User talk:Donald Albury/Archive 3

Active discussions

hi

hi b my freind

Paris Combo article

I see you added the "access times" for the external links and referenced the Manual of Style. There is nothing in the MoS about adding access times to external links. Could you please provide a reference to support why you added the access times back? Thanks. --Mperry 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not in the MoS, but in Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style#Websites and articles (not from periodicals). This is also shown in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Embedded HTML links, without the explanation. I'm in the habit of using "accessed" instead of "retrieved", but I think that is a non-issue. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 20:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That is for citations not for external links. Please see the References and Notes sections of the Beatles article for an example of the proper usage of the "retrieved" or "accessed" comments. In the meantime I will re-remove the access comments from the external links of the Paris Combo article since they are not citations. --Mperry 22:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Most of those sites were used as references in writing the article, and I have moved them into the References section. When I created that article I was still leaving all web sites in External links even when they were properly references, as that seemed to be the usual practice. Also, can you point me to anything that says one should not provide access/retrieval dates for external lniks even when they are not references? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything that discourages the use of the retrieval dates for external links. The Paris Combo article was the first one where I had encountered the use of retrieval dates in that section. There's no mention of retreival dates in the manual of style. Personally, I don't think the dates make sense for external links. I can see the need for including them with citations as someone might need to do further investigation to support a claim. If the page at a citation's URL has changed they could easily use the wayback machine to retrieve the cited version. External links don't seem to need that level of specificity. Either the link works or not, and if not someone can fix it. This is, of course, just my opinion. --Mperry 19:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The distinction between References and External links is not always clear, and for a while I put all websites in External links, whether or not I had used them as references. I'm trying to go back and fix all sorts of things I did early on, but it may take me a litle while. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Monobook tool

Hi,

I don't know if you are aware of my tool to reduce unnecessary links to solitary months/years.

You only need a single click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. If you want to use it, simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to the bottom of User:Dalbury/monobook.js. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work.

Please feel free try it out. It also has a 'units' tab. Regards. bobblewik 00:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Great new article

Hi, thanks for creating Jake Gaither . I wanted to let you know about Wikipedia:WikiProject College football as you may be interested in participating. Thanks! Johntex\talk 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, but I came to Jake Gaither from an interest in Florida topics rather than as a football fan. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 17:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your article creation on DYK

  On June 29, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jake Gaither, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Kimchi.sg 04:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

X-Americans etc.

Thanks for your comments. What I meant by common sense was basically, not absolutely insisting that each person has to be listed as an Irish-American. My main concern was if we have a source stating an American whose both parents were Irish and born in Ireland and there is no evidence that the person was not brought up by those parents, but we then insist that the person cannot go on the list of Irish-Americans, but can go on the Irish American article as an example of the offspring of Irish immigrants, it is a slightly ridiculous position. Arniep 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And I think that "X-American" often has connotations beyond having X ancestry and living in America, such that we should be cautios about using deduction to apply it. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 18:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course I am not arguing that any person with distant ancestry should be included who has shown no interest in X ethnicity or nation, but I think X born parents who actually brought a person up who would have the accent and customs of that nation automatically indicates a closeness and relevance that would merit that person's inclusion. Arniep 18:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
But Arniep, the problem is, regardless of how reasonable you think your deductions may be, they are still your deductions, and may be in dispute. That's what the NOR policy prohibits with the plagarism example Mad Jack 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Caron

There is an ongoing dispute on the talk page about whether it should be called caron or háček/hacek. It has been suggested that professional linguists' advice would be beneficial. Would you please consider participating in the vote? 85.70.5.66 23:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Grey Mangrove

