User talk:Donald Albury/Archive 1

Archive 1 of my talk page. Archived 03:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of Conch being a disambiguation page pointing to Conch (people) and Conch (gastropod), I would suggest Conch (disambiguation) should be created to point to Conch (people) and Conch (which would remain a page about the gastropod). Generally if one topic is considerably more commonly used than the others, it gets to occupy the main (undisambiguated) page under that title. The final step would be to add

:''{{otheruses}}''

at the top of Conch to point people to the disambiguation page. -- Curps 19:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

AFD

Feel free to vote on the Frank Davis AFD as well. The anon creator has been manipulating both AFDs and has been deleting votes.Gator(talk) 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Roji-en garden

"You added a "See also" section for the Roji-en Japanese Gardens to the Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens article. I will revert your edit because the Roji-en article is already linked in the body of that article, and the "See also" reference is unnecessary. - Dalbury 22:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)"

Sounds good to me. Thanks for fixing up after me. Sorry I hadn't notice that.

Tagging unsigned comments

I noticed that you have been tagging unsigned comments on AfD. Good work!

You might find that using {{subst:unsigned|<IP address>|<Date>}} is easier than entering the text manually. I normally omit the date and use something like {{subst:unsigned|127.0.0.1|}}. This would produce "(preceding unsigned comment by 127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs) )" --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you. I've seen that template, but I haven't bothered to search for it when I needed it. I'll keep it handy.

Thanks

Thank you for looking after my user page and reporting the vandal to 'Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress'. *drew 23:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• You are welcome. I don't like vandals. - Dalbury 23:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter George Wellesley Graves, 8th Baron Graves

It turns out he was a film star - see imbd link in the article. Please consider amending your vote. CalJW 01:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandal

Hey I thought I'd let you know that 199.237.168.132 vandalized your page. I reverted it back to your last edit. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 04:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Shotei Hanevuah

I see you re-wrote the Shotei Hanevuah article. Thanks. It is much better now. However, you made the statement "It has been selected as Israel's "Band of the Year"." Who selected them as band of the year? What year? Thanks again --Rogerd 15:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Re : Evan Lee Dahl/Just Me

Hi Dalbury,

Thanks for the heads up! No worries, we'll take care of this.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 01:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC) :)

Sig

Hi there,

I happened to see your signature today on Mailer D's talk page, and note that it's broken. Some of us wrote a page to help folks facing this problem ever since the HTML Tidy shutdown. You may find WP:SIGHELP helpful. Kind regards encephalon 02:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip. I've fixed it.

List of North American cities founded in chronological order

In case you missed it, this page, which we discussed in AFD, was recently moved to List of North American cities by founding year. If you're interested in adding pre-Columbian places, you should look into the Basket Makers and the Puebloans. I'm working on other stuff right now, but this is a start. --WAvegetarian 21:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I caught the notice. There isn't much on Florida that I can use, so I'll have to track down some print sources.

Marconi scientists

I plead with u as it did make the front of the newspapers at the time and was in the documentary 'Scandal' on BBC2. There's naught programme details about Scandal at the BBC website. I am using my local library but have yet to pull off the 15yr old articles. What else can I say? -max rspct 15:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can't give us sources, we can't verify it per WP:V, and it doesn't belng in Wikipedia.

Tequesta

I forgot I even put the merge notice up. If you are interested in merging them, more power to you! Thanks! — Eoghanacht ^talk 00:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a weak parenting

You are right. I should have tried harder when I gave Category:Captivity narrative a category. Fplay 15:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have should given it a parent when I created it. I think it's all sorted now. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 17:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Lighthouse

I was pointed in the direction to move it to "Lighthouse". Feel free to move it back if you feel it is overly appropriate. Thanks, FireFox 13:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

May I ask who pointed you to moving the article? And since a move leaves a Redirect, I cannot move the article back without deleting the Redirect. I'm not an Administrator, so I don't have the ability to do that. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 13:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks for following up on the Bibb and Yaz articles  J\/\/estbrook       02:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Your're welcome. They were just too blatant to resist. - Dalbury^(Talk) 02:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching those article for about an hour, the author would continue to remove the csd tags, after tagged  J\/\/estbrook       02:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

