User talk:Station1/Archive 2

• Discussions from 2007 through 2010 have been archived here. Please start new discussions in a new section below.

Rosalie

Hi. I notice that you commented on the discussion about moving Rosalie to Rosalie (musical) when it came up last month, but it was prematurely closed. The discussion has restarted. Kindly comment here if you have an opinion. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I have a strong opinion, but I'll take a look when I have a little more time. Station1 (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Monticello

Please be more careful in the future when reverting cut/paste moves, such as was done at Monticello (Tide station). Whether it's a banned user that executes the move is somewhat immaterial once the history chain is broken, since good-faith edits can be, and in this case, were made to the improperly-made article, which required a history merge. I have merged the histories back together. In the future, please don't just "rvv" these things, but rather find an admin and ask that it all be put together correctly. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Free Fall

Thanks for reverting the page and explaining why that was possible in this instance. At the start of WP:NCB it states "If further disambiguation is needed, add the author's surname inside the parentheses: "(Orwell novel)", "(Asimov short story)", etc.", which was why I wanted the move reverted. memphisto 23:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote needed

Votes are needed on the Thomas Jefferson talk page, (1st section) Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Gabe Lewis (The Office)

Hello, Station1. I am sorry about renaming pages and connecting them to different articles. I am just having trouble renaming Gabe Lewis (The Office) to just Gabe Lewis because there's that page called Gabe Lewis that links to the "Gabe Lewis (The Office)" page. I tried to just copy the full article on Gabe and paste it to the page that redirected to "Gabe Lewis (The Office)" and then redirect "Gabe Lewis (The Office)" to the "Gabe Lewis" page, but I remembered what the Wikipedia Administrators said about that messing up the history and I changed it back. If you want to help with this could you maybe find a way to rename "Gabe Lewis (The Office)" to just "Gabe Lewis"? Thanks, -- NetflixSoup (talk) 21:19 4 March 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC).

Replied on your talk page. Station1 (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! -- NetflixSoup 09:16 6 March 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for your note

Hello Station1. Thanks for your note, especially the detailed description of your reasoning. Edit summaries have so little room and, too often, lead to misunderstandings. My apologies if any of mine were too curt or caused offense. The reason I felt the Michael Caine film mention is ok is that it is on his filmography page. Granted that is a diff page than his article but, normally it would be there, its just that he made dang many films ;-) Several of them excellent BTW - The Man Who Would Be King and Mona Lisa being two of my faves. As a child of the 60's Jack Palance's performance is still stuck in my memory - though I don't know what I would think of it if I saw it today. You are right about the separate "Adaptations" page. As I'm typing this I can see your point - I want to think about that one for a day or two if you don't mind. Thanks again and cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I meant to get back to you sooner. I'm inclined to agree with you that the "Adaptations" page removes the need to have any redlinked films on the disambig page. If you want to remove them plz feel free to do so. I wonder whether there shouldn't be a hidden message on the dismbig page or a post on the talk page - or both - letting editors know why they should only add redlink films to the "Adaptations" page. Let me know what you think or just edit away. Thanks for your time and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 19:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and the work on updating the disambig page. I altered the wording in the explanatory note to try and help the readers understand exactly what we have done to the page. As I said in my edit summary please feel free to alter it if it is too awkward. The only other thing that I wonder is whether we should each add a brief note to the talk page to supplement the message from 06 that you restored. That might help to make future editors aware that there is a consensus (of three) at the moment as too the structure of the page. Otherwise kudos on your work. MarnetteD | Talk 12:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No objections to your changes. As mentioned, if you want to add or change anything on talk page, please do. I realize the 06 message is, let's say, imperfect. But it had the advantage of being there already. Station1 (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

La Stazione

I undid the change you made to La Stazione, because I don't know if you saw the reason I gave for that content's inclusion on the FAC:

“ I think it's important to say whether the guy who owns the restaurant owns other restaurants; I can easily picture the following scenario: "Sammy Strawman signed a lease for a new restaurant in Kingston in January 2011. The restaurant was open by April, and by early October, was doing so well that staff at Strawman's other restaurant was cut by half. In February 2012, the faltering restaurant was sold to Oliver Overkill, who tore up the building's floorboards in search of a penny he had dropped at the station as a child, in 1935." ”