They're not double redirects. Grey Mangrove is maintained as a disambiguation page. Gray Mangrove, Grey mangrove and Gray mangrove are redirects to the disambiguation page at Grey Mangrove. Thus all four titles direct the user to a disambiguation page, but only one disambiguation page needs to be maintained. Snottygobble 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So, it means that readers can be redirected to a disambiguation page? Ok, if you want to put them back, I won't revert again. I may have reacted too fast on this. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking that I may have reacted too fast. Thanks for the friendly response. Snottygobble 00:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. Truce? :-) Common names for mangroves, as for so many other taxons (pseudo-taxons?), are a mess. At least the two Grey mangroves have non-overlapping ranges. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely :-). I think this common name issue is a problem everywhere.
You might like to have a look at something I tried in Category:Banksia. I entitled every article by its scientific name, and tagged the articles into Category:Banksia species by scientific name. I then created redirects from the common names, and put the redirects into Category:Banksia species by common name. Probably I broke "the rules" by putting redirects into categories, but it appears to have worked brilliantly. Snottygobble 00:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice when you have enough to write something on each species, and they all have common names. I recently did Coccothrinax, which is a mess. I wanted to do Coccothrinax argentata, but the research got messy and I realized I needed to sort out the genus first. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  On July 9, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Florida mangroves, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|(talk) 20:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Laguncularia racemosa

Hi Dalbury - as you'd noticed, the page as started by previous contributors was a copyright violation. The wiki policy with such pages is to delete them to remove the copyvio from the page history, rather than just re-write it (which retains the copyvio in the history). I have therefore done so and re-started the page using most of your re-write, tho' rearranged the ordering of the text a bit. - MPF 11:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  On 12 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Ashmore, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|(talk) 20:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Goad

OK, and hi. --Bhadani 11:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Satris and possible sockpuppets

(cross-posted from WP:ANI)

User:Satris was blocked for 3RR and blanking an AfD page. Now new users Julliardgal (talk · contribs), Lotsofmusic (talk · contribs), Pianochic (talk · contribs) and Lotsalove (talk · contribs) have been making the same edits to Ronen Segev, Ten O'Clock Classics, Veda Kaplinsky and Laser hair removal that Satris made. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Mistakes happen every day. Thatcher131 16:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Chocolate Rockets

THanks for letting me now that you nominated The Chocolate Rockets for deletion. I don't mind if it gets deleted. by the way, reply to me on User Talk:WereWolf. thanks.

WereWolf 01:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I' pretty sure they are Swiss. I've been going on their official website and reading their bio.

WereWolf 01:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki project spam talk page

Well I thought my point would be much more convincing if I duplicated a few names to make the list look long. ;-) Pascal.Tesson 22:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Music of South Florida article

Hi, I'm taking care of some disambiguation links to Rap, and saw your offer of help on Patience561's talk page and thought you might want to take a look at Music of South Florida. Needs a bit of work if it's to remain a Wikipedia article, I think... :) Dreadlocke 23:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the article. As Patience561 was responding to my advice, I didn't want to jump on the article. I'm not particular up on the South Florida music scene, so I wouldn't know what to look for in terms of content and references in various genres, but I am willing to help if someone else can supply info on important players in the South Florida music scene. I won't be much help for a few days, but will be more active late next week. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I was trying to help out with basic things like wikification, grammar, and punctuation, but I don't know anything about the Rap scene in South Florida. I'll keep an eye out on the article and see if Patience561 needs any technical help..:) Dreadlocke 00:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand. I listen to satellite radio, so I know little of the local music scene. Maybe I'll add a section on Fine Arts music to the article. :) I'll also keep an eye for coverage in the newspaper. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on Fair use amendment

Hi, you put the comment you made on the fair use amendment on the project page. I moved it to the discussion page here. Hope that's ok with you. Garion96 (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America Newsletter - July '06

The Indigenous Peoples of North America Portal has been established, as a starting point for those wishing to learn more about the subject, with information and links on a wide variety of issues. It also contains news regarding the continent's various tribes and nations. It's a graphically pleasing site, and everyone is encouraged to check it out.
The project's home page has a new design, featuring tabbed subpages on participants, templates, articles, categories, and the to do list.
The Article Classification lists have been moved to their own subpage due to size. This is a sign of progress in the ongoing work of this project.
The project's talk page template has been updated, along with the classification system, to include the assessment on the talk pages of the articles that have been classified and assessed.
Balance
As the Project reaches its first six months of activity, the great effort all of you have invested in it has turned the vast information available on Indigenous North American topics from a deorganized cumulous into an excellent and easy to consult database. Although much work is still in order, few WikiProjects are able to obtain the amazing results we are proud to show today. To all of you, thank you and congratulations!
The assessment of articles within the scope of the project is still an ongoing process. We need people to help in this who are not contributors to the articles they are assessing. Also, there is the ongoing need for identifying and cataloguing articles that fall within the scope of this project. As of today, nearly 1,500 have been identified within the Project's scope.
Signed by
Aaron Walden & Phaedriel - 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Eastern green mamba

