uncited and because they were a little "bloggy". Terms like "this is no longer true" aren't good to add to an encyclopedia, since there's no point of reference as to when you're talking about. I'm happy to discuss this further if you wish. Best, Markvs88

Hello, Markvs88! Firstly, I couldn't figure out how to respond to your post on my "talk" page, so I'm posting it here. Should I just click "[edit]" on the entry and edit what you wrote?

Secondly, it's quite nice to know that there is oversight on Wikipedia. I've edited a few articles, added to some, etc. Mostly minor things. And you're quite correct, my change to the Danbury page is a bit un-0cited and un-encyclopedic. And the only way I can explain why is just that I was in a rush and couldn't quickly find a website that backs up my data.

The main point of contention here is http://www.seenewengland.com/see_connecticut.html which states, "Danbury Fair Mall, is the largest mall in New England". I can cite wikipedia itself to prove this to be false. According to the respective wikipedia pages Danbury Fair is "1,292,578 square feet" and Westfield Connecticut Post is "1,334,000 square feet". Also, there's Holyoke Mall at "1,600,000 sq ft" in Massachusetts, which is a much larger mall also in New England.

So how about this:

As of 2011, Danbury Fair is one of the largest shopping malls in Connecticut as well as the fifth largest in New England. It is located off of Interstate 84 and U.S. Route 7 in the city of Danbury opposite the Danbury Municipal Airport.

I just changed it, I'm sure you noticed, with a few other minor updates.

-Zack

Hello, Newzack!

Yes, to reply to any message, just click "Edit" (either the tab on top of the page and scroll to where you want to go, or the edit link just above the section's line), put a colon on the next line, and start typing, of course finishing with four tildas.

IE: ''':This is a test reply. ~~~~''':As for your other queries, here are a few things to bear in mind:

1. There is some oversight, yes. Mostly it comes from a few determined editors of various dispositions and the members of various Wikiprojects. I work on WikiProject Connecticut, so this article happens to be one I "watch". Feel free to join sometime if you're so inclined.
2. In general, it's not the best practice to replace a third party source with a first party source (even if it is newer), as you did with the Danbury Fair article. This is because the site is self published, and so less reliable. You may want to look over this article on verifiabilty.
3. It is not possible to cite Wikipedia for anything, as Wikipedia is an unreliable source. Yes, I know that seems contradictory, but that's the rule.
4. The trouble with Holyoke Mall at Ingleside is two fold: a) The source citing its size is itself [1] and b) Per the original research rule we're not allowed to compare wikipages and decide on what's right! So we need a neutral citation for what is the largest mall in CT and/or New England...
5. No worries re: the edit, everyone is shaky in the beginning. I know that more than a few of my first edits were undone!
6. As for the best source, we do have the 2010 mall survey on the Westfarms Mall page (citation #1). I've been meaning to propogate it as a citation on the various mall pages, but (as usual) I got sidetracked. Check it out if you like.

PS: I highly recommend writing your replies in a word processor and then pasting them. More than once I've lost a longish reply because someone else came along and there was an edit conflict! Nice meeting you, Markvs88 (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well thank you, Markvs88! I appreciate the indoctrination. I've adjusted the citations for Danbury Fair Mall. I've been to these malls and so know these facts myself, but I realize the need to have cited references of some kind, of course! Again, thank you for your help. I'm sure we'll speak again about something else in the future!Newzack (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to drop a line anytime. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

received your note regarding everard mott williams

Professor and Dean at Carnegie Mellon. In reference to your question of the three articles listed below and to whether they refer to Dr. williams. The three articles I put into the wikipedia article come from Actual (original) clippings kept by Mrs. Everard Mott Williams about her late husband.

Pittsburgh Press January 27, 1938 East Presbyterian Church Week, January 17, 1958, Vol 11, No. 17 New York Times, June 22, 196

All Related to Dr. Williams and his accomplishments to science, humanity and the world. Thanks for reading and remembering a great man, although it looks like it may have been you who deleted his picture??

regards.

Doug Camp Grandson of Everard Mott Williams

61.170.145.28 (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Doug and thanks for the note! However, the actual reasons I reverted your edits are:

1. You were changing some dates from an acceptable date standard (i.ei: "January 17, 1958") to an unacceptable one ("1/17/1958") per wp:date (please see the 3rd point under the correct/incorrect table).
2. The image you're linking to does not exist, as it was deleted on 26 May 2010 by another editor for lack of attribution. You can see the trail here: [2]. If you look above to the "Meek, SoldierSocks, Santa, Start Now! pictures" section above on my talk page, you can see the possible fixes for this that I gave another editor with a similar issue.
3. You're were also removing {{reflist}}, which is a tag allowing for wp:inline citations and should never be removed from an article. The sources should really be entered as inline citations so it's clear how they are being referred to.

Note: there's really no way to prove or disprove your being a grandson of Mr. Williams or not, so its actually not relevant to this end. Even people with their "own" articles aren't given much leeway in that respect.

If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask anytime. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Vince Mendoza

I see that you are reverting the Vince Mendoza entry back to older versions, citing that content is posted on other sites. This is not true. I represent Vince and we are trying to update his page, as it has older information. This content is neutral, biographical information from Vince directly. Could you kindly work with me on this so that we can update this page accordingly? Thank you, Jordy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordyfreed (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jordy, actually, I am reverting the page to the 1 September version, which is the last "good" one. Please read the policy: wp:copy-paste. You cannot copy and paste off of the Internet, period. When I can choose random added sentences from an addition that triples the size of the article and they come up verbatim on the Internet, that's wp:plagarism. Of course I am happy to work with you to improve the article.

Note, this isn't the first time this has happened with this article: (See User talk:Mdemartin if you're interested), so I am happy you took the time to write!

Here are the problems with the edits as I see them:

1. All of the content I checked was copied verbatim from other sources. This has to be rememdied, and that means a re-write, not just dropping or changing a few words here-and-there.
2. Per wp:mos, there is over-wikification. For example, jazz is wikified six times when only the first one should be. Others like Joni Mitchell, classical etc.
3. Phrases like "His skill for creating classic, sophisticated string arrangements also led to his orchestral score on the multi-million selling album" are also problematic, as they are promotional in nature. A more neutral wording would be "His string arrangements also led to his orchestral score on the multi-million selling album". In short, there are some wp:peacock terms in the new additions.
4. Citations 3&4 are valueless per wp:verifiabilty as they're not checkable.
5. The article lacks Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources and especially needs Wikipedia:Third-party sources.

Please feel free to ask me for any questions you may have! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You're really helpful

I would have appreciated at least a response from my previous inquiry.

Thanks for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.48.2 (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, as I replied to you above on this page! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Meek, SoldierSocks, Santa, Start Now! pictures

Hi Markvs88 I appreciate you offer to help. I tried leaving a message on my talk page as directed but perhaps I did not do it correctly. I have been authorized by the co-founders of Soldier Socks and Santa as well as START Now! to post their respective images. Additionally, I have been authorized to release this photo by Chris Meek into the public domain. Please advise on how I can resolve this issue. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and still learning and appreciate your help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctchange2012 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ctchange2012. Sure, no problem at all!

First, let's discuss what it takes to make an image Public Domain. In your case (because these are organizational/living-person related images), there are basically two ways to go about it:

• A) Find an image that is already free for use (in this case I'd think unlikely?), or you can specifically state on the Meeks (or whatever the URL is) website that this picture is free for use, and then note it into the upload when you add the picture, (example: [[3]]). Note that this would of course require the services of the webmaster/web site owner. This is the "the work of someone else, who has given permission to release it under a free license" option when uploading.
  OR
• B) Take a different picture (NOT a picture of a picture!) with a camera and posting it yourself (example: [[4]]). This is the "entirely my own work" option when uploading.

Note that in example A), this particular image example is old enough to automatically be P.D. whereas in example B), I've personally released it to P.D. IMO, if you upload the same picture(s) again they'll almost certainly be taken off again, unless they have new attribution.

My BEST guess is that it would probably be easiest to do option B) for Meeks, as it takes less than a minute to get a new photo and this way you'll know that THAT is the P.D. image if other sites copy it off of Wikipedia once it is in the Public Domain. As for the other projects, you'll have to find out first if they are copyrighted or not.

I also highly suggest giving Wikipedia:Public domain a good once-over if you choose to use option A) for Meeks and/or are going to work on the other images.

Hope this helps, and feel free to ask if you have more questions. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Markvs88--I know it has been some time since we have talked but I now have permission on all four of these images. I went ahead and re-uploaded them with what i think to be the necessary permissions. Have I not put them in the right place? Is there something else I need to do in an effort to ensure they are not removed again? Thank you in advance for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctchange2012 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, Ctchange2012. Your entry on the Comment section of [5] isn't sufficient, as it's just words on a page. Watch this: "I am Chris Meek and I say that Ctchange2012 is lying and I never gave any permission to distribute this image". -- See how easy that was? Is it true? Who knows... and that's why it will likely be deleted again. Please re-read my post from 15:23, 30 August 2011 above, it should answer all of your questions. If it does not, please ask me any further questions here. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hooker

Why would you revert to the "political" version of the Thomas Hooker page? If you notice, the citations for the "political" Hooker are very old, and some are long-discredited (such as Walker's "TH: Founder, Preacher, Democrat"). I suggest that, rather than use the Hooker page to debate the historiography, it is better to keep to the established history -- Hooker's religious role and influence -- and not perpetuate old tales that have no foundation other than being repeated over and over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.44.41 (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello 76.214.44.41. Very simply, because you removed a little over 15% of an article, including the deletion of cited points with no discussion. Then you also changed the Connecticut Colony and History of the Connecticut Constitution articles to distance/remove Hooker from them. Needless to say, I'm rather sceptical about those edits. You obviously have used WP before, yet this IP account you made the changes under has no other edits on it. You sound like someone whom has some expertise on the subject, but you should read up on wp:verifiability not truth... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hooker - A Reply

I appreciate your response. For me, it seemed odd that Hooker -- a leading theologian and preacher -- would be so tightly bound to political development. Users of Wikipedia would suspect, on the basis of what has been written here, that Hooker was Connecticut's political leader -- everywhere you read about Connecticut government, Hooker is mentioned. My thinking was, in the absence of any good authority for this view, then it ought not to be sanctioned. That is, I do not seek to add anything "unverifiable" to Wikipedia. Rather, I am simply pointing out that, just because the same "story" has been told repeatedly in "verifiable" sources, does not make it so -- not one of the "verifiable" sources, by the way, is based on original research; they all simply repeat a story that started in the 1860s. (On that point, ever wonder why no one in Hooker's lifetime or for 200 years after considered him a political figure or the source of authority for the ideas of Connecticut's government? In other words, how can I prove a negative: that the mere fact that one person, in the 1860s, started calling Hooker the founder of a political Connecticut, should not be the basis for Wikipedia's "verified" version of Connecticut history?) I do respect your position in enforcing the Wikipedia rules, but it dissappoints me that a fictionalized version of history is being peddled -- again, and to reiterate, all because of a history that was created in the 1860s. I had hoped that Wikipedia would aspire to more than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.44.41 (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello 76.214.44.41, and thanks for your reply.

Yes, I agree that it is likely that the claims regarding the influence of Hooker in early Connecticut may not be entirely accurate. However, we must also consider that state and religion were not nearly as seperated then as they are today (as shown in the opening of the Fundamental Orders). That said, no one would be opposed to your adding content to the contrary regarding Hooker, if it is validly cited. But as you say, it is very hard to prove a negative.

