User talk:Donald Albury/Archive 2

Active discussions

Trying to keep up with the Joneses

I created a Jones College disambiguation page and moved Jones College to Jones College (Rice University) (after a foolish move to Jones College (Houston)), as other of Rice University colleges are done the same way. I've changed all links to the Florida college to Jones College (Jacksonville), which I'm sure that Dalbury will soon make into an article.

Love ya. astiqueparℓervoir 04:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

SR 908/"Redland" vs. "Redlands"

I've found some conflicting information that I didn't want to put on the SR 908 talk page until I can (somehow) find a way of resolving the discrepancy. First, as stated on the talk page, it is likely that the anon's account is an accurate one, for Newton Rd. (SW 157 Ave) was built by C. M. Newton (I think I have the initials right - I forgot to write them down in my brief time in the MDC-NC library today) about 1910 so that his children would have access to the Silver Palm School, and in the first half of the 20th Century, schools were usually named for the community they served. But I still haven't found documentation that clinches the settlement of Silver Palm at Silver Palm and Newton Road, but I'll keep looking, job permitting. When/if that happens, I may need assistance for reporting the source here as I'm looking through books that are at least 60 years old (and ISBNs were not added to books on a regular basis until at least the 1960s). But so far, there's no conflict - I haven't found a "smoking gun" here.

On the other hand, I am finding quite a bit of conflicting information on the present name of the region to the north of Homestead, west of Naranja, and south of western Goulds. Sources do agree that the original name was Redland; but the discrepancies occur over the past 30-40 years. The Miami Herald consistently uses "The Redlands" in all articles and sections referring to the region (the committee for Redlands incorporation has "Redlands" in its proposed incorporation papers), but the Community Newspaper serving the area justifies the use of the original name, Redland (this paper has been in publication for less than five years, the Herald 102). So, we have a dispute between papers (none really as far as I'm concerned: I consider the Herald the definitive authority on the matter, and I favor their version as a result. Should they change to "Redland", so shall I).

One last look to quell the curiosity: a visit through the business White Pages in the Miami-Dade County telephone book. By first word... "Redland" 6 entries (including Redland Farms and Redland Supply Inc.), "Redlands" 5 entries (including Redlands Academy and Redlands Food & Fuel), for what they're worth. B.Wind 04:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

==Don't even try it==

  • Your Washington, D.C. edits fail all possible Wikipedia standards. Stop wasting bandwidth with this "sister city" nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 12:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Dal, perhaps you might consider adding a referenced footnote to the sister cities project with the Washington information - it may be that Danny L is unaware of this practice and how well known it is. Many cities have a sign at the city limits with the information on their sister city - a source with such a sign might help his misconception that this is not geramane to the Washington article. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I was just reverting User:Danny Lilithborne's removal of information without an explanation. I do know that sister cities are very common (Delray Beach, where I live, has two). Everything in an article should be sourced, but I don't remove unsourced material without giving a reason in the edit summary, and usually a comment in the talk page. Deletions with no explanation in the edit summary or talk page look like vandalism to me, and I will revert them. -- Dalbury(Talk) 13:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I applaud your consistent use of the talk page to explain the removal of unsourced content when you are doing the removing. I myself often use the edit summary, although I try to be civil and clear when I do so. A source would still be a good idea - I will go look for one. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I've put sources on the Washington talk page, as I don't want to get into an edit war with User:Danny Lilithborne. -- Dalbury(Talk) 13:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Quick work, well done. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Calling unsourced content "nonsense" is unecessary where there is a question of whether the content is nonsense or not. Simply stating you are removing unsourced content, possibly mentioning WP:CITE and/or WP:V makes the reason clear without calling anyone's contribution nonsense, which may be perceived as hostile. You may wish to consider that next time you remove unsourced content from an article. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I find your flippancy less than helpful, especially when it looks like an insult. -- Dalbury(Talk) 13:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
btw I moved your comment for KillerChihuahua from her userpage to her talk page, which is what I think you intended --Syrthiss 13:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury/Key West Light

Hello. In regards to placing a stub notice on this article (I assume this one, you didn't say), you made mention of this article being in your user space. This article is in the main encyclopedia namespace, not personal user space. The same article in your user space would be located at User:Dalbury/Key West Light. I can move the article there and delete the draft if you like until you're ready to move it back to the main namespace. Please clarify if my understanding is incorrect. Thanks. -- Longhair 13:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've since moved this draft article to your personal user space and deleted the article from the encyclopedia namespace. Feel free to add the article again to the main namespace when you feel it is ready for publication. You may find your draft at User:Dalbury/Key West Light. Please note articles in your user space begin with URL prefix of User: -- Longhair 14:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Lights and lighthouses

We may not have a Project Lighthouses but currently you are the closest thing we have to a Project Florida Lighthouse - please send me a list (can be plaintext) via email of how the lights and lighthouses in FL should be named, so I don't make any errors, especially after the Reef Light disagreement. Do it when you can, I'll work through the other states first. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!? 14:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hotel links