I fully agree, and I thought it sounded kinda funny when I was cleaning up the article. Perhaps the original author of that passage meant the shoreline of Lake Malawi?--chris.lawson 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. The range seems to be hard to pin down. Some web sources say Kenya to Zimbabwe, other say South Africa to Tanzania. Another source says Green Mambas (both Eastern and Western) are found almost everywhere in sub-Sharan Africa, but other sources say that Western Green Mambas are only found from Guinea to Ghana. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Howdy!

Wanted to say hello and let you know I've made a userbox for CSN {{User CSNavy}} so that eventually we might be able to coordinate work flow-- am hoping we'll have enough members to convince MILHIST to let us have a task force? or maybe we can just start posting things to help us organize on the Maritime Task Force there? plange 21:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Riviera Beach, Florida

I apologize if I "mislabeled" the edit, in which I attempted to perform a minor. Tell me how I did and if I'm in your way, please tell me --Moreau36 22:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You simply reverted my last edit to the article. I understand what you said you were trying to do, and I went ahead and removed the unnecessary bolding and repetition of the city name. The article needs a lot more work, and I'm not going to try to hog it. I'm in sort of Brownian motion, bouncing around articles and trying to fix things as I see them. If you know something you want to do with Riviera Beach, I'll leave it alone for now. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

South Florida metropolitan area

The metropolitan area name was changed again in December 2005 to Miami–Fort Lauderdale–Miami Beach. See http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro_general/List1.txt. —RJN 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Office of Management and Budget was the one who changed it to Miami–Fort Lauderdale–Miami Beach as of December 2005 definition. Click here and look at page 21 of the PDF file. —RJN 00:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

hey

just wanted u to know that i go to dunnellon high school and the principal is michelle lewis i just got a letter saying that so please stop changing it, downtowndontay

Talk:Apalachee

Not sure what template you might have used here [1] (or if you did that manually), but by the looks of things you forgot the <nowiki></nowiki> tags and/or {{tl}}. :) Luna Santin 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't understand how everything works yet. I am trying to edit the Apalachee page. It doesn't include our current chief who is very much alive right now. It also doesn't include the fact that Mission San Luis is very much alive as well. I also want to add to the section about what we are doing today. We are an active tribe. We were featured this week on the PBS series History Detectives and I want to update the page so people understand we really are not extinct. I understand it didn't sound too formal, but I'd appreciate some pointers. I didn't quite understand everything on the talk page. Thanks so much! Charissa2154 01:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  On 3 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Famous Artists School, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Regarding ==Watching==

I'm useing IE.100110100 10:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury,I am concerned about link removals

I have noticed that you have removed the links I have put,labeling it as commercial links.I have put my links there as many of my fishing enthusiast friends have suggested it, since my website is very informational.

I have noticed that www.gruntmuskielures.com and Mustad has been advertised blatantly in the content.Why these double standard? Maybe you haven't noticed them yet.I am a fishing enthusiast and if you are truly concerned about providing quality content instead of product pages I think my fishing pages website have a better say than anyone else currently on there.

I rest my case leave it to your judgement and hope you do what is right for the ultimate information seeker.