So, how to deal with this issue? As with so many other issues on WP... it's not what's necessarily true, it's what can be verified. If you can find any documentation to support your point, it would go a long way towards Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which would likely get to some of the changes you aspire to. However, it is very unlikely that as a matter of scholarship that it would overturn it entirely since it's basically been accepted as history by the State and so many people, they way they accept the Wright Brothers as having invented the airplane. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, why did you alter, dramatically, the Lime Rock Park entry?

Dear "Markvs88,"

I want to be civil and polite, so I'll start off by asking you why you [dramatically] changed the entry for Lime Rock Park.

a) I spent a lot of time and did a lot of research -- including the fact that I've been working for and with Lime Rock Park since 1989 -- before I entered my information.

b) I guess I'm asking, what credentials do you have to make those changes?

c) Everything I entered is factual, and much of it sourced directly from those involved in both the original construction as well as the 2008 work.

d) For much of the historic references, I sourced from Rich Taylor's book -- Taylor, by the way, whom I know and am in contact with -- which was vetted extremely closely before it was published.

Please explain.

Thanks,

Rick Roso RosoAtLimeRock (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)RosoAtLimeRock rick@limerock.com rjroso@lierock.com

Hello Rick! First off, I thank you for your letter, it's nice to deal with reasonable people. To answer your questions...

a) I appreciate that, but here's the problem: none of what I cut was referenced. Per Wp:Verifiability, you need to reference additions to Wikipedia so that they are not challenged as "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed..." This is why I posted that notice on the talk page of the article when I removed the text back in July.

b) Since anyone can remove unreferenced text at any time on Wikipedia, no particular credentials are needed, but (if you care) I have been on for 5+ years and generally work on fighting vandalism and improving WikiProject Connecticut articles, which Lime Rock Park is a part of.

c) That's exactly why the text needs to be cited. I could (if I was a prick) have edited it to say that the track was built by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and without a citation it would be just as valid. I'm not saying what you added isn't true, I'm saying that it was unsourced for 6+ months after I tagged it in January, and for a few years before that.

d) This point is nice, but since I am Rich Taylor, it doesn't matter. (Okay, I'm betting that you just read that sentance twice wondering what I'm talking about...) Do you see what I just did there? I'm claiming something without attribution. Which is the same problem: You may or may not be Rick Roso. You may or may not know Rich Taylor. Simply put, there is no way for anyone to know that, and the wp:burden is on you, the adding editor, to prove what you're saying is verifiable.

Please feel free to ask me anything you like, I'm happy to help in any way possible to get your content re-added with sourcing. What the article really needs are some Wikipedia:Third-party sources for citations. You may want to look at Indianapolis Motor Speedway or another track article to get some ideas. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mark,

Thanks for not ignoring my query.

But see if you can the following logic, and please correct me if I'm wrong...

You're saying I have to find "references," on the internet, to everything I've written about Lime Rock Park.

But mostly everything about Lime Rock Park on the internet is incorrect and/or inaccurate.

In your haste to "fix," you've taken away all my corrective measures.

How does that make sense? How is the world better off with less info? Do you see the irony?

For example: You have chosen to leave a Paul Newman (Newman-Haas Racing) reference, "citing" a New York Post story where the writer has the facts wrong about that racing team! Yet, because somebody could make a link to a newspaper story, that makes it correct?

Mark, I am stunned.

What am I supposed to do? Scan pages from Taylor's book, upload them to some srandom Go Daddy site, then make links to that?

Record a conversation with John Fitch, then upload the audio? Send you a photo of the Downhill so you can see it is, in fact, six stories high?

And how can one possibly "cite" how the track is laid out from a race driver's perspective? I race, you don't... what's more valid?

If website info about Lime Rock is generally wrong, all over the internet, what am I supposed to link to?

Mark, you are losing sight of the balance needed between Wikipedia providing enlightening information and your desire to have everything "cited."

Please don't put the track in the position of having the Lime Rock Park Wikipedia page say, "Sorry, no info here, the Wiki Police won't allow the collective wisdom of Skip Barber and the track historian to be presented here because there are no online citations."

Please respnd to this via e-mail, rather than this clumsy, cumbersome forum (no offense!).

rick@limerock.com RosoAtLimeRock (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rick,

Of course! I'm happy to help, and understand your frustrations. Please read this as a point-by-point explination to your post, and remember that none of this is meant at all in a negative light.

Okay, I'll post the text (from Wikipedia:Verifiability): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". That means that (and this is an extreme example) if I had an article from the New York Times stating that the track was in Tokyo, I could cite that and it would stand as a point until it was disproved by another (assumedly correct citation) and perhaps a small discussion on the talk page.

1. My fix was not hasty. The tag was up for over half a year, and I gave you over a week to make *any* effort -- to ask more questions, add citations, read the WP articles I linked to, etc. None of that happened.
2. My fix did not take away any corrective measures per Wikipedia rules. Again, I'm not saying anything you posted is inaccruate or wrong, only that because it cannot be verified that it can be removed at any time. It's not a matter of irony, or that less information is better than more. It's that the information has to be verifiable. Suppose I edited into the article that the 1979 Indianapolis 500 was hosted there because of Skylab. No sources... so it's as valid as what you'd typed. I know it seems absurd, but that's how this place works.
3. Yes, the (Paul Newman (Newman-Haas Racing) reference being in the NY Post), is correct, until it's disputed/disproved. (Take a second here and consider that within the context of the NYT example above point #1...) Oh, and if you look at the page history... you'd see that *I* was the one that added the NY Post story because otherwise the article would have been unsourced and therefore a candidate to be deleted.

• No, you don't need to scan anything... but you really do need to read Wikipedia:Third-party sources and in the case of the book, Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Books. You could also (again, as I've pointed out above) look at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway page to see how books are cited on it. Hint.
• As for things on the Internet being wrong... well yes, that's a curse we all live with. Over the years about a dozen other editors have complained about things like that. (Heck, look above at the section marked "Hooker" and "Hooker - A Reply" to see one!) However, Wikipedia is nothing more or less than an online encyclopedia. If it isn't already documented, we can't accept it.
• No, I do not race. I also do not time-travel in a tardis, ever been to Cape Verde nor attended Wesleyan University. That doesn't matter. Your experiences (or mine, or Neil Armstrong's) don't matter. Wikipedia isn't Facebook... it isn't a blog... and it is not authoritative. All it is at the crux of it is a collection of "knowledge" that can be attributed.
• "The track", btw, does not have any more say over the article than I do, or the next editor that sees the page, per wp:ownership. That edit of "Please note: Wikipedia editors have removed vast amounts of correct, enlightening information, written by the track historian, because it hasn't been "verified" by references to other websites. Shortsighted and unfair, but rules are rules." doesn't help your case.
• You can link to anything on the Internet, and/or (as I mentioned) use the book as a reference. Note that the article can't rely on just a single source (or mostly a single source)... so I suggest you poke around the Internet to find websites, books, newspaper articles et al that you CAN cite for at least some topics.
• Around here, "enlightening information" without citations is called fiction. There's a lot of places on the Internet to find that.

Thanks, but I don't email about Wikipedia, for a few reasons: one because others sometimes read my talk page and this is not a private issue. Two because once it's in email it can get personal. This is not personal, this is just an online encyclopedia article. One that you want to add a lot of information to, and that I'm not against you doing so long as it's properly cited. Third because I like remaining anonymous.

I am happy to continue to help you in any way possible. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sir Edmund Andros

Hello Mark. According to The Enduring Vision, Fifth Edition (written by Boyer, Clark, Kett, Salisbury, Sitkoff and Woloch) Sir Edmund Andros was quoted as telling a group of colonists, outraged by his limiting their towns to a single meeting each year and overriding all their elected legislatures, "you have no more privileges left to you than not be sold for slaves." However, I don't know whether I should add this to the Sir Edmund Andros page being that the textbook is copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.218.83 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello 174.57.218.83! There is no problem with you adding the text, so long as it is attributed. Do you need assistance with this, or are you familiar with wp:citing sources? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Weston

You really should fix the Weston, CT page. Out-of-date citations and incorrect demographical data abounds. It needs some work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.119.29 (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you'd think I care about Weston per se? But feel free to find a valid citation (like I posted on your other talk page) regarding Rowayton. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you care a lot about Connecticut. Do you care particularly about Rowayton? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.119.29 (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a member of the Wikiproject Connecticut, and one of the things I do is patrol the various CT pages for vandalism, peacock language, unsubstantiated claims, etc. I don't have any real opinion on Rowayton one way or another, barring that it isn't particularly affluent. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, your final edit fits best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.119.29 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, glad we can agree! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ansonia

Hi Mark - Please let me know what I am doing wrong on this site.

I have spent considerable time contributing to it. I enjoy Wikipedia and am interested in trying to add historical fact perspective. These include notable townspeople, e.g. presidents of universities, a state attorney general etc. (I am a member of the Ansonia Historical Commission and a former mayor). I have recently seen significant deletions and an entire section on Ansonia football which took a lot of work removed.(AHS footbal was chronicled in a Hartford Courant NE Magazine feature by Joel Lang some years ago).

I fully understand the need to monitor each site. My contributions were only to make the Wikipedia site more informative. I can verify the accuracy of my contributions if you need them.

My confession is that I am not very IT savvy. Do I need more cites? Thanks for taking the time to read this and for your good editorial work.

Best wishes. Tom Clifford, Ansonia, CT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.198.60 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello and nice to meet you Tom!

You didn't do anything wrong, really. But on Wikipedia per wp:verifiability anything which is uncited can be removed at any time. One of the things (that I probably spend more time on that I'd like to consider!) is patrolling pages for content which is inaccurate (yes, folks do that), inflamatory, or just plain unsubstantiated.

• The easiest way to add in persons of interest is to an article like Ansonia, Connecticut is to cite why they are noteworthy. This is done (in its most minimal form) by stating the claim and then typing <ref>http://thewebsiteurl.whatever</ref>. If you put this at the end of (for example) your addition of Michael J. Adanti, it would be valid as we could go to the website you cited and it would prove that Michael J. Adanti was indeed President of SCSU.
• The alternative (more labor intensive) way is to create a page for them and add references to the page to support why they are notable. For an example, open in another window Pequonnock River Railroad Bridge. Now hit "edit". (This is a small article, which makes it a bit easier to read.) As you can see, there is a section marked ==References== with {{Reflist}} towards the end of it. With this at the end of the article, whenever you add a reference in the body, it will automatically appear at the bottom of the page (think of it as a digital footnote system). Normally, the minimum standard for notability is for there to be 2 independent, reliable sources (newspaper, website, whatever). Some aren't valid because they're just republishing Wikipedia or are blogs, but that's another topic. By creating an article with valid citations the person/thing/place is automatically considered notable and won't be removed from articles. This actually saves time if you wanted (again, as an example) to add Michael J. Adanti to other articles.

Wikipedia is a learning experience (I figure out new stuff probably every week, and I've been here for 5+ years!), so please feel free to ask me any questions you have or for clarification if something I've said makes no sense. While I enforce the rules, I much prefer to help folks out so their additions add to the 'pedia! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: If you like, feel free to check out and join WikiProject Connecticut. We're a group of editors whom try to improve all CT based articles. You might also want to drop a line to/check out the edits of user:Tomticker5. He's also very involved with town history and has done excellent work for the various Trumbull, Connecticut related articles.

Bristol, CT; Forestville section addition

Once I find the name(s) of my sources and cite them, is the following in the proper style to be posted on wikipedia?;

There are a many suburban neighborhoods and local businesses within the Forestville area. Forestville is classified by the US government as a U4. The official boundaries of Forestville are the Plainville town line, the Southington town line, Middle street, west of properties on the west side of King street, south of properties on the south side of Louisiana avenue, west of properties on the west side of Brook street north of Louisiana avenue and up to Farmington avenue.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.250.185 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello 76.23.250.185‎!