His messages in your talk page led me to the articles. I'll revert any removals I see. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 03:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

got another one

Found an article Mark Sanders (elblanco) with a statement about a WP admin in it, poked around a bit and found this Mark Sanders which had been deleted by a vote. I know as soon as someone tags it for {{db-repost}} he'll probably delete it and yell at them on their talk page...oh well.  J\/\/estbrook       03:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

and that fast its gone :)  J\/\/estbrook       03:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And I see he has a listing for himself in Tracker. Do we really need a list of "well-known" trackers? -- Dalbury^(Talk) 03:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hans Wehr

I just thought User:Stifle made a mistake, and you could have let him reply. I have no idea why you insist on trying to get the entry on Wehr removed - nobody would seriously contest the significance of Wehr's dictionary.

User:Stifle had marked the article as not-notable biography, i.e., as not meeting the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Biographies that do not assert notability may be speedy deleted, that is, removed without a discussion. As the creator of the Hans Wehr article, you were not supposed to remove the Speedy Delete notice from the article. There are channels for protesting a speedy deletion. As you did assert notability for Hans Wehr on Stifle's talk page, I posted a standard nomination for deletion, which requires six dats of discussion before an article can be deleted. Your best option is to add material to the article, including references to reliable sources supporting that information, and then post a comment on the deletion discussion page on what you have done to improve the article. As it stands, it looks like other editors are aware of Hans Wehr, and are recommending that the article be kept. Please understand that so many attempts are made to place biographies for non-notable people in Wikipedia that procedures have developed to quickly purge them from the encyclopedia. If you want to start an article in Wikipedia, it is best to explain (however briefly) in the first edit why the subject of the article is notable, and to provided reliable sources that can be checked by other editors. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 19:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Pure Wiki deletion system

I don't want to seem like I'm harassing you over opposition to the PWDS. The only reason that I'm following up on your comment is that you seem to be in favor of deletion reform, as you said that Uncontested Deletions is a "nice proposal". So I'd think that instead of just saying "no, I don't like it" and moving on, you'd prefer to add to the discussion of deletion reform. Uncontested Deletions isn't sure to succeed, after all.

Some people listed their opposition to PWDS based on an earlier version of the proposal. The "revert wars until one faction gives up" are not a part of the current proposal, because disputed blankings go to AfD. If both sides refused to take it to AfD and kept reverting, they'd just get blocked by the 3RR. I don't see that happening very often.

Meanwhile, some other statements you quoted have been responded to, with no response from the PWDS opposition, leaving us unsure of what the real issue is. "Fast building, not fast destruction" ignores the fast destruction that goes on all the time, like removing spam links or incoherent sections, and the issue of telling vandals apart from legitimate blanking is our reason for emphasizing good edit summaries when blanking.

You are free to continue to oppose the proposal - especially if your objection mainly lies in "too much potential for confusion", which is unfortunately being shown to be a valid point. It's just that no deletion reform proposal will succeed if its supporters only know what they like about it -- it's important to find out more about what people don't like, which is why I'm digging for other reasons. rspeer 04:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Light[house/ship](s)

Personally I'd go with Lighthouse if the lighthouse is more well known/worthy of an articel then the ship, and vice versa if the opposite is true. 68.39.174.238 17:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Lazlo Toth

The matter has been decided by vote 4-2 in favour of keeping page. 128.250.87.21 02:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It has not been closed by an admin. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont care Im not waiting any longer . Well its been decided -go and see the page its been voted upon as I ve just told you-do you understand?. The page has been up for deletion and on a vote of 4-2 it has been decided to keep the page . 128.250.87.21 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

korean war vandalism

don't worry about it, i blocked him. he was fairly warned, but persisted anyways. keep up the good work :-) Alhutch 18:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw. Your were blocking him while I was posting to your talk page. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Chalk's

Thank you for sending me those articles. I am not well versed in the specifics of editing WP, but I will study the articles on the coming Christmas break. Do you know of any more articles like that?