Hi. Thanks for quickly clearing up that linkspam issue in Albany, New York. Is that the general practice? Because I've seen hotel web site links in several other cities and I'll be happy to start removing them. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Florida county images

When I went to write the previous note, I saw the link here to the Florida project which I'd never heard of. I was bored a while back and created some Florida county maps showing where towns are in Pasco County. Would those be suitable for Category:Florida maps or is there a different category in place that would make more sense? (See User:Wknight94#County images for the list. I only did towns near where I currently reside and then got tired of it). Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

To Dalbury

Do you know what does it mean GNU/Linux? GNU/Linux is a nonprofit operation system, so it cannot be a part of any commercial actions. Every GNU/Linux site are nonprofit organization. Okay maybe the link of is a commercial site ;) But if I realized well you haven't any problem with Why you have a problem with LinuxBazis? is an international NONPROFIT GNU/Linux links collection. It's not my site. It's just my favorite that's all. If you can't understand that, that's your problem, but I'll fight with you in every day, every hours, every minutes, and secconds. LinuxBazis has every right be present on the external links of Why??? Because the WikipediA is a qualified online LEXICON which is built by the people of the Internet (not only by your registered members). is GNU/Linux knowledge base like the other international GNU/Linux sites ( for a sample). LinuxBazis is not my site, and I don't know who are the editors and I don't care, but I wanna see my favorite GNU/Linux search engine on

I have copied your comment to Talk: Linux, so that the editors who regularly contribute to the Linux article can comment. I was deleting commercial linkspam that you had added to other articles, and I had no reason to believe that what you added to Linux was not linkspam. I also notice that the same link has been removed many times before by other editors as linkspam. There seems to be a consensus of the editors who regularly edit Linux that the linuxbazis link does not belong in the article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome to the project! And now...

Dal, I'd like to join the project but I have a request first. Since I've started editing I've been working on SPUI's "Florida State Roads" project, which (as I understand) is not an official Wikiproject. Recent events now make it clear that the informal FSR project needs to be made an official one (as at least one regular contributor - guess who - is not "playing nice"). It seems to me that it might be best to incorporate FSR into the Wikiproject: Florida with you (as administrator) overseeing it. It definitely needs an objective, guiding hand as this person would neglect his incomplete stubs on the way to rewriting stand-alone articles by others (and in my view vandalizing with either the removal of references or insisting on the length of each FSR be reported to the nearest five feet). If you agree to this, I'll happily join up (and have at least three others "sign up") and start adding the templates indicating this. If it's separate, I'll first concentrate on FSR and tolerate the boorishness (et al.) until all the red links on the Florida State Roads page are blue and linked to legitimate articles that are not simply exit lists. B.Wind 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I must say 'no'. I literally have 100 articles on my todo list, and I am easing up on the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia. I really am not interested in road articles, anyway. Why don't you make state roads one of the tasks in WikiProject Florida? Current tasks on the list include cities, state parks and ports, so state roads would fit in. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|(talk) 03:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Boca Rotten (affectionately)

I think what happened is that you made your edits about the same time I made mine, and yours overwrote mine. It happens once in a while. astiqueparervoir 14:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Arroyo

First of all, I'm going to start off by saying that even after reading the FAQ and how to's on this site, i still don't quite get the format. On the discussion of the Jennifer Arroyo article, you said that you could not find mention of two of the three sites besides her own. You must have just barely glanced at them. On their Purevolume, it says her name as the bassist on the main page, as it does with the myspace over on the side under the "members" catagory. Also, on the Suicide City Official Site, her name is under the bio and there is some information about her there. It is just bad luck that her site is down, but Arroyo's career has taken a large step recently. Since her departure with Kittie and her touring with Suicide City, she must redo her page to accomodate all of the new and to get rid of the old. Ex. new tour pictures, new media section, new overall layout, so on and so forth. i hope this was helpful in convincing you that, in the metal world of women, Jennifer Arroyo is a prominant figure, and one that respects her fans. She actually posted when the Not My Year page was up for deletion. Of course, she had never used Wiki before, so her post wasn't in the best format, but she did try. Tom 23:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I did look at all of the sites linked from her page, and if her name appears on all of those pages, I couldn't find it. The point is moot, however, as I did not remove the links from her article, but only the unsourced puffery that had been added to it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction

Just thought you should know that you put the vandalism warning on the user page of, rather than the talk page. I didn't want to move someone else's warning, but you might want to shift it over when you get the chance, especially since he'd already vandalized and been warned for hitting that same page earlier today. -Colin Kimbrell 17:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go fix it. Dalbury(Talk) 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Theoretical Linguistics Project