The prose is a definite improvement! Exactly how big a section is Forestville, and how many people live in it? Is it akin to Thompsonville, Connecticut, Lordship, Connecticut or Nichols, Connecticut, where it is basically a village that's a piece of a larger town? Is it a CDP like Conning Towers-Nautilus Park, Connecticut? Or is it a neighborhood like Southwood Acres, Connecticut?

I'm not sure what you mean by U4, as it looks like that is a status of unemployment.

Also, I would put it under the Geography section. Perhaps you can make a subsection for it called ===Forestville=== and put everything under that. Who knows? Maybe you'll create an article for it at some future date and it can tie in. BTW, if you're curious you can find all of the Bristol-related articles by going to the bottom of the Bristol, Connecticut page and clicking on the category Bristol, Connecticut.

If you have any further questions, just ask. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know the square mileage or population amount exactly, I'll keep searching for that. Forestville is similar to Plantsville, Connecticut, except Forestville, for whatever reason, lost its zip code at least 30 years ago. It also used to have its own individual post office, not a subsection of Bristol, voting district, a boys club and a meeting hall, all of which was done away with. Which can be kind of deceiving, because Forestville actually has grown significantly for the past 5+ decades. Its a section bigger than a neighborhood or village, but not its own official town. Its population I would estimate around 15,000-20,000 people. I may have misread that its a U4, I will double check. Its frustrating, because as I've researched the history of Forestville, CT, it seems as though alot of it has been kind of dismantled and hidden away for some reason, I'm not sure why. I know Planstville, CT has its own page and there is defidentally enough I could write about Forestville, CT to make a wiki-page. Thank you for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.250.185 (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds a lot like Long Hill, Trumbull, Connecticut -- a town that was but no longer is. Keep at it and good luck! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ansonia - Thank you Mark

Hi Mark - I owe you a big thank you!

I very much appreciate your suggestions and the time you have taken to assist me.

When I have some time, I will revisit this site and give this another try.

It is great to know that you are available as a resource. Best wishes - Tom Clifford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.198.60 (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it and stop by anytime... Wikipedia needs good editors. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Jacqueline Moss

Hi, you rated this article and left a note that it needs a better photo. I've only found one other and it's not great either. It's from a newspaper article on Google. I also have a copy of her father's book with one picture of her as a young girl, maybe 12 or so. I was going to upload it today, but then wasn't sure about the copyright issue. The book was published in 1964, no renewal and was published privately. Here's the newspaper one, if you think it's worth using. Marrante (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Marrante! Yes, the article would need more and better photos to advance to B status and beyond. Most BIOs have portraits or photos of just the subject, which is why I tagged it like that. Copyrights can be tricky unless it is a very old book, so you're probably right in not uploading it until you ascertained if it is in the public domain or not. 1964 is pretty recent, so I'm guessing it probably wouldn't work as fair use. (Besides which, she wasn't noted at the age of 12 of doing anything notable, so it's probably not the best addition). If you can get the rights or permission from The Hour, that photo would be more suitable. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica

I see that you're a meber of WP:BSG. Are you a fan of the original, the reinvented version, or both? - BilCat (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bil. I'm a fan of both... I grew up on the original series and really enjoyed the reimaging as well. I even have a soft spot for a couple of episodes of G:1980 (the pilot & The Night the Cylons Landed). I was disappointed with Caprica. They could have done *so much* with it but instead rushed to make it into a complex world where... nothing happens after the setup. They could have had all kinds of storylines but settled on two that really didn't work together and killed it. How about you? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Good Friend Award
		Thanks Mark for taking the time to look over my edits at Westport, Connecticut. It shows a lot of character when we admit to a mistake and correct the error. I thank you for your patience and dedication and I look forward to working together in the future. WestportWiki (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK comment

Hi Markvs88, I've got a question for you at Template:Did you know nominations/John Morton Blum. Also, a little hint for future work: when doing references, link the url into the article title (as I have done here), rather than just having the plain links. Cheers! SFB 16:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, and thanks! This isn't something I regularly do so I'm not very familiar with the process. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Westport, Connecticut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to 2010 Census, 2000 Census

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for John Morton Blum

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

still here

hope you're trying to be less rude to IP editors.

I don't know what you mean. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

we had an encounter at beginning of 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.90.227 (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, nice to see you again. Really! I love and appreciate everyone in my fan club. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

New England revert

Hi. Can you explain this edit? I was removing a deleted file (File:New-England-coin.jpg). You seem to have reverted me without explanation. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, MZMcBride. I did a rollback because the deletion had no explaination, because I'd never seen you edit that page before, and because that page is a magnet for vandalism. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you're a bit unclear on when it's appropriate to use rollback. Unless it's blatant vandalism or a self-revert, you should manually revert. And you should only ever revert if a simple examination of the edit isn't sufficient. In this case, I'm not sure how restoring a broken file link seemed like the best choice. Can you undo your edit, please? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite clear but please understand that I'm patrolling over 7000 pages for vandalism, and that these things happen on occasion. Sure, it's no problem. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Anytime, have a Happy Thanksgiving. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Advise On Flooding, Westport

Hi Markvs88, your thoughts on the Flood section on the Westport page would be helpful. Not entirely sure what to make of it. Thank you for reading this. WestportWiki (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Markvs88. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

whoa

I'm new to making edits and I'd LOVE to avoid this in future. you're saying for each change there must be a citation? I don't see that as it stands in your reverted version. Mmaskalik (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mmaskalik! Yes, I know you're new so things are going to seem a bit strange. I spend (admittably far too much) time fighting vandalism, and lots of that stems from folks changing numbers around. Anyway, no, you don't need to cite every single change -- that'd be unweildy to say the least. However, if you are going to make such changes it is a good idea to put the citation somewhere so that other editors can see it and understand why you're making the change. I see that one of your changes had something in the edit summary, but that probably wouldn't stop and editor days or weeks from now to reverting it back anyway.

In your case, I would suggest adding your reference (just type <ref> at the beginning of the URL and </ref> at the end, like so: <ref>http://google.com</ref> ) to whatever the nearest sentance is. The ones I would really like to see are updated links for "Facts & Figures" under the Overview section and to clean up the other URLs: 7 of the 11 citations are "dead links".

The "matriculants" section must go according to the project rules, though, as I mentioned on your talk page. If any of this is unclear or you have other questions, please don't hesistate to ask! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Update reverted on IMS Health entry

Hi Markvs88,

Can you further detail the rationale for undoing the recent changes to the IMS Health entry. Looking to update it so that it's relevant with the most recent information. The current version is outdated and contains incorrect information.

Please advise. Thank you.

Hello! Whelp, to expand on what I said at Talk:IMS Health... Wikipedia doesn't take anything on faith. The older version of cited data is considered "better" (or at least, verifiable) compared to newer data with no sources provided. For example, how do we know the company moved? Without a source, it's hard to say. The burden of proof is always on the editor making the changes/additions. If you re-add your changes (with citations on the move, the industries served and the operations I would have no objections. Note that references should be from a third party if possible. If you have any further questions or anything I've said doesn't make much sense, please don't hesitate to reply! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ritz Ballroom

Hi, I'm an amateur to say the least, but I've been trying to plant the seeds. I appreciate your contribution(s) to Father Panik Village. If you enjoy Bridgeport CT's history, I just created the Ritz Ballroom page a few minutes ago. Apparently, Frank Sinatra played there! Amazing stuff.

Thanks Again! -Tim W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twillisjr (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Tim W.! Yes, there is certainly a lot of work that can be done on Bridgeport and her related articles. I've done some, but there simply aren't enough hours in the day! Welcome to Wikipedia and if you have any questions please feel free to ask me. Could you do me a favor? When you create Connecticut related articles, would you add them to WikiProject Connecticut's new article list, please? Feel free to poke around the project, we're a group of editors that work to improve all CT based topics. You're also welcome to join (just add your name to the roster)! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Hand High School

Hi Markvs88,

I recently noticed that you have removed a bunch of information on the article Daniel Hand High School because of a lack of references. However, I have found a reference for the deleted material, which is the school's school profile, on this link: http://www.madison.k12.ct.us/uploaded/guidance/DHHS_Profile_2011-12_for_Naviance_pdf.pdf. Would you please reinstate the deleted information and add cite this document as the source? (I would do it myself; however, I have little experience with Wikipedia and I do not know how to make the requested edits. Thank you! 160.39.145.252 (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello 160.39.145.252. I'm sorry but the answer to that question is... sort of. You can certainly add content to the article and use that for a citation, but the "best" prior version of the article is from November 2010 (and it was uncited back then). What little existed in the old article was a history section (Biography of Daniel Hand) that the source you have doesn't have anything in common with, and the "Special Academic and Community Offerings" section, which you can cite and that portion can be "brought back".

I'm happy to discuss this further and any next steps you would like to take. If you just want the SA&CO section put back, that's no problem. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was just interested in bringing back the SA&CO section. I also attended this school and I can say that the biography of Daniel Hand is true, but the best reference I can come up with is a plaque physically located inside the building (which, as far as I know, can't be cited). However, I'll continue looking on the interwebs to see if I can find something that will support the biography. Thank you! 160.39.145.252 (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, a quick Google search brought up the following reference that I believe could support some biographical elements: http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.hand/723/mb.ashx?pnt=1 160.39.145.252 (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the section is restored and I've cited it with your link. Ancestry.Com is unfortunately not authoritative and therefore uncitable -- like other wikis or blogs, it can't be used per WP:SOURCES. If you find anything else or need any other assistance, please let me know. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Holy Cross High School (Connecticut)

Hi Markvs88, Ive noticed that you have made a large number of edits, removals, and clean-ups of this page. Is it of special interest to you? Also, you recently included the detail (amounts to a mission statement) when removing a portion of the section == Academics ==. What exactly does this mean and why was it removed only now when it has been there for a while and not removed before? Thanks for the help. Ive only been editing "professionally" for a short while and am collecting advice from different experts. IKnowEverythingAboutAnything (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, IKnowEverythingAboutAnything. I am a member of the Connecticut Wikiproject. We're a group that focuses on any and all Connecticut-related articles (you can see our logo on the article's Talk page). No, HCHS isn't of any particular interest to me, but I do remove any inappropriate material that I see and patrol it (and 7000+ other CT pages) for vandalism. As for the edit of a few days ago, Mission Statements aren't allowed per the Wikiproject Schools Guidelines of "What not to include", which is based upon the broader rule of Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements. I suspect the reason it wasn't removed previously was that it wasn't labelled "Mission Statement", as other schools' editors have done. I think you'll agree that if you look at the text that it is basically promotional and could be applied to most other (Christian) high schools. I look forward to your reply and am happy to answer any further questions you may have. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Daniel Hand High School, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages AP English and AP Spanish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Small Favor...