In short, this information adds context to the building as a restaurant, and to the restaurant's owner. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I did see it - you mentioned it in your edit summary. I strongly disagree, though, that other restaurants should be named in the article just because they happen to be owned by the same person. This is extremely tangential to the topic and, more importantly, sounds like an ad - although I realize that's not your intention. You seem to be saying in your scenario that it's possible these other restaurants might somehow affect this one in the future, but that's pure conjecture, and it certainly isn't clear from reading the sentence in the article that that's even what you're trying to get at. It's clear you've done a lot of research, and overall this is a very nice article, but that paragraph should come out. Station1 (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to businesses, I've noticed a tendency among editors to err on the side of "it's probably advertising", but simply mentioning that these restaurants exist is not promotional. I could see it if this information was inserted into the articles for the involved towns, such as "New Paltz is a great town, and you can eat at this restaurant!" But it is appropriate in this context; the owner of La Stazione also owns two other restaurants. This is directly related to the subject, and I can't find anything in WP:SPAM to preclude the inclusion of this content. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We disagree. You're doing more than mentioning they exist; you're giving names and locations and type of food and dates of opening. The fact that the building's owner also happens to own other specifically named restaurants - one in another town and one that sounds like it might be a pizza parlor in a strip mall - tells me about the owner but absolutely nothing about the topic of the article, the building. If it's important to know that the owner "also owns two other restaurants", just insert ", who owns two other restaurants," after his name. But giving their names and locations is totally unnnecessary. As others have pointed out, the article's title and wording of the lead already give it a slightly promotional tinge. You've done a good job in not giving the restaurant undue weight in the body, but I think it's especially important in a case like this not to push it too close to the edge by writing anything that has the appearance of being promotional, especially when it's so unnecessary. And again, I don't doubt your good intentions, but more than one editor has questioned the promotional tone. Station1 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not given the types of foods served. The name of the place is Rocco's Pizza. And mentioning the locations of these buildings is indeed relevant: we know the location of the first restaurant (the subject of the article), so wouldn't it be of interest if the owner opened another restaurant in the same town? I understand that you're not impugning me personally, but from my perspective you're proposing a solution in search of a problem – removing content that's written in a neutral manner, and related to the subject, purely because it may be viewed by some people as promotional. Also, should this whole conversation be moved to the FAC? --Gyrobo (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Not purely because it sounds promotional, but coupled with the fact that I do think it's largely irrelevant. Even if town location were relevant, names wouldn't be, nor that it's near Stop and Shop. If you wish to move this to FAC, I have no objection; other's opinions might be helpful. Station1 (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I already removed that part. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Butting in: as I brought this up at FAC, and Ling.Nut has as well, I think this conversation should take place there so we can all be on the same page - literally. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Fort Orange

Hi,

I see you moved Fort Orange to Fort Orange (disambiguation) and made a redirect of Fort Orange to Fort Orange (New Netherland). Can I ask you why exactly? The fort in the state of New York may have the largest article here on Wikipedia, but it is by far not the most well-known Fort Orange in the world. In fact, the article's size is an artifact of being maintained by some New Netherland enthousiasts here on Wikipedia. nl:Fort Oranje (Sint Eustatius) and nl:Fort Oranje (Bonaire) are arguably more known and more important since they still exist as forts in the Caribbean Netherlands. Also, the Fort Orange in New Netherland is not more important than the one in Brazil or Ghana. Best regards, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I made the move based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Currently, there are only three articles on WP using the title Fort Orange. This has absolutely nothing to do with which fort is most well-known or most important, but only with which article most readers are likely to be expecting when they search for or link to the phrase "Fort Orange". Because the New Netherland fort was important in the early development of New York, it's quite natural that it would be the most likely search target on the English language WP (it might be a very different story on the Dutch or Portuguese WPs). This can be seen by looking at the pageviews for January (most recent month before name changes): 1,940 views for New York[1] vs 120 for Brazil[2], and 184 for Ghana in February[3]. The New York fort also has far more incomimg wikilinks. These are some of the criteria suggested at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In addition, most if not all wikilinks pointing to Fort Orange appear to intend the New York article, not the dab page[4]. The Bonaire and Saint Eustatius forts do not yet have articles on English WP that might use the name, or might even possibly use Fort Oranje, and the Brazilian fort might also possibly even use an alternative Portuguese name. Given all that, it's better to get most readers where they most likely expect to be, with a hatnote for the minority who need a different article. If the situation ever changes, we can always move things around again. Station1 (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Help wanted