  • Re: Welcome to the Theoretical Linguistics Project, such as it is. We're trying to get this off the ground. Are there particular topics that you want to work on? I have a Ph.D. in Linguistics from 30 years ago, but have not worked in the field since then, so I'm not up to writing on current theory. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: Hi, the project page somehow fell off my watchlist. I took an interest in what they used to call "mathematical linguistics" early on in my undergrad years, sitting in on some grad courses, and hanging out a lot at the then-new "artificial language lab", which was mostly devoted to what later became "augmentative communication", and several of my decade long projects in programming were incited by observations that I first made there. Much later took the standard grad year of "formal languages and automata theory" from a computer science department and did some work on the same from a combinatorics angle as a grad student in math. But also kept up with the natural language and cognitive science literature through the middle 90's or so, as a parallel grad student in psych. Talk to you later. Jon Awbrey 15:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


You were kind enough to offer your comments on my proposed tweaking of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I've clarified at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a usage guide exactly what I had in mind, and I would appreciate your further thoughts. Thanks. JHCC (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing user pages et al.

Thought this was more appropriate on your talk page. Understand that I'm not actually advocating removing user pages, but just trying to bring a different point of view; it's become entrenched in the community that user pages are a place for unrestricted free expression of the editor's personal life, rather than a page about an encyclopedia editor with information relevant to their work on the encyclopedia. I'm just trying to encourage other people to think about what goes on user talk pages by asking what the effect of removing them entirely would be.

I've actually redone my entire user page, as I'd never really thought about this before; I was just emulating most other user pages I've seen. People don't really need to know I'm an anarcho-capitalist in order to judge my contributions to James Joyce's biography.

I certainly don't think that things like edit and page vandalized counts are vanity, as they are the kind of relevant information that tells other Wikipedians about you as an editor, which is important information (especially in the case of a RfA, for instance). - dharmabum (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree about anything substantive. When I first became active (just four months ago) I looked at other user pages and decided I'd put some userboxes on my page (although I felt a little uneasy about using too many). I did create a few of my own. After a while I moved some of the userboxes to a sub-page, and more recently I decided get rid of most of them (it's obvious I speak English, my ability to program in BASIC, Pascal and plain ole' C doesn't seem relevant to Wikipedia, and I don't need userboxes proclaiming that I delete vanadalism and am a Vietnam War veteran and a veteran of the 1970s anit-war movement). The edit count is vanity. I (or anyone else) can look up my edit count at any time. As for AfD, I thought at first that I wanted to be an admin (I have been a SysOp elsewhere), but I've decided now that there is no hurry. I have enough to keep me busy now without having to commit to more tasks in an attempt to win votes in an RfA. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why you erase from the Dictionaries section at Spanish Language. You said it is a comercial site and it is a free site, with 50.000 pages of unique content that we are offering for free to Internet, more than 20 people works for years building this, and we are offering this for free to evrybody, really I do not understand.

Could you please explain me wich is the criteria ?

Could you please explain me why other comercial dictionaries are listed and this one that is free is not ?

Thank you, I will be very happy to understand this.

Best regards

Gustavo Lucardi

I do not believe that a site offering translation services, whether free or not, fits the in the quidelines of acceptable external links as set out in Wikipedia:External links. -- Dalbury(Talk) 17:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dalbury:

The site is offering exactly the same kind of content than the sites listed there: tomisimo,, wordreference, spanishdict, my-spanish-dictionary, websters; but with just one difference, without advertisement, so could please you explain me why you consider this site commercial and no appropriate to be listed there. I know that you receive a lot of spam, but this was not the case, because I know the effort and quality of this site I was waiting a thank you from Wikipedia to share this content, and instead of that I have to be fighting to be listed.

I think that the site accomplish at least on of the criteria for the external links:

“Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.”

If the site doesn’t accomplish the criteria, neither tomisimo,, wordreference, spanishdict, my-spanish-dictionary, websters do.

And in any case, the site is not commercial, and it is not offering translation services it is offering services for translators and other people interested in translations between Spanish and English, and has 50.000 entries of unique content.

May be I have to sign before do a contribution to show I was more real, but I am new as a Wikipedia contributor of content and I didn’t do it other times without problems, and usually I saw that when the content was appropriate it was accepted by the editors, and I think that this is the case.

In any case now I registered as a user. Hope you review your decision because I am really disappointed, thanks.

Iuspatex(Talk) 1 February 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It's Wikipedia policy. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Wich policy? Why you applied that policy to one dictionary and no to the others... ?

If the site doesn’t accomplish the criteria, neither tomisimo,, wordreference, spanishdict, my-spanish-dictionary, websters do. .... ?

Also my site was listed as a reference at the Spanish Division of the American Translator Association and at two different categories at DMOZ.