Hi Mark, sorry to ask you something potentially straightforward--it's just I've already spent an embarrassingly long time trying to figure out how to add colors to a schools infobox so that the infobox shows the schools actual colors as boxes of color followed by the words (ie Navy Blue & White for Staples). Thank you for any pointers Mark. Best WestportWiki (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi W.W. That's actually not something I've ever done, so the best I can do is to suggest checking out a page with color existant such as Sacred Heart University, though that's the words first... Good luck! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

thank youWestportWiki (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Talk:New England/archive 2

Hello Markvs88, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Talk:New England/archive 2, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Joseph Fox 18:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fox. It isn't actually a new page, I did a patch job on New England's archives, and tagged it & archive 3 for deletion as they were duplicates/non standard names. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bacon Challenge 2012

Hello! You have been invited to take part in the Bacon Challenge 2012. In case you don't know or need a refresher, the Bacon Challenge is an annual celebration of bacon on Wikipedia in which editors come together to help create, expand, and improve Wikipedia's coverage of bacon. The event lasts all the way through National Pig Day 2012, giving participants plenty of time to work at their pleasure. In addition to the Bacon Challenge is the Bacon WikiCup 2012, a side event to the Challenge in which all bacon-related contributions done by those participating in the Challenge are submitted and scored by the scorekeeper (me) based on the scoring chart. At the end of the Challenge, the user with the most points in the Bacon WikiCup will win a shiny trophy for their userpage. In addition, the users who score the highest in specific categories (not yet finalized, but the categories include most image uploads, most article creations, most DYK submissions, and more) will win barnstars. Finally, all participants will receive a medal. While the awards are nice, in the end, the important thing is to have fun and enjoy what we're all here for, which is improving Wikipedia.

If you decide to participate, great! You may add your name to the participants list at the main page of the Bacon Challenge 2012, and pick up the userbox for your userpage if you desire. Signing up for the Challenge will also automatically enter you into the Bacon WikiCup. If you don't wish to participate, that's fine too - maybe next year! In the meantime, if you know anyone who might also be interested in participating, feel free to invite them! The Challenge is open to anyone and accepts participants at any time, so feel free to let anyone who might be interested know.

Note that I, the scorekeeper of the Bacon WikiCup, will be on vacation starting on the 18th of June all the way up until the 5th of July. I will have limited access to the internet, so I may or may not be able to score users' contributions during this time. Sorry for any delay in scoring (but since the Challenge lasts for more than half a year, there's no rush, right? (= ).

I'm looking forward to another fun, successful year. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Darien

Markvs88, Thanks for your interest in the Darien article. I see that you reverted my deletion of the Gentleman’s Agreement. I am troubled by the inclusion of Hobson’s book in an article about the town. The entry, in my view, creates the potential for the listing to be used as a proxy for a slur against the municipality and its residents. For example, a direct statement about alleged past discrimination by town residents would be removed immediately as an unsupported statement. Somehow, this same statement is permitted merely because it conduits through a work of fiction in which the author selected the town as the made-up setting for her book. It is curious that numerous movies are listed as being filmed in the town but not one of these entries includes a description of the listed movie. To learn about a movie, a reader has to click on the link to a movie’s page. My theory is that the book is treated differently because its description enables an otherwise impermissible statement to be made.

The reality is that the book has no actual connection with the town. It certainly is not part of the town’s “history” as it is listed in the Contents section of the page. Now, I understand that the movies are listed as above mentioned, themselves works of fiction. I believe that a distinction exists in that the movies are listed, according to the article, because they were filmed in whole or in part in the town. It is the filming itself that provides a real connection with Darien. The book, on the other hand, is imaginary. No activity or production relating to the book actually took place in the town and any connection with Darien is thus imaginary.

Even if it is common practice to include written works with a fictitious nexus with a place, here the risk of misuse outweighs the utility of the entry. Perhaps we could get some comments on this from fellow contributors. A compromise position would be to include the listing of the book without the description of the book - perhaps by combining the movie and book sections with subcategories. This way, the book is mentioned but it would be treated exactly the same as the movies thus reducing the potential for misuse. Please let me know what you think. Regards,Mapmann Mapmann (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mapmann. Well, I see it's already been discussed on the talk page as well, and while I fully believe it shouldn't be deleted I do agree with your point that as it is fictional that shouldn't be in the History section either. Therefore I've created a new "media" section and filed it under literature. Is that more reasonable? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Markvs88, The change definitely improves the article, thanks. Unfortunately, the change however doesn’t eliminate the problem. I hadn’t looked at the discussion section before I sent you the message.

Now that I have, it is clear that it proves my point. There, you will find postings about whether or not the town really is or was exclusionary. Therefore, the entry is in fact being used to make the improper point that I suspected. What about removing the description of the book? Users who want to know what the book is about can click through just like they would be required to do for the movie entries. What do you think? Mapmann (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad for that helped. If you want to remove the second sentance I don't really care, but IMO you're taking this a little too far as it is a fair description of the book and it isn't worded as harshly as it could be (for example "The book highlights American anti-Semitism via the unwritten covenant that prohibited real estate sales to Jews in Darien.") or somesuch thing. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Trinity College

Please desist in describing Trinity College as "nonsectarian": the reality of the college does not conform to the definition of "nonsectarian" to which you keep linking Trinity's page. Trinity College Chapel is under the direct ecclesial jurisdiction of the Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Connecticut, and has been placed under the Bishop's jurisdiction by the Trustees of Trinity College. The Chaplain of Trinity College is, and must be, an Episcopal Priest appointed with the approval of the Bishop. Until such time as the Trustees formally sever this nearly two-century-long relationship with the Episcopal Church, the College is, in fact, not "nonsectarian." The college is private, yes; it is independent in governance from the Episcopal Church, yes; but it is not "nonsectarian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyendecker (talk • contribs) 03:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, found it. The "Nonsectarian" addition was made by Amherst2005 on 26 August. I was just reverting the removal of prior content without explaination. I have no quibble now, as that editor added quite a few other points that needed removal. In future, please use edit summaries, all this reverting could have been avoided. Thanks & best, Markvs88 (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain your posting of "Nonsectarian" on Trinity College's site. It is inaccurate with the facts on the Quad. Leyendecker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyendecker (talk • contribs) 03:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What Quad? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Hartford, Connecticut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ritz Ballroom

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverting edits on Connecticut Huskies football

Why did you revert the ip's edits to update Pasqualoni's record? He did transcribe the wins and losses and say he was 7-5, but since the previous version had him at 2-2 (not having been updated since the Buffalo win), that should have been changed manually. In any case, I have done so. I know you are an experienced editor and that this was not vandalism, but I'm wondering what happened. Smartyllama (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Smartyllama. I reverted b/c he didn't have any edit summaries, no citations, and since he'd changed the numbers around a couple of times I just assumed he was test editing. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I'll try to find a citation tomorrow. Smartyllama (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. No real rush, but if we're going to post records, I guess we need to know they're right. (lol!) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I know for a fact the record is right. The fact that it is his first season is cited elsewhere in the article, so something saying the record for this season should be fine. Smartyllama (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

erroneous claim of hawks flying in Lantern Hill wiki page

Since I am new to wikipedia, I had hoped that more experienced users such as yourself would show greater kindness than you did, but you have referred to my edits on the Lantern Hill page as "vandalism", which is not true. The most likely bird in the photo is not a hawk (nor it is a vulture, as I had previously stated in the many edits that you reverted), but a raven.

At this point I would ask two things of you: - that you either cite a reference to substantiate that the bird in the picture is in fact a hawk, or remove your claim that it is a hawk, as the latter claim appears to be inaccurate, and in any case, appears to be original research on your part - apologise to me for referring to me as a "sockpuppet"

If you fail to do either of these, I will bring my grievance to the attention of whatever moderators exist whose job it is to keep Wikipedia an open, civil and accurate source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinH42 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC) KevinH42 (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, KevinH42!

First off, you're not going to win any friends by going right to the mattresses regarding what you will and will not do. In short, BE NICE.

Second, I rolled you back because you made a change without made a change without any edit summary, apparently twice, once as an IP user. Please understand that I'm happy to accord you any and all consideration since you're a new user and have asked for clarification, but that I also rollback dozens of edits daily which are actual vandalism. If you're offended by being called a sockpuppet, then are you really new to Wikipedia? Given that you're talking about filing a (spurious) grevience, accuse me of original research and that particular IP you posted with has prior edits, you'll understand that I'm a bit skeptical.

Third, the original post of the picture claims it is a hawk by Morrowlong, whom has been on Wikipedia for years and has singlehandedly done most of the improvement on the various Connecticut park & trail articles. The burden is upon YOU (not me, nor him) to prove it's a vulture and not a hawk as he states in the uploaded image. Good luck with that.

I'm happy to answer any further questions you have on the matter. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

NRHP: "somewhat inaccurate"

On the Avery Homestead talk page, you put in quotes "somewhat inaccurate" about the NRHP. What are you quoting from? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! From personal experience. In discussions with other editors, we in the Wikiproject Connecticut have found at least three misnamed bridges, a site that was still listed but was actually demolished in 1978, and several other discrepencies. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Came to your talk page to read the context of the Sarek quote that you copied to Doncram's unblock discussion. It could be weirder: see Holy Rosary Catholic Church (St. Marys, Ohio), demolished in 1978 and listed in 1979 as if nothing had happened! Some properties are listed intentionally after their destruction, but those are generally listed as sites for archaeological purposes, not as normal buildings for their architectural significance. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend! The big one for me is Kaatz Icehouse, which is in the greater Bridgeport area where I live, and which I actually saw dismantled with my grandfater when I was a kid (I was about 5 or so). I know a guy whose family still some of the walls, which they made a garage/barn out of. Somewhere there's a link on Wikipedia here that I reported all this and I cited it with the Library of Congress as proof. I've never checked to see if the NHRP has fixed their entry, but it alarms me that what is accepted as a valid source seemingly isn't fact-checked. Then there was the Devon Bridge arguement... where there was no proof except from the NHRP that a railroad bridge slightly up river from the Washington Bridge (Connecticut) is called the Devon Bridge.

Thanks for weighing in on the Doncram discussion! IMO it's not that he's a saint or something, but it's more a question of legality vs. justice... he's getting a raw deal. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm no saint either, so I'm definitely not criticizing him on those grounds. The grounds I use tend more towards http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_W._Ross_(North_Dakota_architect)&diff=426589950&oldid=426581522. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No arguement there... I can point to University of New Haven Police and probably a dozen articles where Doncram & I have clashed, not to mention the whole "mass deletion of churches" event. Even so, I would have done this for you or Polaron or anyone else, too. At least this time, the "punishment" doesn't fit the "crime". Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guide...