Hi! I noticed on your vote on the Heather Morris move page that you gave some statistics on the number of links that the page received. How do you that? I mean, How can I check? Kanavb (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Use the tool at http://stats.grok.se - you can also get there by clicking on the View History tab of any page and then "Page View Statistics" on the line starting "External tools" near the top. Just be careful that the page you're looking at was at the title for the period you're looking at - sometimes pages have been moved over time. Station1 (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I just noticed you said links, not views. Just click on "What links here" under "Toolbox", usually on the left side of any article. Station1 (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I meant views only, not links. Thanks a ton!! Kanavb (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requested moves

Thanks. I removed that for now. I guess you can't have the comment only appear for a section edit. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Surrogate's Courthouse

[template removed]

• Very interesting article! Bearian (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Station1 (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Oak Hill fixes

I noticed your re-redirect of Oak Hill (plantation). It should point to the general Oak Hill dab page which includes many plantations. Your edit summary asserted incoming links were meant to direct to Oak Hill (James Monroe House); i don't know that's true. If so, let's fix those links directly, okay? I've made a start. Could you help? I've reverted the redirect, as I believe it is unhelpful/misleading. --doncram 18:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be to empty What links here for Oak Hill (plantation). If i do that will u agree to leave the redirect as is. Thanks. --doncram 19:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say there are many plantations on the dab page? I don't see any except the Monroe house. And it is true that the incoming links all intend the Monroe house - I checked. Not to mention that was the article's title until you moved it a while back, so it stands to reason. And, for some reason, a large proportion of the pageviews of the Monroe house are still coming through the plantation redirect. So it's better to leave it as a redirect. Nevertheless, if you first clean up all the mainspace incoming links, it won't be as big an issue and I wouldn't insist on leaving it. Station1 (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oak Hill (Annandale, Virginia) is another plantation house, for one, which you can see from its article. This was discussed by u and me at Talk:Oak Hill (James Monroe House)#Requested move a long time ago.

Okay, i will continue emptying the incoming links and restore the redirect to point to Oak Hill which includes all of the plantations. --doncram 22:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a big deal but I see nothing in the Annandale article about its being a plantation or plantation house. In the discussion you said you were just "guessing". Station1 (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In the discussion back then i said that, yes. In the article, now, is "The house was one of three mansions built during the 18th century on Fitzhugh's enormous Ravensworth estate, ...". A huge estate in Virginia in the 1700s is a plantation. It's one of 3 plantation houses. Do note, in the discussion, that I closed it back then in favor of your preference to use the (James Monroe House) disambiguation, by the way.

Done emptying category of all mainspace links. Actually, yes, I agree that they all meant the James Monroe House one. Thanks. --doncram 22:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think an estate (land) is necessarily a plantation, although I suppose it is reasonable to say it could be, especially in 18th C. Va. Station1 (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Old State House and (City, State) disambiguation

Hi. I noticed your edits to Old State House disambiguation page, and reverted it, thinking at first you had deleted valid entries. I think maybe now that you had not, you had just drastically changed the order and made other changes. However, by state order is eminently well suited for a dab page about statehouses!

Also related there is you had moved several of the linked articles from (City, State) disambiguation names to other disambiguation with invocation of wp:PRECISION in your edit summaries. I object as these moves go against general practice to use (City, State) disambiguation consistently, simply, as relates to naming conventions. There are thousands of U.S. buildings and historic site articles which are currently named nearly consistently with the City, State convention. I think perhaps there should be an RFC to ratify the convention (or you could argue to change the convention). But please let's not go around changing selected articles any which way. Do you want to engage in a big discussion, an RFC? --doncram 19:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

1. The order of dab pages is most-sought first, for convenience of readers. Boston is most sought. 2. WP:PRECISION is well-established policy and has WP-consensus. Titles do not need greater precision than necessary. Boston is not at "Boston, Massachusetts", so the Old State House does not need further disambiguation. It would only need the state if there were some other Old State House in some other Boston. Notice that many were reversions to original titles. Do not move an article from a shorter to a more precise title unless necessary for disambiguation. Station1 (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION does not over-rule all other policies. The use of City, State naming in disambiguation is consistent with U.S. city naming policy, relatively recently the subject of a big RFC that reaffirmed use of City, State type naming for all but a short list (the AP list i think) of cities' articles. IMO, allowing either (City) or (State) to be used indiscriminately, rather than (City, State), would make a mess of disambiguation of U.S. places articles. I would argue that in a big discussion, which is perhaps needed. I noticed here you were choosing to use (Boston) rather than (Massachusetts) in naming a state statehouse, which offhand seems odd. In general I think as a matter of editorial style it is best to always use (City, State), so as not to call undue attention to variations. For readers and for editors it is distracting and unhelpful to be considering, in naming, whether or not there are other places of the same name in cities nation-wide of the same name, vs. whether there are other places of the same name in the same states nation-wide, in order to set a disambiguation policy for a given type of thing. So, I prefer sticking with the (City, State) naming that is most widely applied already.