I think I deserve an answer, I do not understand the decision, thanks

Iuspatex(Talk) 7 February 2006



  • Current edit is fine. my problem with your initial edit was that it said main campus. Good to see that this article is moving along. Captaintruth 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The initial edit wasn't mine. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, OK....change that to "the" initial edit...sorry for not doublechecking before attributing that initial edit to you...Captaintruth 00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • No problem. :-) -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for the support. Would you like to second the motion? Durova 16:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories on the Native american project

Why did you just undo everything i did? I fyou have a certain scheme in mind please share it. I was making sure that categories that are subcategories of others were listed indented under the top category and that everything was in alphabetical order. pschemp | talk 03:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

um ok in your last edit, you just redid half of what I did and then you undid. Please expalin your logic here.pschemp | talk 03:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I replied on your talk page. The history not match what I remember doing. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This is probably edit conflicts which for some reason aren't shown when you save. It happens when two people edit the same thing quickly and has happened to me too. Don't worry about it. pschemp | talk 03:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Florida High School List

I would like to disagree with you on your policy for internal wiki-linkage. I know that you have removed others' wikilinks because they link to no page. However there are some good and very valid reasons for adding, and leaving these wikilinks.

1. Discourage external linking. If there's already a link going somewhere (article or not), people will be more apt to see that there is a need for an article for that school, and if they're active enough to add the external link, they may be active enough to create an article for the school they were linking for.

2. It's worked for other state's list pages. I saw this done on Idaho, New Jersey and Oklahoma for example. When I looked at these to remove external linking, there was none to remove. The reasons given in number 1 work.

3. How are we going to know if Joe Schmo creates a page on such-and-such high school in some county that happens to be on the list? Easy, we won't. I know, because when I started adding wikilinks, I found two that had pages written about them that no one linked to the list.

I hope that I have in some way swayed your views on wikilinkage. I think that adding even red wikilinkls is not only good but necessary for orderly expansion of articles and information in Wikipedia.

Jake -- Bladeswin 19:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who feels this way. Best to discuss on the article's talk page. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I find your comments on WP:V to be a very sensible and accurate understanding of Wikipedia content policies. As coming across editors that have such an understanding is rare, I feel compelled to thank you for taking the time and sharing your understanding with others. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for the kind words. I haven't been an active contributor to Wikipedia for very long, but I think it is an important project, and I want to see it done right. Part of my commitment to seeing Wikipedia succeed is helping other editors understand why verifiability is so important. -- Dalbury(Talk) 17:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your response to the proposal that I submitted to the Village Pump yesterday on how to attract older, experienced conributers. I really appreciated your kind remarks. mbeychok 16:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach and Saxe-Meiningen

I noticed that you reverted the categories that I had added to the articles of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach and Saxe-Meiningen. While the Holy Roman Empire can be considered as one of the former countries of Europe, since it was in itself a sovereign state the same does not apply to its component parts. The category was added to the articles because apart from being components in the Holy Roman Empire and surviving its demise in 1806, they even more importantly were confirmed by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. That fact that Saxe-Meiningen once were a component part of another state does not unmake that it later attained sovereignty on its own, and Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach was not even created until after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire. At present there doesn't seem to be any strict criterias applied to what and what does not fit inside category, but sovereign European states after 1815 should be able to make the cut. -- Domino theory 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. In that case you will also be interested in Saxe-Altenburg (1603 to 1672; 1826 to 1918) and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1826 to 1918). Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld (1735 to 1826), Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg (1681 to 1826) and Saxe-Hildburghausen (1680 to 1826) would also be at issue if their articles existed. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 02:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. At present I'm also thinking that there might be a better way to categorize them than in a big European catch-all category. Regarding Saxe-Coburg and Gotha it's not obvious whether it should be treated as one sovreign state or the two separate states of Saxe-Coburg and Saxe-Gotha under a common ruler. It might be better to have one article just on the dynastic family and separate articles on the states. -- Domino theory 11:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I started the Ernestine duchies sub-category because the States of the HRE category currently has 199 articles, and I'm sure there are still more HRE states than that. As for Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, there actually is no family/dynasty with that name. They were/are all Wettins, unless they changed the name, like the Windsors did. In any case, if you are so inclined, there is a lot that needs to be done with the Ernestine duchies. I only get back to them occasionally. There is material in the German and Spanish Wikipedias, but my German and Spanish are both weak, and I have struggled with the translations. Finding decent sources in English is also a problem. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 12:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the German Wikipedia sums it up pretty nicely with separate articles for each of the two separate states, one article for the personal union, and one article for the princely house. -- Domino theory 20:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Volusia Bar lighthouse

Where are you intending to list this light that you removed from the list of lighthouses? Even if it is a redirect to a multi-light article, there is good reason to leave every light in the list. Rmhermen 03:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The one decent source I knew of for this lighthouse has disappeared from the web. A Google search tonight gave little more than activated and deactivated dates. I don't even know where in the St. Johns River it was located. "Near Deland, Florida, at the mouth of the St. Johns River" doesn't resolve very well. As it was a river light, and was deactivated in 1916, details will be hard to come by. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
But it can still be listed in the list - even if an article can't be made for it. Rmhermen 05:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
True. I'll put it back. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 12:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