Regarding your ongoing conversation with Bwilkins on another user's talk page, I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. I think it provides the basis that has been used for determining that one party was ready to be unblocked, but the other is not. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Orlady. Yeah, I know. I'm just noting my displeasure about how this is being applied. I don't care for Doncram all that much, but to me this reeks of catching a guy (that's been conviced of 2 murders and served his time) selling pirated DVDs and then giving him a life sentance. Best as always, Markvs88 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The criminal justice analogy is apt. It appears to me that it's an issue of convincing the judge that he understands what he did wrong, is repentant, and will not be engaging in the same behavior again. I am much too involved to judge this one, but I didn't see those elements in the unblock request. --Orlady (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

User rights

I haven't been an admin since October, actually. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of that (I'm also sorry to hear it!). I don't read other editor's talk pages too frequently. Heck, the only reason I looked at Doncram's was because I hadn't seen him make any edits for awhile! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's ok, it was my choice. I'm thinking about picking the mop back up again soon -- I was almost ready today, but given Doncram's appeal, I didn't think the timing was right. (BTW, for the record, my email to Courcelles was to the effect of "how'd I only get a week?" - I said nothing whatsoever about the length of Doncram's block, so his assertion that I coordinated with Courcelles is way off-base.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's all good then. Yeah, I wouldn't think you'd do that or that there would be a need in the first place. My POV is that while escalating blocks are a great way to (say) halt vandalism or other bad behavior that in this case it isn't a fair sentance given the circumstances. I certainly don't think you should be reblocked, that your being unblocked has anything to do with the length of his block, or that if a few things were different in this case that a 6-month or more block is out of the question. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If he could get "negative edit summaries" out of his vocabulary (and all variations thereof, such as "starting article to support other article that is under attack"), that would go a long way toward convincing me that an early unblock was warranted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he really can be a peach, as I've been on the receiving end more than once myself. But... that's not what this is about. And I think that you'll agree that if the roles were reversed that you'd also protest a 6 month block as being excessive given these circumstances. Not all, but these. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You can put me down as "abstaining in an attempt not to make things any worse", if you like.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sarek, you're an oak. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Per this, you might want to take that request to AN/I. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks Sarek. I'm thinking about it. I'm also thinking about if it's worth bothering with. Given the items in my talk #13 & #14, I'm (again) debating if I really want to keep spending so much time here. PS: That you posted that shows great integrity, and I value that highly. Thanks & Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I just did the ANI, Sarek. Maybe I'm in a better frame of mind today, but I decided it's the only rational thing to do given everything that's gone into this little opinion I wrote! Also, that you bothered to post it kind of got the better of me. Thanks. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you're doing

First, you arrived on Doncram's page, and tried to suggest that because of "votes", that unblock was somehow possible - remember, we use WP:CONSENSUS, and just like in AFD's, the administrator who closes the discussion looks at the strength of the arguments. Now you rather unbelievably filed an unblock request on their behalf (again suggesting that !vote counts were important). Please don't do either (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmm. Consensus like this? The application of the rules on Wikipedia is getting more and more like Animal Farm everyday. Please do think about it. Markvs88 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: for full disclosure, I did go to a neutral admin per Orlady's suggestion but he chose not to weigh in. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And, now that I think of it: if the discussion really had no value, why did you take part in it at all? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually offered him an unblock condition - which he declined to even have the decency to reply to. He can stay blocked until the cows come home, accordingly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Is it one you'd accept? (I doubt anyone would.) Would you treat your kids this way? (I doubt it). Simply put: the block and the refusal for unblocking are a consideration of Doncram's past behavior, not a consideration of these particular events. You're sending someone who's served time for (say) two felonies to the electic chair for stealing a pack of gum. Look up at this. It's Sarek, the editor/sometime admin that Doncram was scrapping with, and *he* isn't opposed. I'm not saying Doncram gets a free pass. He deserved his last 3-month block, and he deserved to be blocked here. But 6 months? Excessive at best given these circumstances. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty disgustingly low to bring my kids into it, so I will not be back here - I will say that I would, indeed, tell my kid "here is your toy back - if you ever do it again, the toy goes in the garbage - do you agree to that?" You clearly don't understand the concept of escalating blocks - Sarek was blocked himself, based on his own escalation, so they are 100% comparable. You simply do not get it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I don't even know if you have any, and that's not the point. Anyway, you're obviously in a poor position to say what I do and do not understand. Since we can't seem to understand each other, oh well. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

John Ratzenberger

...does currently has a home in Milford. This was confirmed by several sources, including the Milford Radio show.

http://milford.patch.com/columns/sold-109 http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/john-ratzenbergers-house-1/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.232.89 (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Patch is not a valid source, as it is a self-publishing site, but you can use the other one. But, please, cite! Thanks & best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Zirin

I have provided a citation for most of the material for Harold Zirin, however, I'm unsure how to best show the citation. The citation I reference covers most of the material, however, the Valedictorian for Bridgeport HS has been verified by his wife who has a yearbook for 1946. In a few weeks/month when I next visit, I can scan the reference and post that as well. Need guidance on how to edit the entries... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatZar (talk • contribs) 15:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, GreatZar! The yearbook is not really the a good source since while it is verifiable it's almost impossible to attain. (Most yearbooks have pressings in the hundreds, and after 50+ years they often get lost...) If possible, I would recommend trying to find a citation from the Bridgeport Post or Telegram as they would have covered the graduation and would likely have mentioned the valedictorian. As for how to edit, the best place to start is in the Manual of Style. Be sure to write out the whole year: '46 doesn't mean anything but 1946 does.

If you want to see an example of how to cite an article, check out John Morton Blum. This will show you how to set the "ref nam" variable so that you can cite something once and then refer to it again in the article (probably the easiest one to see is ref name="Iconic". Feel free to drop a line if you have any more questions or issues! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. [[User::Kiko4564|M D Potter.]] Any comments? 17:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi M D Potter, Thanks, but can you be a little more specific as to which article you're referring to? I rollback dozens of pieces of vandalism per day... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. M D Potter. Any comments? 20:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

From User talk:Kiko4564

"Regarding the recent revert you made..." is a glittering generality. When I use rollback, it's because it's vandalism... do not post on my talk page about this again without specifically mentioning WHICH rollback you're talking about, as otherwise you're just wasting your time and mine. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fair_Haven_(New_Haven)&curid=960276&diff=473571291&oldid=473566999 M D Potter. Any comments? 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So: you're saying I need to take a kinder, gentler approach when reverting obvious vandalism such as: "In 2015, aliens invaded new haven." back to "In 1806, land was donated for Fair Haven Union Cemetery."? Um, no. Not just no, but hell no. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Connecticut

Hey there :-) You live in Hartford as well? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 19:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jona! Nope, I'm from Bridgeport... though I did spend some time in Wili (mostly around when you were born, was at UConn) and still stop in at the Bidwell when I'm in the area. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's cool, its nice to chat with users who are around where I am :-) I haven't been to Bridgeport, besides heading to NJ. Anyways, nice meeting you. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 20:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, too! Please feel free to join the Connecticut WikiProject, there is always a lot to do... and Wili & the area could use some help. :-) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Markvs88. You have new messages at Kiko4564's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wesleyan public safety

I have not actually checked the numbers etc but in principle I tend to agree with the IP regarding the presentation of this one. Sure, percentages are a sound statistical ratio etc but in this instance they do seem rather to sensationalise the figures. Once, a long time ago, I used to do quite a lot of stats stuff and I found that percentages often helped me to get a point across ... but the point was that which my employer wanted to portray and was in "real" terms window-dressing designed to achieve a goal that, well, I for one knew to be false. It is rather like using the law successfully to defend a clearly guilty person in court, which is also something that I had to do quite a lot. I am now pretty much unemployed for health reasons, but much happier! I think that we can rely on the reader to do the necessary math(s) in this instance, should they so choose. In any event, I am not going to be reverting any edits from anyone - you, the IP, a third party - regarding this particular issue. - Sitush (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I was just giving him a taste of his own medicine. :-) I'm sorry to hear about your health problems, though. I'm also very thankful for all of the work you're doing on this article! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Genre info for Queensryche

Would you accept "Alternative Rock", as well as "Metal", to describe those experimental albums by Queensryche? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.118.224 (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much what I accept, it's that the band's article has them down as Progressive metal, heavy metal & hard rock... and that's how most of their albums should be labeled as. That said, what other people define as Alternative Rock might be something like The Cure, Siouxsie and the Banshees or even old U2... personally, I see most of QR's catalogue being prog metal or heavy metal (except for Dedicated to Chaos, which I would put in the category of shit if they'd let me). No, QR isn't the heaviest metal band of all time but they are most certainly a metal band, unlike some of their rock contemporaries such as Duran Duran or R.E.M.. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Last question about Queensryche entries

I don't suppose you would let me label the post-1996 Queensryche albums (except OM2 and American Soldier) as simply "Hard Rock", would you? If you decision is final, I'll let the matter rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.118.224 (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's really not up to me... and I suggest you asking the question at Talk:Queensrÿche in order for there to be a wp:consensus on the issue. IMO... no. Mindcrime & Mindcrime 2 are absolutely metal albums, and most people would include Empire & Promised Land in there too. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Queensryche

I agree with you that "Mindcrime 2" id definitely metal, as well as "Empire"and "Promised Land". The albums I question are "Hear in Now Froniter", "Q2K', "Tribe", and "Dedicated to Chaos". But I'll do as you say and take up the matter at the link yu showed me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.118.224 (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I look forward to the discussion! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Derby, Connecticut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Its ok for an article to have WikiProject United States and WikiProject Connecticut

I just wanted to respond here in regards to your comments about the bot incorrectly tagging American articles outside the projects scope. All of the articles you untagged were in Connecticut, which as far as I know, is still a part of the United States. Its ok to have both tags on the article, there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever and for you to remove them frankly shows an innappropriate sense of ownership over the articles. With that said I am not arbitrarily adding the WPUS banner to every article relating to Connecticut, only the ones that contain American, United States, US or U.S.. Such terms are generic to the entire US population and not on Connecticuts residents specifically. --Kumioko (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You already know my POV, and per our "discussion" last time I will continue to untag all articles not in the WPUS perview. Note that I am being very specific in cookie-cutting around your interests. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it rather ridiculous that WikiProject United States is tagging every article whose title includes the word "American". Does the WikiProject do anything beyond tagging articles? --Orlady (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell... no. I've never seen a WPUS editor working on an article co-tagged with WPCT! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Likewise boggled.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep I also remember that most other editors participating in the discussion stated that any project can tag any article they feel is in their scope. So if you feel compelled to untag every article in Connecticuts scope with the US banner then I guess you can. Its fairly counterproductive though since as far as I can tell there are about 2800 pieces of content in common between the 2 projects. 'If and I emphasize the if, you can get a consensus from Connecticut that all related articles should be untagged with WPUS (and where another related project are not concerned such as US presidents, music, Massachusetts, etc) then I will remove them myself. Otherwise I will continue tagging the articles I feel are in the projects scope. In regards to WPUS editors working on connecticut articles I suspect its quite the same as why most don't participate in US roads and some of the other more aggressive projects. They simply aren't and don't feel welcome to do so. --Kumioko (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. You do not have any such consensus, and as I recall you LEFT that debate because it was turning against you. That said: I have no problem with American Canoe Association. It's of national interest. American Legion State Forest Trails‎? Haha... no. My point isn't that there aren't articles that shouldn't be co-tagged, it's that you tag indiscrimiately. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I also find it absurd to assume that none of the 200 - 1000 WPUS related editors (depending on how you count them) never edited a Connecticut article. I have edited a number myself, not counting myself I know for a fact several others have as well. I left because the arguments you presented were counterproductive and against Wikipedias policies of ownership and no matter what arguments you present to the contrary doesn't make it true. --Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Who's assuming? I patrol something like 97% of all WPCT articles, and *rarely* do I see one that gets worked on by someone on WPUS except for those of national figures (say, George W. Bush or Joe Lieberman) and even that is usually fighting vandalism and not article improvement. Feel free to name the ones you have, I'm VERY interested to see them. Running is no way to gain consensus. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus cannot overrule a Policy, you should know that. And I wasn't running, there was no point in arguing over something you have no right to stop. --Kumioko (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As proven in that discussion, there is no policy against removing articles that are tagged by other projects which are out of scope. And that is the definition of running. You can walk away again, or we can have this out again. I suspect that since you haven't answered my query above regarding which articles it is because you can't. I do not remove any tags which are validly in the WPUS project. (Howl at the moon all you want.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason I haven't answered is because its a pointless waste of my time to combe through thousands of articles to prove a point to someone who wouldn't accept the answer anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you've decided to walk away again since you cannot disprove my points. WPUS is just another wikiproject, and if you're out of scope, your out of scope. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So I'm just wondering but what do you think the scope of the project is? --Kumioko (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me just help you with that one. The project says "Welcome to WikiProject United States on the English Wikipedia! We are a project dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the United States, with an emphasis on subjects with regional and national significance." The keyword is emphasis, not exclusively, not that it doesn't care about others, it doesn't say Connecticut related articles don't count and it certainly doesn't say whatever Markvs88 thinks. --Kumioko (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So... you're all for my tagging every article on Wikipedia as Wikiproject: Earth? Great. I'll get right on that. </sarcasm> Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well in case you didn't notice, thats what Wikipedia is and the projects are just subprojects under that. They just don't call it Wiki-Earth. I find it strange that you don't seem to mind the US/ACW/ARW taskforces of Military history tagging the articles since by your own views they are out of the projects scope. It leaves me thinking that its not the projects scope you don't like but the project itself or maybe me. Either way I really don't care but I do have beeter things to do than to continue arguing about this with you. --Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course not, as I am FOR the tagging of relevant scopes on articles. And, again, that's why I don't have any problem with *some* of the WPUS tags, and why I don't just revert all of them, as that would be just silly. Enjoy your run! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No your not and its pointless for you to argue that you are for it when you remove any tag left citing out of scope. I have raised the issue at the village pump so you can go comment there. I also stopped the bot from doing any tasks since you keep stopping it. Of course there are about 18, 000 unrelated edits that won't get done but since they don't pertain to Connecticut I doubt you care. In the future, if you continue to stop the bot for no reason or after the issue has been resolved I will remove that capability. --Kumioko (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Kumioko. I'm sure that those 18,000 edits can wait a couple of days. But you're mistaken: this isn't about Connecticut. It's about tagging within scope. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't have the authority to tell WPUS what their scope is. How about this since you want to make a monster issue out of it. If you continue to remove the WPUS tag from articles on the grounds of being out of scope I am going to request you be blocked. --Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I do when you leave the discussion of what the scope is. You ran, and have not reverted any of my other removals for what, a year? That's complaince. Heck, that's ACCEPTANCE.