Are you familiar with the big RFC, which is archived at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/January/Archives/2011/February? It's not exactly ruling on this exact question, but it is very related. --doncram 21:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Policy does take precedence over guidelines. And the guideline for naming U.S. towns is not directly relevant when parenthetically disambiguating buildings. That comes under policy at WP:PRECISION and guidelines at WP:NCDAB. In any case, Boston does not need a state. I used Boston because I believe it was the original title of the article. If you prefer Massachusetts I have no major objection to that. I'm reverting your moves again. Please don't move again without going through WP:RM. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Neighborhoods

Administrator User:Cuchullain seems to disagree. He's reverting all the Jacksonville neighborhoods back to city, state format. (eg. see Riverside (Jacksonville)) I can't do anything about it, since I'm not an admin, but maybe you could ask him to hold off until there's a discussion about it? - Marc Averette (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I see only a couple of recent edits. Neighborhoods have been subject of much discussion. Usual practice is just the name or neighborhod, city. Have you discussed this with him? And have you thought about a multi-move request at WP:RM? Station1 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks on copyedits and question on address restriction

Hi Station1, i see you popping up on my watchlist. Upon reviewing several articles, all mentioned recently, I want to thank you for your edits, which in general seem to make the articles read better. Seriously, thanks for editing these. I note with some concern, though, your removal of "Address restricted" from a couple, including this diff on Valley Falls Cotton Mill Site and this diff on BOC Site. I don't know what is going on, why Elkman's generator is not showing those as Address Restricted, while they were created with that. Maybe there is some conflict between different address fields available in NRIS in my program's usage of NRIS vs. how his programs work. If it is an indication that Elkman changed his code to remove such statements, well i hope that is not the case. Can you share how is it that you are identifying they are not? Are you checking Elkman's output? Sincerely, --doncram 04:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm not too concerned about this point if you want to put something in the articles that is reliably sourced. My thought is that these places have addresses (or locations), it's just that the one source we happen to be using doesn't tell you what they are, in other words they're restricted by that one source, not the world at large. I don't think we generally need to put in articles what we don't know, only what we do know. And we generally don't need to put in precise addresses even when we do know them. If you want to add something like "The NRHP restricts release of the address of this property" or anything similar, provided you know it to be the case, I don't object. But one thing you might want to consider: If the address is restricted it's probably because someone is concerned about possible looting or vandalism. By stating "Address Restricted" rather than saying nothing, we might be unwittingly bringing attention to the site that otherwise wouldn't be noticed - just a thought, not in policy or anything. Station1 (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

notice

Please do comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#New Era Building. i mentioned your name there and should have notified you i guess, as your recent posting at my Talk suggests you were not aware of that discussion. It should, i meant it to, serve as the Requested Move. --doncram 20:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

But you moved the new page first. The thing to do is request a multi-move at WP:RM (or wherever) before you move anything yourself. In any case, I commented at AN as requested. Station1 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Raphael Tuck & Sons

Hi, i noticed you wiped everything i added because it was taken from TuckDB. I happen to work for that site, also, the site is under creative commons. But what you did made me look over and greatly improve it for the wikipedia page. Thanks

Koontz House

Hi, can you explain your rationale for this edit please? There are several buildings that could reasonably be searched for using "Koontz House" & so it seems to be that some sort of disambig page is A Good Thing, although it should probably be titled Koontz House (disambiguation).