AFD problems

Although I think there are a lot of problems with AFD (like the ones I mentioned), I think that the root of the problems is our basic deletion system, which makes both deletion and undeletion into such big deals. I think that we should reform it into a system in which deletion and undeletion are just like any other edit to an article, with old versions remaining available and anyone easily able to revert to them. While that might sound like a recipe for chaos, we basically use that system for the deletion and recreation of sections within articles; overall our current dispute resolution process has handled it fine. I see no reason why it wouldn't handle the inevitable revert-wars and disputes over entire articles just as well. Of course, 'hard' speedy/copyvio deletions would remain available to admins for things like copyvios, our current speedy system, or the new prod-thingy; those things seem to be working well. Only disputed (and disputable) deletions would need to use the new system. Anyway, something like this is present in the Pure Wiki Deletion System. --Aquillion 00:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

LeConte vs. Le Conte

Hi Dalbury, I've just been whizzed about this for a while...It's hard to believe that the New Georgia Encyclopedia, C.M. Thomas of the US Navy (who named the LeConte Glacier and LeConte Bay and seemingly knew LeConte personally) were all wrong about the name. Yes, I took a look at the autobiography, but perhaps we can make note on LeConte pages of the alternative spelling but maintain the articles with the new, far-and-away more widely used and recognized spelling, and use that. Also, I think it is unfair to extrapolate just because Joseph Le?Conte did it, all of the other members of the LeConte family did as well. For all we know it could've been and idiosyncrasy and he decided that he liked that spelling better; we really need a source directly addressing this (which I have not been able to find).

Regardless, if you continue to plan on using the new spelling I think you should move all the content of the pages to that spelling (i.e., .org/wiki/Joseph_Le_Conte). Jarfingle 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There are Le Conte's Thrasher and Le Conte's Sparrow, the latter of which, at least, was named by Audubon for his friend, Dr. Le Conte, usually thought to be John Lawrence Le Conte, Joseph's cousin, but possibly for John Le Conte, Joseph's brother. There is the Le Conte pear, named after Joseph's uncle, John Eatton Le Conte. As for places presumably named after members of the family, the USGS GNIS lists eight with LeConte (LeConte Bay, LeConte Glacier and Stikine-LeConte Wilderness in Alaska, LeConte Glacier and LeConte Lake in Washington; LeConte Hall in California and LeConte Hall in Georgia and LeConte Lake in Utah), and twelve with Le Conte (Camp Le Conte, Le Conte Creek, Le Conte Lodge and Mount Le Conte in Tennessee, Joseph Le Conte Middle School, Le Conte Canyon, Le Conte Divide, Le Conte Falls, Le Conte School and Mount Le Conte in California; Le Conte Crater in Oregon; and Le Conte College in South Carolina). The The Darwin Online Correspondence Database lists John Eatton Le Conte, and Virtual American Biographies has an entry for Joseph's father as Lewis Le Count (it should be Louis).
There are plenty of spelling variations (like Lewis for Louis). One 't' is sometimes dropped from Eatton in John Eatton Le Conte. I find it easier to believe that the space between 'Le' and 'Conte' was often left out by writers unfamiliar with the name, rather than that an extraneous space was inserted. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 03:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It'd be good if you moved the actual articles to the new spelling instead of redirects...I don't know how to do it or I'd do it.Jarfingle 04:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
That will require an admin, as existing redirects would have to be deleted. I'll put in a request. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Have you been to look at Rfa recently? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added it my watchlist, in a manner of speaking. :-) -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


  This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


hi im related to george gordon meade my name is caitlin mede im 10 years old and in 5th grade i have to do a history report on civil war but george is my great great great great uncle

Do you have a question? I'm not an expert on George Gordon Meade. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 17:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Please check out this page. Pass it on! — Catherine\talk 01:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

date links


You asked about how to join the effort re date links. If you want to use my tool, just copy User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to User:Dalbury/monobook.js (if you know what you are doing, just copy the relevant bits). Then clear the cache by pressing Control-Shift-R (Firefox) or Control-F5 (IE). Then when you edit, you will get another two tabs at the top for date pruning and unit formatting. Caveat emptor.