Don't make threats, it just shows how angry you are. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Your right I am angry that one editor is trying to stop an entire project because they are showing undo ownership over articles that aren't theirs to own. I didn't revert you because frankly I had bigger fish to fry. But since now you want to make a federal case out of scope and who has the right to what I have opened up that can of worms at the village pump. This will lead to one of 2 things. Either a project can tag the articles in their scope, as I have been doing, or it will determine that WikiProjects can show relentless ownership in which case WP will be a much darker place. Now stop leaving messages on my bots talk page unless you intend to stop it from doing something wrong. Continuing leaving messages there, when the bot is not running and after I have asked you not too is just trolling and petty. --Kumioko (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I can stop a whole project? I had no idea I had the power to do that! Hey, feel free to throw me a link to that like you're supposed to sometime, eh? As for the bot talk page, I think you saw my most recent PS? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:American Cruise Lines, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Talk:American Crossword Puzzle Tournament shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO!!!! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You're the one that keeps running away from discussing the issue, and now you accuse me of vandalism? That's rich. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the reversion. My bad.Jobberone (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Who are you, btw? I see you're an fairly involved editor over the years, but for you to turn up randomly and revert something on my talk page (as I don't recall any interaction with you in the past) seems a little odd. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent changes to your talk page showed up via an anti-vandalism tool. I thought you were vandalizing someone else's page. Just wasn't careful enough. Sorry again for the inconvenience.Jobberone (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah! That makes sense then. No worries, I spend way too much time on anti-vandalism myself (though I don't use tools) and occasionally do likewise. Nice to meet you. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Talk:American Crossword Puzzle Tournament shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.
After repeated warnings you have persisted in reverting other editors changes to this article and have violated the 3RR rule in doing so. If you have a problem with the edits of another user consider talking about it on the articles talk page rather than violate Wikipedias policies --Kumioko (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

YAWN. Wake me up when you have something to say. BTW, where's the Pump proposal? Oh, that's right. You're still running away. Becuase you know you can't back your POV. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have submitted a discussion regarding your actions at ANI

I have submitted a discussion regarding your actions at ANI here. --Kumioko (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Epilogue: Whelp, as it happened in 2011, the 2012 "Great WikiProject United States Article Tagging Debacle" ended up with Kumioko being blocked, his bot being stopped again (like last time) and running away again instead of talking. Markvs88 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments on my talk page

Due to my block, and the requirement for me to force fragment the discussions I have responded to all comments on my talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC) --Kumioko (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your tireless and unremitting efforts to defend the articles of Connecticut, I commend you. Kumioko (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks as I wasn't defending anything: I was undoing inappropriate tags, as I do anytime I find them. I've been following your posts here, there and all around the 'pedia. Given your griping about me not getting blocked, about some sort the "crew" I have that's out to get you, and about everyone being "out to destroy WPUS"... I really can't accept this as I don't believe you're sincere. Particularly after seeing this (and never mentioning it to me). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

From 71.163.243.232

Petty, Kumioko, petty. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, save it. I tried to revert the edit myself but after the 5th captcha another editor had already beat me to it. Check out their talk page and quite jumping to conclusions as usual. I realize its hard when you have article ownership issues. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You revert the reversion of a cited section and I'm jumping to conclusions? Just... wow. I really have to hand it to you: you are consistant. It's never you, it's always everybody else. Enjoy your run, Markvs88 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to be nice to you for years and work with you and cater to your shitty little attitude. Now I don't have too. I know its very difficult for you to be civil to other editors and your too lazy to actually go and look so let me break this down baby style so you'll understand. Here is the link to the diff were I thanked the other editor for reverting it because WP wanted to ask me for 5 captchas in a row and if you look at the Village pump (technical) you'll see I left a note about Wikipedia requiring multiple captcha's for IP editing. Now you and your shitty attitude already drove me from the site and its clear the community likes you and your stupid little attitude so lets try this. If you need a bottle or your diaper changed please let me know. Other wise, please, act like a man and just stay away. You already won, you don't have to gloat. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been nothing but civil towards you, and still bear you no ill will despite all of your various actions, evasions and sniping. Good luck with your anger management. See you around, Markvs88 (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok diaper is changed! Mark, your not civil, your the kid in school that gets beat up for being annoying. The comments you make are not friendly, not helpful and just plain annoying. Stop posting here. This is not an invitation to reply, you do not need to have the last word. Let it go, move on, go away. Go remove some WPUS banners from Connecticut articles or something but go away. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

An ironic statement, as you're the one whom is running away. Again. Enjoy fighting with Brad101... I had no idea until the Afd/the events of the last few weeks as to exactly how big your "fanclub" is! Markvs88 (talk) 05:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note that Kumioko removed my last reply as "trolling". Not that he hasn't engaged in it all over the 'Pedia in his nearly-three-week-long (self imposed) "going away tour", but whatever... I suspect that he'll be back again.

Question about a reversion

I recently noticed this reversion and I wondered what was wrong with it. The individual seems to meet the notability criteria. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand that with that edit you were removing Mansoor Alam and adding nobody? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your confusing my question with another. You removed it as not notable, not me. I was wondering why you removed it because it seems notable to me. Sorry if thats confusing. I created an account the other day. I just don't always login to make edits. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Could you click on Cheshire High School, then click on history. 69.0.14.130 removed Alam, I reverted that edit. I don't see your IP nor username as having ever edited that page. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't edited that page. I was looking at the Alam article, saw it was connected and that you removed it as not notable. I believe it is notable and should be there and wondered what the reasoning for you removing it was. I am new to Wikipedia so I don't know all the rules and assume there was a reason that you removed Alam from the notable list. It is starting to appear to me however that you did it simply because it was done by an IP and assumed it was vandalism without checking the edit. Although I could easily be wrong. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you look at the history? [6] I didn't remove it... 69.0.14.130 did. I reverted the removal (read: I added it back in). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok now I'm even more confused about your edits to the article. In [7] this edit you removed Barnum and Formica as being non notable, but both clearly are notable. But I do see where I made the mistake about your removal of Alam so I apoligize for that one. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem re: Alam. Depending on the interface you're using, it can be easy to misinterpret things given how Wiki displays changes.

I removed Barnum and Formica because neither have wikipedia articles, nor citations... (so how do we know they exist)? This is a standing practice of mine, and is actually more liberal than most editors (whom require wikipages, which means at least two citations to pass Notability). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks good to know. So if there is no article yet they shouldn't be under notability sections (presumably dab pages too I'm guessing). That makes sense. Harvey C. Barnum, Jr. exists though. They just misspelled the name. Again no fault of yours. Thanks for cleaing that up though. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW I'll see about creating one for Formica later this weekend if I can find a little extra time. Never created an article before so it might take me some time. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Good find re: Harvey C. Barnum, Jr.! Feel free to add it to the high school article if you want, if not I'll get to it evenutally. I suggest writing the article locally on your word processor or (if you want to try out all the wikiformatting) in your sandbox. The reason I suggest it is if you haven't encountered it yet, there is a speedy deletion team that monitors new articles and often zaps un-cited ones in 10 minutes or less. (Yes, way.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I was sorta thinking that too actually. Theres hundreds of juicy refs out there on him so it might take me a little while. I found several pics too so I guess I need to figure out that process too. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures can be tricky as they either have to be public domain or you have to have permission to upload them. If you need a hand with that when you get there, just ask. Have fun! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope your happy

Well I hope your happy Mark, Kumioko left the project. WikiProject United States and a whole bunch of other projects will probably slide back into an inactive status, no more Newsletter, no more collaboration of the month, no more bot to automate tasks. These all amount to a massive loss to Wikipedia. All because you want to be rude and incivil and show article ownership, not allowing other projects to tag articles. All because of you and a select few other editors who are more concerned about protecting your little spheres of influence rather than the larger good of building an encyclopedia. But now thats not an issue anymore, now he's gone and you can freely guard all your articles against other editors trying to help improve them. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This again? Um, given that you *are* Kumioko, I'm hard pressed to understand your message unless I assume you're bi-polar and feel the need to talk about yourself in the third person. There are over 500 co-tagged articles between WPCT & WPUS, so it's a spurious accusation anyway. As I've said ad-nauseum, I *only* remove tags that are clearly out of scope. For ANY project. That you refuse to discuss what was clearly an overreaching scope for WPUS isn't my fault.

As for the rest of your message, I am quite civil, and it has been you that... refused to discuss the matter a month ago, ran from discussing it a year a year ago, and ran from disucssing it before that with the "hey, let's all have the same project tags!" discussion when it became clear that it wasn't going to happen. Now, you've gone on a month-long "woe is me crusade" going one-by-one to everyone you feel has "wronged" you.