I have not had much involvement with disambig pages but it seems likely that you have. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'll try my best. Since there is only one article currently on WP that could be titled Koontz House (if it wasn't using its alternative name), I redirected that title to Green Leaves. Dab pages containing only redlink entries are rare on WP, except for those created by doncram, and are generally undesirable because they do not serve the purpose of disambiguating articles that might otherwise reasonably have the same name. Especially when even the redlinks are not called "Koontz House (something)", someone searching for or linking to Koontz House will probably not be surprised to land on an article about the Koontz House rather than a dab page that leads to no other actual articles about the topic. In the unlikely event someone searching for "Koontz House" really wants a different building, they will still be able to find the brief mentions in the list articles by using the search engine, which is more thorough and up to date for that kind of search than a dab page could ever be. I do agree that if a dab page was necessary at all it should be at Koontz House (disambiguation), but you should know I placed a speedy delete tag on it before I saw this. Please feel free to remove the tag (or recreate the page) if you still disagree. Station1 (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Newman (Musician)

I hope this message of little substance is not unwelcome. I only wanted to thank you for looking after my article and for all your efforts for Wikipedia. Dfarwood (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Notes like that are always welcome. Station1 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Spiralstaircasespiralstaircase

Hi thanks for your messages - I have changed the name of article "Claire Hooper" to "Claire Hooper (comedian)" can you tell me if I also need to create a disambiguation page for the two pages: My concern is for fairness of both pages to make sure that both are available when "claire hooper" is typed into the wiki search box. Maybe this just takes a little time to adjust. Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiralstaircasespiralstaircase (talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to you can go to Claire Hooper and create a disambiguation page there. There are two schools of thought on whether that is a good idea. One is to create the dab page so it is "fair". The other is that with only two articles, the disambiguation hatnote that you placed on Claire Hooper (comedian) is enough, at least for now, because it doesn't inconvenience anyone looking for the comedian (~900 per month) while the newer article is as easily accessible as it would be from a two-entry dab page. Personally I favor the latter. See WP:TWODABS. In a few months I would look at the number of page views and see if there was a reason to reconsider. But it's your call. Station1 (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

United States Post Office (Greybull, Wyoming)

Cleaned up. Please check to make sure I did it right. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your move of Corporate social entrepreneur

Please note that reverts of page moves are not done that way, by subverting the grammar of the title, despite inconsistency with the article itself. Just what possessed you to do something that at least appears to be "sneaky" is beyond me. There's an RM now to reinstate the downcased version. Tony (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about but resent the accusation that anything "sneaky" was done. You moved an article, someone objected, I put it back and suggested an RM, you opened an RM. This is exactly how controversial page moves are boldly done, reverted and discussed. Station1 (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Station1. You have new messages at HardBoiledEggs's talk page.
Message added 06:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for letting me know; I haven't found the issue yet but I'll have another look in the morning. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 06:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Move of Mohammed Schools (Georgia)

Moves have to non-controversial. Article has only just been moved. CSD of Mohammed Schools declined. Suggest start a WP:RM at Talk:Mohammed Schools (Georgia).  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Usually removing a dab page with just one item is considered uncontroversial, but no problem. Probably not worth the trouble of a RM. Station1 (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Station1. You have new messages at HardBoiledEggs's talk page.
Message added 17:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, I'm looking into this. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 17:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wards Island derp

Thanks for catching the misplaced image. S'what I get for editing late at night and not reading everything as closely as I ought =P Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I wouldn't have noticed if it didn't look so out of place on this very institutional island. Station1 (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Good effort Sedna13 (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN mention

You have been mentioned in this discussion: Wikipedia:AN#Topic_ban_from_moves_proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Station1. You have new messages at Talk:General Nutrition Centers.
Message added 20:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The company itself uses just GNC way the hell more than General Nutrition Centers. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No question about it, but it's still an abbreviation. Station1 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Rock Hall (Colebrook, Connecticut)

I undeleted the article, and added a link to a source for the NRHP listing. I had not seen any reliable source for the NRHP listing when I checked before deleting the article. It looks like there are very few reliable sources about the house, but there is precedent for having articles about every site listed in the NRHP. -- Donald Albury 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

talk:Minesweeper (ship)#Requested move 2

I have renewed the proposal to move Minesweeper (ship) to Minesweeper, due to hundreds of links to Minesweeper referring to the ship. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC concerning the article name for Broadway

Because you were involved in a previous discussion on the subject, or related to the subject, please see RfC: What is the best name for the article about the street called "Broadway" which originates in Manhattan? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger discussion for History (journal)

An article that you have been involved in editing—History (journal) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Battles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oscar Hammerstein. 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) 11:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)