- Jim 20 December 2005

• Check the Miami Herald site [[1]] as yesterday's Chalk's Ocean Airways' crash at the mouth of Government Cut produced plenty of news articles. You might like to check The Sun-Sentinel's [[2]] articles as well. There's more for the Watson Island Wikipedia article as Chalk's was based there. B.Wind 20:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Piece of trivia that was just mentioned in a televised news report: the word "Ocean" was added in the 1990s to the name of the airline at the insistence of Ocean Bank for financing the last purchase of the airline (from Donald Trump and others). I don't have a written source yet. B.Wind 20:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Troop 34 Deletion

I would suggest that you change your vote on the Troop 34 article pending changes in the next week. I also think that every troop is worthy of a wikipedia article. That is what wikipedia is about, having factual articles about every possible subject. Abduncan4 02:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I would again remind you that other troops have their own articles, and it is not irrelevant information. It is quality information about a remarkable troop. Also, There is support from other troops in the area and many other users. I would like you to reconsider your vote. Abduncan4 23:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Abduncan4 (talk • contribs) moved Troop 34 to Troop 34 (Detroit Area Council) as a way to make it MORE notable. This got rid of the confusion between OTHER Troop 34s. Also The AfD was not listed for the NEW article Troop 34 (Detroit Area Council). Therefore it was not needed to have been there. I had hoped that someone re-opened it under a new link so it could therefore continued as a discussion.

Removing an AfD notice (unless you are the closing administrator) is considered vandalism. Moving the article while it was under consideration for AfD could be interpreted as an attempt to disrupt the AfD process. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida

I noticed from Category:Wikipedians in Florida that you are a floridian and I have created a state wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida. So far is it very small but it could be expanded later. Join it if you want and help set tasks etc. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am a member of Troop 479 in the Detroit Area Council, and Troop 34 is a very remarkable troop. I also have edited the information, so Abduncan4 is NOT the only one. 204.39.56.130 20:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Boosterism

Hello, You sent me a message regarding boosterism on the Dartmouth College and Priceton University pages. I posted the boosterism remark on the Dartmouth website and then it was removed by another user claiming that it was a violation of collge boosterism. I had borrowed the statement that I placed on the Dartmouth page from the Princeton University page and when it was removed from Dartmouth's, I felt that it was only right to remove it from Priceton's page. In the future, please look at the facts carefully before making an accusation. Thank you.

I see I was confused as to the timing of your posts. I apologize for the comment I made. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD

I deleted it because I moved the page, therefore creating a new article. The new article was not nominated for deletion, so therefore it didnt need the text there. Abduncan4 02:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Lighthouse template

I am working on an infobox template for lighthouses, currently in my sandbox, and am seeking feedback. Please leave comments at the Category talk:Lighthouses page, as the template will be moving. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays! to you and Yours! File:CandyCane.JPG  J\/\/estbrook       19:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Glambi merger

Hello. You recently merged the Glambi article with DePauw University. This merger actually already took place about a month ago, but someone deleted the section. As an attempt to compromise I re-added a brief section about the sculpture in the DePauw article. (See DePauw's talk page for more info on the deletion/my addition.) Nobody complained about this small paragraph, so I assume it was fine. Putting the full "Glambi" article back on the DePauw page is sure to cause controversy and will probably be deleted again. Personally, I liked it better as its own article, but consensus said otherwise. I'm okay with deleting the Glambi page, but I don't think the merger as you have carried it out is going to be satisfactory. Could you explain why my simple "Fits and Starts" section on the DePauw page section is not sufficient? For the moment I have removed it because it is basically just a summary of the new "The Glambi incident," but I would appreciate it if you could look back in the history to read "Fits and Starts;" read the Depauw talk page as well; and give me your thoughts. Thank you. Imaginaryoctopus 23:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge means only a Redirect is left behind in the original article. When I saw the full article still sitting there, I assumed no one had performed the merge. As the notice in the article said, if the merge is not carried out, the article is subject to being nominated for deletion again. the question of how much of the Glambi article is retained in the Depauw University article is subject to discussion by all contributors to the article. Did the editor who removed the Glambi section state his or her reasons? -- Dalbury^(Talk) 23:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. To answer your question, this editor did state his/her reasons (on the talk page), most of which I thought to be invalid; however the editor did raise some good points. At any rate, I understand putting the Glambi information back into DePauw University; I think my bias about the article on my own university has affected my opinion. I guess the page will just take some more editing from some more editors. Imaginaryoctopus 02:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Boca Raton Help