So please, Kumioko, retire already. If your leaving WPUS "kills" the project, I'd conclude that there really was no project at all. Given all of your sniping at me all over the 'pedia and my willingness to discuss the matter for years, I feel (and the two dozen or so other editors you've annoyed with all this) that the only loss to the 'pedia right now is drama. Oh, and inaccurate project tagging. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line Mark is that its not for you to decide if an article is out of a projects scope. A project has the right to tag the articles they think are in their scope without some overzealous external editor reverting the changes. The only reason you allow the articles to "share" the Connecticut and US tags are because those articles belong to another US supported project. If it were left to you, those would be removed as well for being out of scope. The articles you untagged are just as much in the projects scope as they are for Connecticut. You are right about one thing, I am a much less productive editor these days but that's because of you and a few others who didn't like my edits or WikiProject US. Had I been allowed to fix the problem with the bot (which was a really minor one and easily fixed) and allowed to participate in the discussions rather than being blocked for your actions, me and my bot would have had thousands more edits by now, there would have been a monthly newsletter (possibly 2) and a lot of good work would have been done. But instead, all I do now is participate in discussions and all because of you and your actions. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Who was deciding? You refused discussion 3 times! Why should I talk to you now? You're supposed to be retired, remember? You chose your current status, I had nothing to do with it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Mark you are as usual misrepresenting the facts to support your own conclusions. I never refused to discuss anything with you but you didn't want to "discuss" anything, you wanted me to concede to what you wanted. I am certainly not innocent in the events but you are the one who broke the 3 revert rule and I am the one who got blocked for it. At the least we should have both been blocked. I could have lived with that, but no, they sided with you and your policy violations and article ownership so I was reduced to a mere vandal. Years of time and effort trying to make the pedia better and they side with the editor that rarely does anything but revert others work or cry about scope. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

..."as usual"? Thanks for illustrating why we cannot discuss things rationally. Keep up the insults, they really help your case. Bye. Best. Markvs88 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy note

I have mentioned you (well, your talk page) in this AN/I discussion. 28bytes (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi 28bytes, thank you for the note, and THANKS!! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Churches in Connecticut & others

The parent was just renamed to match it's parent. There are different categories for denominations and parishes. The main structure that these are in are for the buildings which is generally all that is notable. Churches is simply ambiguous since it can refer to several different things. If some of these articles actually are also about the parish, then they can be included in multiple categories. But keeping the current category would just maintain the existing ambiguity which is inherently bad for categories. The entire parent structure has been named this way after much discussion. So I'm surprised to see an objection at this late date. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I did find the discussion after checking the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism/Archive_2011, by user:WlaKom, whom speaks English as a second or third language and who (for some reason) didn't think to mention it to a wider audience, even after this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut).

Here are some reasons why it doesn't fit:

1. The records of the Parish are official legal documents and are never housed in the Church. Ergo, the Rectory is also notable as a hall of records.
2. Some parishes such as Sts. Cyril and Methodius Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut) are also the home for documents which make up the records of national organizations and are notable per wp:NONPROFIT.
3. Still others such as Holy Name of Jesus Church (Stratford, Connecticut) were "ground zero" in the infamous clergy-sex scandals, which inherently makes it a Parish issue and not one of the actual building.
4. Among others, St. Theresa Church (Trumbull, Connecticut)'s has a Blue Ribbon School, which also adds to the notability of non-church buildings on a Parish property.

BTW, I'm not trying to be a PITA here, but seeing the speedy tag was very surprising! I really don't see anyway to seperate the building from the parish unless the church is closed and there is no parish. Otherwise, every church currently in the category would automatically be in the Parish cat as well? Really? That seems like overkill... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to comment in one or both of the two related discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 22. --Orlady (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Orlady! I'll do so asap. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was nor naught. It's have been nice had they actually... debated the option we'd proposed. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Kemba Walker

I didn't do this to the page due to 3RR, but the successful pro athletes from UConn on the University of Connecticut page needs work. Has Dan Orlovsky been more successful than Kemba? I doubt it. Smartyllama (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's getting bloated with C and D-listers. Personally, I didn't go through each and every one... but I just felt it was at best premature to say Kemba Walker was successful after barely being in the NBA. Personally, I don't recognise half of the names on the UConn page, and that's supposed to be the "best". Feel free to purge! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Churches in Connecticut

Okay, I'm waiting for the fallout. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, as you did at Category:Churches in Connecticut. If you believe that a decision reached at CfD was an erroneous one, please take your evidence and discuss the case at deletion review. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon! Not even a personalized message? I'm disappointed. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You haven't commented yet in the latest discussion. --Orlady (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Orlady! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, while watching this pot boil, I've been working on creating and beefing up denomination-specific subcats of Category:Christianity in the United States by state for linking with and into categories like Category:Christianity in Connecticut. --Orlady (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's great! Nice work!! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Churches and Church buildings

I think maybe I can explain this issue. When I say "I belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in response to the question "what Church are you a part of", I am not refering to a building but to the super-structure that has over 10,000 meetinghouses. Yes the later are in some cases called Churches, but they are properly classified under the category Church buildings and not Churches.

A synagogue or a mosque is the building. A Church is not the building in all uses, only at times is it such. This distinction reflects actual usage where people actually say "church building" but not "synogogue building" or "mosque building". This may be odd, but it is how things are done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to chat, though I see you also posted at the current discussion.

I must say, I am confused by your point of view. When you say "I belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", you're speaking about a denomination, not about where you attend services. The whole point of contention is that the vast majority of the articles in these various state categories are about the "local cell" of the house of worship in question, not solely (or necessarily even mostly) about the actual church building structure. I laid out this point in Here. Note that I'm fine with adding a church building category, but renaming the church one makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes, a synagogue or a mosque or a church is a building. However, no: consecrated ground is always considered a holy place, and is considered differently than unconsecrated ground. I'll give you another good example from above in my talk: Holy Name of Jesus Church (Stratford, Connecticut) has a church building built in 1957. The prior church is now the church hall, right next to the church building on that property. The occasional mass and other holy events are still celebrated in it. By your proposal you'll need a new Church buildingS category, as you're dealing with multiple buildings on the same property, or write a new article for it, since for some reason you're against the definition that a Church is more than just a single building.

What say you to the renaming of every civic category as I proposed in my example? I didn't see any discussion of that. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a turkey vulture.

In reference to your reversion to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Narragansett_Trail%27s_Lantern_Hill_view_of_hawks_flying._Mashantucket_Pequot_Museum_can_be_seen_in_the_far_background..jpg

I went on a hike to Lantern Hill with KevinH42 this past weekend. We saw these birds perched on cliff-side - I too believe they are turkey vultures, not hawks. The bald head was visible.

Like this: http://thedailybirdnewengland.blogspot.com/2011/02/signs-of-spring-vulture.html

Consider accepting his page correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewater (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Icewater. I'm really no expert on the matter, and the image in the article is from pretty far away. If you want to make that change, I would put that article in as a citation in the article and see if the original editor (or anyone else) complains -- but my best guess is that if Morrowlong is good with it that no one else will mind. Nice find! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reversion

Hello Mark, Many thanks for reverting the vandalism of the wikipedia page about me. I have not edited wikipedia for years, after getting into an editing war with Carl Hewitt.

I would be grateful if you could look at the link to the Polish wikipedia article about "Robert Kowalski". It is not about me, and I don't want to try to edit my own wikipedia page and to be censured in the process.

Best wishes Bob

(Best to contact me, if you like, via my Imperial College email.) Robert Kowalski (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bob! You're quite welcome, yours is one of many pages that I patrol for vandalism. I'll take a look at that as soon as I can. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Bob, I have removed the photograph but it appears that the article is for a legitimate actor. If you want we could persue disambiguation, but since the Polish actor is unlikely to get an English article I don't know how important this might be to you. Interestingly, the Russian article Робърт Ковалски is about you (but dated). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, Markvs88, for your attempt, but I fear it doesn't solve my problem, and it doesn't help the Polish actor of the same name. It would probably be best just to restore his photo, and simply remove the Polish link from the article about me. Last time someone tried it, a bot put it back. I'm sure you have plenty of other things to do, so don't let me add to your workload. Best wishes. Bob Robert Kowalski (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I've misunderstood what you're asking for then. Is the picture on your article one of the actor and not you? Removing the link is easy enough to do. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange, I thought I added a reply a couple of days ago. But it seems to have disappeared. What I meant to say is that the picture on "my page" is of me, and now the picture on the actor's page is of me. Best to restore the actor's picture, and just to remove the link on my page to the actor. Someone tried to remove the link before, but a bot simply restored. Best wishes. Bob. Robert Kowalski (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bob, the link was removed by WTM on Wednesday, and as he/she is also an editor on the Polish version of Wikipedia I'd expect that this should stick. (PS: Greetings from Bridgeport!) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, Markvs88. Best wishes from Petworth UK. Bob Robert Kowalski (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

New member

Hello. I am a new member of Wikipedia's registered user community.

--MaxAMSC (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi and nice to meet you! I see that you've introduced yourself to a dozen other editors as well. Just a note, most anytime you see "bot" at the end of an account, it means that it is a bot and not a real person. Please feel free to ask any questions you have! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Birthdate Info

Hi Mark, So good to hear from you again. The only reason I do not want my full birth date to be visible is that it leaves one open to identity theft. So if the year is there, it gives some indication of my age. I just don't lie about it. And since I am now 70, I just didn't want people who know me to think that I am denying something that I am actually very proud of. If the format you have is what has to be, OK. I'll just have to "live with it". Hope all is well with you and yours. Best Wishes, Peggy Bxzooo 23:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peggy, and I fully appreciate that as a concern. Yes, it is a small annoyance but I'll look in and see if there is *any* way to force it for you. Best as always, Markvs88 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through all of the various age templates and there's just no way to force it without entering a month & day. The template information is here. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanx for giving it a try Mark! Bxzooo 03:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Danbury climate data

Why did you revert 149.137.102.179's edit to Danbury, Connecticut? The link (s)he gave was valid - you have to choose "Danbury, CT" under part 2. I don't see any problem with it, and your edit summary left me a bit confused. Thanks, "Pepper" @ 20:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

! For whatever reason it came up directly with NYC data when I hit it the first time. (Double click?) Anyway, I'll put it back. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge

Hi Markvs88, thanks for supporting Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Merge, the WikiProject has now been started. You can add yourself to the list of participants if you would still like to join. Thanks again, Quasihuman | Talk 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks QH, I have done so! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking for advice

I'm interested in improving the presentation of the membership timelines for the various DI conferences.

I started a draft writeup at User:Sphilbrick/sandbox for latest project

I'd love to hear your feedback on whether this idea has merit, but I'm especially interested in thoughts on where I should present this. I was originally thinking the Wikiproject basketball page, but it has broader impact than just basketball. I tentatively plan to pick one location, then either write up a an RfC, or add notices to various obvious places. However, I am not sure how best to reach out to everyone who might care, so I'm looking for your advice.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I may regret being impatient, but I went ahead and posted at Talk page of Project College football--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick! Thanks for the invitation, but I really don't have any opinions on this topic. Good luck with it! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

North Haven High School

The reason I prodded the school was because there's absolutely nothing online about it. No Google hits save the school's page (which doesn't have anything in the way of stats), and no worthwhile news hits (You get honor rolls and sports results, and nothing big). I cannot even find anything to confirm the attendance except for here which gives "close to 1200". That leaves us with exactly 2 facts: the address and the principal. That's not enough to base an article off of, inherent notability or not. I'd appreciate your thoughts (and corrections), as you're clearly more experienced with this. (Feel free to reply here.) Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, how 'bought Oxford High School (Connecticut)? :) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Pi (and happy belated Pi Day, btw!). I fell asleep editing the article last night, but I've found several thousand hits for North Haven High School... many of which are of course trivial but I've added one for now (try a search for "North Haven High School" +New Haven Register). I'll build up the article a bit and look up Oxford over today & tomorrow as time allows. Thanks & Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI to Pi: Experience at Wikipedia has been that essentially all high schools are notable. Due to their significance in the communities they serve, essentially every high school has had substantial third-party coverage somewhere at some time, even though we may not have found it yet. There are occasional exceptions, such as very small schools or defunct schools that had a very short history (in both cases, the school could be covered in another article), but this is not the case for either of the Connecticut public high schools that you name. See the essays Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education for additional background. --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I guess that makes more sense. I think I must be thinking of a couple of elementary schools (at least one no longer in existence) that I'd prodded for literally no press coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. When you recently edited American Shakespeare Theatre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Timex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yale University

Hi, I am curious why you removed my contribution to Wikipedia's Yale University page. Please see the talk page for Yale University. Thank you. 68.81.3.23 (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for the note! I have answered your post at talk:Yale University. I'm not against your adding in the Law School, but the rankings can't be there and probably should be in the Yale Law School article instead. I'm happy to disucss this here or there, whichever you prefer. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A structural solution to good-faith deletion battles

Hi Mark, Firstly, thank you for your helpful comments at VPP. Some people just mistook my comments as "admin bashing" and in retrospect I should have been more clear, but that was never my intention. I want to stop our 'quality control' people from stepping on the toes of our 'rough draft' writers.