In addition, I have made a new proposal about date links at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Feel free to support or oppose it. Regards. bobblewik 14:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Project on American Indians

I'll consider your invite to join the group. I've been involved as a 'seminole re-enactor' and been studying the southeastern native cultures in general, and the tribes in Florida, both pre- and post- contact in particular, for some time. --Emb021 16:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

user page revert

no problem on the vandalism revert on your user page. at first I thought it might be a legitimate edit, but I ended up being convinced it was not so i hit the rollback. keep up the good work, Alhutch 05:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiethics - Vandalism

Please review carefully what is talked on the page. I archived the page based on a consensus including the person who started the poll. Reverting without discussion is considered as vandalism. Thanks Resid Gulerdem 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion. I think it was wrong to archive an active discussion. It is not up to you to decide that by yourself. And don't accuse me of vandalism. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Archival materials

If you want me to review Wikipedia policies, I would ask that you review WP:CIVIL. Please do not assume I am attempting to circumvent discussion over a policy change by... Holding a discussion, because that is both an odd assertion and insulting to what I'm actually trying to do, make Wikipedia as good and factual as it can be. Second, please realize that I actually did exactly what you wanted me to do, only at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources as that was the place that seemed most obvious to me. I've also added on to your accusatory posts on the talk pages for WP:NOR and WP:V. Please do not assume the worst in people who are doing nothing more than discussing something. Staxringold 02:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


For your input on the List of archaeological periods (North America) page this add significant informatino formating to what I was able to produce. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 08:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. I need to do some more touching up to the chart, and some of the entries are subject to change as I continue my research. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding The Change History Topic

Yep Excatly.


Please reply.

Thanks. 21:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Re: Danny Lilithbourne

Your charge of vandalism against Danny Lilithbourne was highly inappropriate. Please do not describe good faith edits as vandalism. If you have a content dispute with another editor, take it to the talk page, but do NOT call it vandalism. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Seemed like vandalism to me. Running all over the site removing content he doesn't immediately agree with and citing "fancruft" as a blanket statement to cover his actions sure as heck doesn't seem like good faith editing to me. The section on Millia Rage that he deleted would've been gone a LONG time before he came along if it had truly been fancruft, and it's been verified anyway. Take it up with him, not me. teh TK 20:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

user conduct RFC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière FeloniousMonk 23:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that...

You recently warned my friend Matt that Wikipedia is not a free host or a blog. Mr. Turcotte is one of my friends in real life, and I will make sure that he discontinues his abuse of Wikipedia. (This is like, the third time that I introduced a friend to Wikipedia and wished I didn't. I better stop.) Jared W!!! | Write to me, why don't you? 13:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't vandalizing, and he didn't start it. I just wanted to stop his talk page from becoming a chat room. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My most sincere apologies. It will not happen again. M.T. | Mr. Turcotte 21:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I will. Thanks again. M.T. | Mr. Turcotte 01:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

your comments on my talk page

Just which type of vandalism, as defined on that page, do you think has been committed against your talk page? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 14:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As described above.pat8722 19:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As you are not answering my question, I guess that means you can't actually find what you call vandalism in the policy. Now, please stop calling things vandalism when you can't even cite what kind of vandalism they are. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"The most common type of vandalism is the ... insertion ... nonsense". 3rr warnings for the reversion of vandalism is "nonsense", at best.pat8722 01:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, please read Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, which is what Wikipedia:Nonsense redirects to. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, what we see at the Wikipedia:Nonsense page is that the nonsense advocates have a substantial foothold in the wikipedia policy pages, as the Wikipedia:vandalism page says nonsense is vandalism, and the Wikipedia:Nonsense page says it isn't. So we see that the "nonsense" people have even turned the vandalism and nonsense pages into nonsense. So you've really got to use your brain. pat8722 02:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Please don't be needlessly offensive in discussions. I posed a perfectly valid discussion, and you attack it on the face as though it will hugely undermine Wikipedia without even helping in the creation of an actual proposal. Then, when the proposal is put to a vote, you act as though this was a personal attempt by me to sneak some information in on one article under the radar (which is odd, as the article is already featured). Finally, please do not act snotty when your position is replied to. "I've had my say. It looks like this proposal is failing, for which I am thankful. I need to get back to adding content (from published sources)." I'm terribly sorry to have torn you away from what you judge to be more important than making Wikipedia as gooas it can be, but when you post a comment you should expect it to be replied to. If you can't handle defending a position, you probably shouldn't voice it. Staxringold 11:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I see an attempt to gut two of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia just so someone can write a nice article about their favorite school. My preference is to contribute to Wikipedia, and every substantive contribution I make to articles includes a verifiable source. I take the policy on verifiability very seriously, and I defend it vigorously. I get irritated when I have to take time away from creating content to defend Wikipedia against ill-conceived schemes that would weaken its integrity, if not destroy it. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
That is the attitude I'm referring to. Acting as though this is a scheme is really offensive. Have you never ever in your life, either in reality or here on Wikipedia, had something that needed fixing in your opinion brought to your attention while working on something unrelated? Staxringold 11:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
But, I don't think the Verifiability and No original reseach policies need to be 'fixed', especially not the way you want to 'fix' (I would say 'break') them. So, yes, I am irritated because I have been interrupted by people who want to break (in my opinion, and that of many editors much more experienced than I am) fundamental policies of Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I hope no one minds me commenting here, but I couldn't agree more with Donald. I mean no disrespect by that, James, and I know nothing about how your proposal got off the ground, but it's very dispiriting to see an attempt to undermine two of our most important policies. NOR and V are literally the only things that stand between us and being drowned in nonsense. In fact, I almost certainly wouldn't contribute to Wikipedia if they weren't in place, because in the absence of an editorial board and qualified encyclopedists, those policies are the only protection we have — where we're effectively parasitic on other publications' quality controls. Without that defense, and heaven knows it's inadequate enough, we simply wouldn't be worth reading or writing for. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Pile-on to support Dalbury's position, which I also share. To misdirect to the use of the word "scheme" is to argue semantics when the key policies are at stake; whether you refer to the attempt to undermine and rewrite them as a "scheme" a "plan" an "attempt" or a "misguided effort" is immaterial. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If the community consensus is that this policy would harm Wikipedia, then by all means stop it. Semantics are important however, as "misguided effort" correctly describes the situation. I tried to do something helpful, but did not realize whatever reasons the community brings up that undermine the policies overall. "Scheme" implies I am this guy sitting in my lair trying to dream up ways to ruin Wikipedia. I don't much appreciate being accused of trying to undermine something I was trying to improve simply because this particular proposal gets shot down. Staxringold 14:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archival materials with this post:

The use of technically unpublished archival materials recovered from an official archivist has come up recently on Hopkins Schools' FAC. Wikipedia:Reliable sources' opening sentence states that "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources," but archival materials often aren't technically "published" as they are for the school/organization's own history and are most certainly reliable if recovered from the archivist him/herself. In addition, the definition of primary sources under Wikipedia:No original research includes historical documents (which I would think archival information is), and since the materials were researched by the archivist they are not OR. I believe that under Wikipedia:Interpret all rules one should be able to interpret WP:RS as including unpublished archival materials as a reliable source. Staxringold 14:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

On April 1, I pointed out that this 'interpretation' of the guideline on Reliable Sources would be a violation of the policies on Verifiability and No original research, and asked that the discussion be moved to those policies' talk pages. If you had done so, you would have found out much sooner that the community would not accept it. Trying to reinterpret the guideline on Reliable Sources to get around the policies on Verifiability and No original research looks like a scheme to me. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
James, it does seem odd to have raised this issue in the form of a poll without involving the editors who wrote and now maintain the relevant policy pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I posted on all the relevent talk pages as soon as Dalbury pointed out the involved policies. Given that the policies have been written over years by dozens of editors, I didn't know who were the "primary" editors to give notice of the RFC for (which is how I started this, not a poll). I also specifically asked Kmf164, an admin, what to do next. I'm done being insulted, and I want to remain civil. It was not a scheme, and if you can't see that I apologize but it wasn't. Staxringold 15:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


E-mail for you, Donald. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC started on Merecat

I noticed you have met Merecat and therefore I would like to inform you that in light of recent events (not discussing disputed edits, disruptive behaviour, edit warring and making personal attacks) this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. I trust should you want to contribute, you will be an objective bystander. If you do not want to comment that's OK. Sincerely  Nomen Nescio 18:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for kind support

I appreciated the bother you took to advice me on the matter of Civility and Development at the Village Pump where I also expanded my viewpoint. --Profero 01:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Tampa reversion

Thanks for catching that. I live near that mall and JCPenney left because the rent on the store was simply cheaper in Wesley Chapel, across the county line. What part of Florida are you from again? Mike H. That's hot 01:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm in Delray Beach. I was going on the tone of the comment, which didn't seem fitting for an encyclopedia. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it didn't, but even then, it simply wasn't true. I've had problems with people adding to University of South Florida-related articles going on about how "ghetto" it is around the area. It isn't the nicest neighborhood, but it's not especially NPOV to call it a ghetto, when what you mean is "poor and black." You can have things be poor and black and not be a ghetto. Mike H. That's hot 09:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be OK to cite a source that called tje area a 'ghetto', but disparaging (or praising) comments that don't have a source are a problem in many articles. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you make of the comments "praising" the International Plaza as an "upscale mall"? I live in Tampa, and if you do, or if you have visted, I think you would agree that it is such-- but there is no way in the world to cite such a qualitative opinion. Please note that my comments on the University Square mall did not mention any of the following terms: ghetto, black, poor. I spoke merely to the high crime levels in the area, as well as the economic depression which has hit the area, but somehow missed many other parts of Tampa. University may not be the most dangerous neighborhood in Tampa (based on City of Tampa crime statistics) but it IS the most dangerous neighborhood containing a mall; that is, while Tampa Heights or College Hill may be more dangerous in terms of crime volume, those neighborhoods do NOT contain a shopping center- University does have a shopping center. There was no intention to make the comments sound polemic, and they do need further sourcing and research, but you can agree the comments are not "made-up" or flat-out lies, no matter how poorly sourced. Rellman 03:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I reverted a new edit to the Tampa, Florida article because it included the following unsourced opinions:

Many blame this on the neighborhood the mall is located in; Tampa's "University" neighborhood remains one of the most dangerous parts of the city, and this section is known as "suitcase city" due its large transient population.

Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability states that Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. If you want to re-add the material I removed, please include a citation of a reliable published source for the material. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information.

Unblock request for Rgulerdem

NO ONE deserves to be indefinitely blocked. Please please please unblock Rgulerdem from Wikipedia. He intentions are not to harm anyone. Netpari 20:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so it's out of my hands. Moreover, I'm not anxious to see Rgulerdem back, and will not support lifting the block without good indications from him that he will avoid the kind of behavior that got him blocked. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

re- legal threats

whereabouts in palm beach county are you from? I'm a palm beach gardens guy myself, though I originally lived in North Palm. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 11:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been in Delray for 18 years, in Lake Worth for 8 years before that, and WPB for 3 years before that. I'm originally from Miami, but lived in Gainesville and Tallahassee for many years. (As you might guess, I'm as old, as some folks say, as the hills.) -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to legal threat

My first reasoned response to the legal threat at User talk: was to disengage, report it on WP:ANI, and then stay away from the user (I won't say what my emotional response was). As I now have a pretty good idea who the user is, the question arises as to whether I could, or should, do anything more. I would appreciate any advice anyone is willing to offer me. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 14:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Donald Albury, I started the Claudia Emerson page, but ran out of time to enter the external links I'd already compiled a list of via Google for my own blog. When I returned to the page to add the list of links, as the only other editor at the time, I removed the blog links because I found them suspicious. Anon. had added the blog twice in the "External links" section.

First, anon had linked to a blog page of links, giving an advertisement-like description. The links on the blog were sometimes duplicative (i.e. two links for one poem or multiple links for news stories with the same content) and not in a helpful bibliographic form. Second, he linked to the blog for a Ted Kooser article that had been reprinted. I replaced the latter with a link to Kooser's page, thus allowing the reader to see additional content by the Poet Laureate, who writes a column on poetry).

When the link reappeared, I deleted it a second time, adding a note to the discussion page with my explainaton and asked an admin I find helpful to take a look, rather than start an edit war. The discussion page for the IP was blank or I might have suggested that he register and link to the blog on the user paper and/or the article discussion page, if he wanted others to see the blog. I even looked up the email address for the blog owner and considered writing him, but went on to other things.

Today I returned to see that anon had reverted the link deleted by others again and again and again and threatened you. There now seem to be more entries in the history for the link than for other additions to the article. Sorry you got caught up in this. Like you, given his wrath, I want nothing further to do with him.--Beth Wellington 02:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Purdy has set up a new blog http colon //vgs-wiki-watchdog dot blogspot dot com/ Wiki Watchdog solely to decry his mistreatment, but promising more to come. He mentions you by name. Sigh.--Beth Wellington 03:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Beth, Thanks for that link. That confirms his identity. I have no intention of replying to him, but he is also attacking Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 09:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Seduction Community links

Hi Dalbury,

I've reverted your changes to the Seduction Community pages - as you can probably see by the page itself, and the supporting pages, there's a fair number of authors working to keep these pages updated! The page itself was deleted a while ago, and we got together to rewrite it, to basically try and convince the powers that be that the community existed, and was noteworthy.

One thing we were asked to do was to cite and reference any claim that was made. One of these claims is the existance of more than 100 groups worldwide. The two sites linked to are direct competitors of each other (while sharing mostly the same list of links) - there's a wealth of debate (that you can read on the talk pages) about which to link to - the current linking to both seems to have won consensus. They also support the claim mentioned previously. The thing to note is that every (I believe) link onward from them, to one of the groups, links to a primarily non-commercial website - neither really constitutes a link farm, in my opinion - although I can see how it might appear that way to someone outside of the community!

If you'd like to discuss this further, please do start a discussion on the Talk:Seduction Community, or leave a message on my talk page.


WoodenBuddha 21:55, 25 Apr


Hi Dalbury, Thanks for the note. I believe that ethics and standards are very important for Wiki. So, I will try to improve the policy gradually while it is marked as rejected. When I feel that it is ready, I will ask for community approval. Since it is not active this time, I am not expecting any editwars... Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 17:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Date proposal

Hello Dalbury,

I'm not sure if you're still following Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I have made a proposal to completely rewrite the Dates section in the Manual of Style, with the hope that people from both sides of the debate can agree on a text. I noticed you contributed to the previous discussions on this topic, but I don't think you've commented on my proposal yet (unless I just missed it!). Please do come along and discuss it if you're interested. I would like as many people as possible to comment, so that we can truly say we've reached a consensus.


Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Donald Albury/Archive 2".