Can someone pictofy the image in this URL?

http://www.e-buyhomes.com/bocaratondowntown.jpg

In the description, type "Skyline of downtown Boca Raton in the late nighties. The white building to the right is the Bank of America Building (Nations Bank back then) and left of it is the Merril Lynch Building. Beyond them is Mizner Park.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boca_Raton%2C_Florida"

This should be in the history section.

Re: misplaced sig

Yes, but it appears that he placed his sig twice in the same edit, apparently by accident. Example:

{{subst:at}} ~~~~

copy, paste, change one letter

{{subst:ab}} ~~~~

In any case, it's out of place. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 20:39, Dec. 24, 2005

Not a big deal to me. If you think it still needs to come out, I won't fight you. --Dalbury^(Talk) 21:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I've removed my extraneous extra sig, which I did not notice sitting there like a third nipple. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Linguistics

Hey, thats cool, I think it would be worth starting a WikiProject if we can get a couple more users. Would you be willing to lead it? I could be involved, but I'm already leading WPSU and wouldn't be able to spend enough time on it. Note: the concept of leadership is not fixed, but I find myself doing a lot of donkeywork with WPSU, recategorising images etc. :) I'd be willing to help you set it up if you needed help with the technical stuff. - FrancisTyers 16:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I started WPSU with just me and another guy, we attracted people soon enough though. User:Christopher_Sundita might be interested, so you could leave a note on his talk page (I found him from Talk:Moldovan language). After you've made up the proposal it might be an idea to find people on Wikipedia interested in linguistics and contact them via their talk pages. I can help out with finding people too. There really isn't a problem with being out of date, you can still contribute stuff on the history of linguistics. I know if you studied generative linguistics you'll be well out of date (but then who isn't!), but we could still do with tidying up the articles on Transformational grammar and Deep structure, even though they are no longer working theories. I'm sure there will be some stuff you could make a contribution too :) - FrancisTyers 16:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

How about something based on brain regions ? Perhaps a more arty version of Image:BrocasAreaSmall.png ? Or perhaps Template:Ling-stub might provide some inspiration? - FrancisTyers 21:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Lighthouses

Your list is missing:

• Cedar Keys lighthouse
• Gasparilla Island lighthouse

KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I replied to your message on my user page (which Knowledge Seeker kindly moved to my talk page) on my talk page. Pls continue there? thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving the conversation here, then:

I deliberately left some of the proposed articles as Lights because they are not lighthouses. There is a distinction. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There is indeed, but per WP:STYLE "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize"

I understand a Light has no "house" attached, but to the common person, are they not all lighthouses?

See Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Ambiguity_persists and let me know what you think. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is getting confusing. I was trying to post to your talk page when you moved this. And my apologies for posting my message to your user page. I certainly didn't mean to do that. Anyway. Some of them are simply lights on a mast, and I don't think most people would regard them as lighthouses. Also, Cedar Key Lighthouse is the same as Seahorse Key Lighthouse and Gasparilla Lighthouse is the same as Boca Grande Lighthouse (actually, both Port Boca Grande Lighthouse and Boca Grande Lighthouse (Entrance Range Rear) are on Gasparilla Island). Also, my sources (two books and the Coast Guard Web site) all capitalize Lighthouse as part of the name of the structure, and I really think we should follow that precedent. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Per WP:STYLE we don't cap lighthouse. The sources you mention use a different manual of style, which is common. We follow the WP MoS. Otherwise, if you would be so kind as to forgive me my error, and (please!) either inform me of edits which need to me made so I can update, or if you would update yourself, the list at Lighthouses_in_the_United_States#Florida so the two lists match, I will be very grateful. Also let me know if any articles need moving, I will be happy to do it and fix any double redirects which result. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll work on it. I'll go with the names used by the Coast Guard, and the alternate names will be redirects. It is a bit awkward. The Coast Guard lists the Gasparilla Island (Boca Grande) Light, and then provides pictures of two structures, the Gasparilla Island Light and the Gasparilla Island Rear Range Light. The Rear Range light is a tower, while the other is a literal lighthouse, a lantern poking out of the roof of a house-sized building. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 01:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Lower case light and lighthouse, per style guidelines. Let me know if I can help in any way - sorry about the collision earlier. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I was quoting from the Coast Guard. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For that instance, what about an article titled Gasparilla Island lighthouses, and have Gasparilla Island lighthouse, Gasparilla Island light, Boca Grande lighthouse, Gasparilla Island Rear Range Light, etc all be redirects to the one article? Or if you do two, Gasparilla Island light and Gasparilla Island rear range lighthouse with appropriate redirects? You're right, that one will be a pain. Again, if I can help in any way, lemme know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at this diff: [3] Do you have this on your watch list? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That was me, I didn't realize my login had expired. thanks for watching. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh good - sorry to trouble you with it then, I just didn't want things to get out of whack again. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sombrero Key

Go to the USGS's GNIS and type in Sombrero Key. That server is the first page if you google USGS GNIS. User:rmhermen 02:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care that much but it seems it would be easier to just write an article on the key in question and link it from the list. According to the GNIS:

Feature ID: 291328 Name: Sombrero Key Class: Island Entry Date: 19-Oct-1979 Elevation(ft/m): 10/3 See also the map [4] which is unclear and may show a submerged feature but clearly shows the name attached some distance away from the light. User:rmhermen 04:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how Sombrero Key got into the USGS database as an island, but there is no island, and the Coast Guard clearly says that the Sombrero Key lighthouse stands in four feet of water. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 04:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User evol-3

Well, technically speaking evolution is a theory, in the sense that it is a scientific explanation for a natural phenomenon. So I believe that the term "theory" is appropriate here (even if it is a theory I fully subscribe to). Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 17:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• While I agree with you in believing in Darwin's ideas, I'm afraid that stating them as fact would violate WP:NPOV. It's not up to Wikipedia to decide which ideas are true and which are not, that is up to scientists. It is up to Wikipedia to present the history of the notion of evolution and all that is associated with it. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 18:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In that case, you are free to use {{User evol-3}} or {{User evol-4}}, or your own evol-3.5. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 18:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jones College

Jones College in Florida is not the same as Mary Gibbs Jones College, also called Jones College, in Texas. The Florida school has no article associated with it, but the Texas school does, as Jones College, and that is where one is taken when choosing "Jones College" in the Florida article. I changed that entry by adding "(not Mary Jones College)" but you deleted that change, thus causing the confusion to continue. It would be helpful if you would make some change you find acceptable that will accomplish that purpose. Thanks. Tim Ross 22:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

new CSD category

{{db-band}} "Articles on bands and clubs that do not assert importance or significance can now be speedily deleted." from AFD, thought you might want to know :-)  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    15:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

wpspam invite

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. -- Perfecto  02:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, no, don't listen! Remove linkspam when you see it, of course, but stick with the lighthouses. :)

KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen my todo list (User:Dalbury/Projects)? :-)

Yes, I have, which is one reason I am uring you to resist joining another project. :) KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have created 3 lighthouse articles in the last two days. I only have 24 to go. :)

messages

Hey, I noticed that you placed the message for User:Joececchini on his userpage rather than his talkpage. When you place a message on someone's userpage, wikipedia doesn't let this user know he has new messages and he or she may not even know he's gotten one until he or she sees his or her userpage. I'm sure you probably knew this already, but I wanted to make sure. I also wanted to let you know, I moved you message (unedited, of course) to the user's talk page. Thanks. PRueda29 / ^Ptalk29 / ^Pcontribs29 12:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I certainly intended to put the message on his talk page.