The point was never for me to just whine-- the point was to find solutions. You proposed one solution-- slowing down the notability-based speedy deletion process. I think that solution has merit, so I've added it to a page on the issue.

I want to make find a real solution, and that's only possible if lots and lots of people are involved. I'm no leader, I've no expert in changing policies. I need help.

Would you look over Wikipedia:Deletions and Openness and see what you think?

--HectorMoffet (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, HectorMoffet, and thanks for dropping a line. Looking at the D&O page, here are my thoughts...

1. I would not use bullets for the statement, it needs to have more of a flow, IMO.
2. Details looks fine.
3. As for recommendations:
   1. renaming AfD isn't going to happen. Some articles do need to be deleted, if it gets to that point. It's the speedy deletionists that do the lion's share of killing new articles.
   2. There's also nothing wrong with constructive tagging. I'd reword this point to be more about leaving details about the tag on the talk page of the article, or don't tag it at all. For example, I often will use {{Citation needed|date=February 2012}} as a tool to leave a contribution in without deleting it. Of course, it then gets deleted a month or four later, but that's the breaks.
   3. All of point 2 sounds like sandboxes. Can you expand on how it is different?
   4. I'm also unclear on point 3, sub 1: how would this be done, and why?

Best, Markvs88 (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Great feedback!

• Renaming AFD isn't a high priority for me, but it was suggested by someone and seemed to have merit. It's a "cosmetic" change, but the point is that many AFDs are discussions where delete is only one of several possible outcome. Why accentuate the most negative outcome in the name?

I don't think it would help that much. I'm looking for a 'bigger' solution.

• "Shared userspace" IS important to me, and it is like a Userspace sandbox, but with some critical improvements.
  • Editing another user's sandbox is usually unwelcome, in Shared Userspace, collaborative editing would be the norm.
  • Finding another user's sandbox, to help with it, is very difficult. Userspace is organized by user. Shared Userspace would be organized topically like articlespace.
  • Userspace sandboxes lack categories, again making it hard to collaborate. Shared userspace could have categories.

But the big difference is this quote from from Userspace policy:

Userspace ... should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content.

In a Shared Userspace, content that has been deleted for quality would be welcomed with open arms. (Obviously, content deleted for reasons of legality/morality is still excluded).

Point three is basically me asking the Foundation to do something else to help people 'contribute' in ways that aren't prone to criticism or deletion.

Off the top of my head, imagine an "Oral History" project where students record conversations about historic experiences. There's no such thing as a bad "Oral History"-- some are more entertaining, some are more informative, but they're all good, even when the speakers say bad things. I'm not proposing that we start an oral history project, but that's just a 'for example'. Encyclopedia projects have to make quality judgements all the time. Archives get to be a little more relaxed.

With point 3, I'm just trying to imagine something a 'normal' person could just show up and contribute, without bumping into trouble. Something that has some VERY SIMPLE rules that are software imposed so you CANNOT break the rules. Point 3 needs work by someone way smarter than me.

--HectorMoffet (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, (and this is not meant to sound snarky) it looks like you're looking for a lot of solutions under one umbrella. I suggest that if this plan is implemented that it be done in pieces as it will never pass otherwise.

1. Because it is an accurate description of what will happen if the article gets to that point. What needs to be done is to ensure that the article doesn't get there.
2. Ah! Then I would make the following suggestions: a) Spell out what that is on the D&O page. b) How about some function to alert relevant Wikiprojects that such an article is being worked on? That'd be (IMO) the best way to spur collaboration.

Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Buck's Rock

I am new to Wikipedia so uncertain how to answer your comments but since you left me a message about my edits let me reply.

What you appear to be saying is that without "notability" or "secondary sources" there can be no Wikipedia article about Buck's Rock. This seems a bit unreasonable. You cannot apply traditional standards of historicity to a summer camp; yet that doesn't mean that the camp, Buck's Rock, does not have a rich and noteworthy history. In fact the camp celebrates its 70th anniversary this summer, it's been written up in The New York Times, the Danbury News Times, and the Litchfield News, been featured on radio and television, and it boasts many famous alumni who can confirm much of what had been written. Further, the comments about the edits are a bit inconsistent in that you have no documentation for the "Early History" and other material and yet you've allowed this to remain.

A summer camp's history is largely anecdotal and is documented only by the camp's literature or by the organizations to which the camp has belonged; i.e., the American Camping Association, the Association of Independent Camps, and the Connecticut Camp Directors Association. (Unfortunately, only the first of these is still in existence.)

I am trying to make these edits to reflect my family's involvement in Buck's Rock for over 30 years and would be more than happy to support this with any information that you deem reasonable. Thanks.

Ethicsisman (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ethicsisman!

If you click on the blue links I left on your talk page, you can read the actual policies in question. However, I am not here to be an impediment to you, and am happy to work with you (within the Wikipedia framework). Note that anything that's uncited can be deleted from Wikipedia at any time, and that anything with an invalid source is considered uncited.

Yes, I fully understand the challenge of finding sources for a summer camp. I frequently run up against the same problem myself when dealing with other topics such as public housing, churches, parks, etc. "That's the breaks".

Yes!! And please do cite the NYT, Danbury News, etc. *But* otoh there are sources (those self-published ones I mentioned before) that aren't valid for use on Wikipeida. If you want to cite non-web content, please include page numbers, publishers, etc. An example of this is the "Decision Points" citation on John Morton Blum. The other thing I would point out is that when adding material is to remember that this is an online encyclopedia. Details such as "Laura is the Bergers’ daughter." aren't of any concern to anybody, and staff/alumni need to be notable for inclusion. I know this is a difficult concept, and suggest reading one event for more details on it. Also, you're not the first person to discuss this with me, so you might be interested in reading this to see their concerns.

Thanks for writing, and I am happy to assist in any way possible. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WP Connecticut in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Connecticut for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Salisbury

Dear Markvs88,

I don't know who you are, but I do know that you have nothing to do with Salisbury School. I, however, am the School's headmaster. Therefore, I am charged with making sure that infomation about the School is accurate and up-to-date. The information I have been adding and editing is also available on our website. For you to say it is 2+ years old is ridiculous. My edits are far more timely. Please stop editing my work.

Thank you,

Chisholm1966 (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and first I want to help you understand a few things. First, be nice. Second, please read wp:own. You have no more a right to edit the article than anybody else on Wikipedia. Third, please read wp:citing sources. Everything you add should be attributable to a source, preferably a wp:third party one. And, fourth, anything that is not a cited point can be deleted at any time. I'm happy to discuss anything you wish, but will not stop reverting the re-addition of years old information (even updated years old information) that lacks citations. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Markvs88,

I was not trying to offend you. I am very frustrated. The information that I am placing on the Salisbury School wiki site is accurate and current. It is not 2+ years old as you suggest. People use Wikepedia to get information. The info that you keep reverting to is old an out-of date.

Do you work for Wikpedia? How is it that you seem to think you have editorial control over what is written about Salisbury School? Again, the information I keep trying to register is all true. It is not 2+ years old, s I wrote much of it two nights ago. I was informed by a parent that our site was inaccurate, an I have been trying to set the record straight.

Thank you,

Chisholm1966 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Chisholm1966. A poor choice of words on my part... I should have said that the prior edits spent two years unsourced, and that a portion of your edits were similar.

No, I do not work for Wikipedia, but I do watch ~ 8000 articles (basically everything in Connecticut, though the number is an ever-increasing target) for vandalism and questionable editing. Most of the time it's unfortunately the former, but sometimes I get lucky and it is a legitimate editor that actually wants to improve the article. I do not have any more control over this or any article on Wikipedia than you do, however, I am applying the rules (as I hyperlinked (wp:) above).

Note that I have not reverted the article again, but have tagged it with "Unreferenced" tags. I'll leave it for a month so that you or other editors can add attribution to the article. Note that your relationship with the doesn't mean a thing on Wikipedia. In particular, please also read this: points 1, 2 & 4. That said, I understand your frustration and am happy to help -- the 'pedia isn't the most user-friendly of places. Thanks, and I am not offended as I hope you are not, either. Please ask any questions you have, and I will assist/answer them. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. - If you want to see how to cite a reference, go to any article (such as our friend Josiah Bunting III and click edit. You'll notice amongst the text <ref> some text </ref>. This is called an inline citation, and is how data is affirmed on Wikipeida. I've also done one for you here.

Markvs88,

I would like to learn more about how to properly cite. I appreciate your willingness to help. Please let me know the best way to connect.

Thanks,

Chisholm1966 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Markvs88,

I should have read your post before I responded. I have a better uderstanding now. I am indeed a legitimate editor just trying to provide the best, most accurate/fair, and up to date information about the School. Over the course of the next month, I will provide the proper citations.

I definitely need to learn more about how Wikipedia works and will read/study what you suggested. Being more versed in Wiki protocols will help me in my efforts.

Again, thanks,

Chisholm1966 (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Markvs88,

Just read the site about Bunting. When he got bounced out of The Hill School, he then attended Salisbury, Class of 1957. Don't know why we aren't mentioned. He and the auther, David McCullough, were the keynote speaker at the School's Centennial Celebration in 2001.

Chisholm1966 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it... and please feel free to ask me (or other editors) anything you like. BTW, the month deadline is totally arbitrary. If citaitons are being added I'm not going to just hit the "nuclear option" and zap everything not cited in 30 days. I believe there's a place for wp:good faith as well as following the rules. Also, don't feel like you have to read those wp: pages I've thrown at you to start... just their headings a good once over and understand what they mean. Otherwise it's a russian-doll problem of reading seemingly endless rules! *(The heading is defined as the paragraph above the "Contents" box on the left side of the article.) Happy editing, Markvs88 (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

PS - Re: Bunting: and that's a prime example of why Wikipedia itself isn't considered an authoritative source. It's great of "first pass research", but... you never know what's missing.

Big K.R.I.T. Article

Surely the Production discography is far more comprehensive in a chart form? Am a new editor so apologies if I have committed an editing faux pas by not 'citing intermediary edits' (unsure of meaning). I just felt that the page as it is has too many unnecessary headings and the information could be organised more easily. Why did you delete?

-Ultimatedanm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimatedanm (talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I keep reverting it because it's unsourced... can you provide a citation for what you're adding? If so I'm happy to leave it for a week if you need some time. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The same uncited material exists in the reverted form of the article. The only changes I have made are to the presentation of this material, and have not actually added anything. Having said that, I'm sure I can find sources for his production of tracks in articles etc. Will do.

-Ultimatedanm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimatedanm (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Have now cited, is this good?

-Ultimatedanm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimatedanm (talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks solid! Good work! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Genuine Cuban Giants#Redirect to Cuban Giants

Per the WP:BRD cycle, at the above talk page link, I have provided sources in response to your request to "prove it" regarding the redirect. Your input is requested. Hopefully, this will quell any doubts you have. Although I really don't think this is the least bit controversial, if you have sources that contradict the redirect, then I will respectfully stand corrected. Rgrds, (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.217.171 (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I replied to you on that talk page, thanks again! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)