Thanks

Please see Wikipedia:Spam. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User NJW494's spelling changes

User NJW494 is making a lot of changes that violate Wikipedia policy on spelling. (He's one of the hoards of anti-Americans who go around changing spelling to British spelling.) I noticed you commented on this on his talk page. Can he be blocked? I'm new here, so I wouldn't know how/when to do this. --Samuel Webster 14:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Proper procedure to is to try to resolve this with him on talk pages. I recommend that you also address this issue on his talk page, remembering don't bite newcomers, assume good faith and be civil. It is a bit premature to talk of blocking. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 14:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I've made a beginning, but he doesn't seem to see the problem. It's hard to assume good faith after seeing the signs of anti-Americanism on his user page. And he's been warned about changing from Oxford spelling (realize) to street British (realise), yet he keeps doing it. Both spellings are acceptable on British topics.
If you are not already familiar with it, read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If he doesn't respond to attempts to discuss the spelling dispute with him, we can try mediation next, if he will agree to it. I would note, moreover, that almost all the articles where he has recently changed spelling are on articles where British spelling would normally be preferred. I don't see him being on a rampage or such, so gentle reminders are appropriate for now. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 14:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, and, yes, I agree, he's not on a rampage. He's just stretching the rules way too far in some cases. --Samuel Webster 13:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the appropriate research! (rv, it was spelled 'favor' from when it was introduced 27 April 2005 until two days ago) Some authorative-sounding person made me apologize somewhat prematurely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Regional_English_dialects#Help:_Europeans_ganging_up_on_me). --Samuel Webster 15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sanford - Florida page

I agree -- I had actually originally removed Sanford altogether. However, I thought it was worth mentioning as an airport, and didn't fit in the following paragraphs that describe regional airports. Trevormartin227 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As the first paragraph explicitly says that it is listing airports with more than 20 million passengers a year, it doesn't belong there. I have no opinion as to whether it belongs anywhere else. I guess a comparison with passenger traffic levels at the regional airports would help decide. Unfortunately, I don't have time to pursue that tonight. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking vs deleting

Hi! I noticed you blanked Plantation Key, Florida because you think that's not a good redirect. Please use the Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion process if you think that a redirect is not appropriate. Blanked pages are considered harmful because they have a tendency to confuse readers. Thanks for your understanding. --Zoz (t) 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments

Hello Dalbury. Sorry to see that you bought into Terryeo's false statements about an edit at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#.5B.5BUser:Terryeo.7CTerryeo.5D.5D_does_not_answer_proof_challenge Perhaps it would have been better get my side of it as well. --Fahrenheit451 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

South Florida Metro aka Miami out of local area.

I wasn't the orignal author of comment, but only repaired it. I feel some content contained in Wikipedia is subjective, and doesn't always need to be cited. It is not uncommon for people in Florida, outside of South Florida metro, refer to the area as Miami. The further away you get from the area (except in the Northeast), the more common it is to hear the Miami label slapped on the tri-county area.

Additionally, when travelling abroad, the entire area is known as Miami. Similar case for Seattle/Tacoma, using Seattle, and Dallas/Fort Worth using Dallas. The point is, it is just the way the area is expressed, and shouldn't really need to be cited. Census bureau counts the metro as one area at this point, so it really isn't a wrong statement.

Most of your edits have been right on, but some of them are little hardnosed. Bermuda Triangle is another good example. I can find you citations showing Miami, Fort Lauderdale or Florida as the western point. The reason why the area is a point at all is becasue the Fort Lauderdale Naval Air Station factored very heavily into the myth. Miami was (and still is) the larger city, and that's why it is sometimes referenced (I guess we have been slapped with Miami label for decades).

Just a few thoughts, but keep up good work. I won't add the comment back, but if you feel what I said is valid, please do add it back.

Thanks, GatorFTL--GatorFTL 03:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing in the policies that creates an exception to WP:V. In fact, what you are saying is original research, which is explicitly forbidden by policy. And my experience does not agree with yours, but I can't put that in WP, either. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In case you did not see my previous message

Dalbury, I do think your comments about an editing situation you have no firsthand knowledge of were Offhand. I am curious why you made it. I would like an explanation.--Fahrenheit451 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know what makes you think he had no knowledge of the situation. Unless you have a sniffer on his computer, you cannot possibly know what he's read and has not. I would like to know on what you base your presumption, Fahrenheit451 - thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Fahrenheit451, would you care to explain how Terryeo's comment in this edit was a lie? Note that I said that the argument (attributed to you) that a document was published because you can obtain a copy by paying $21,000 to take the course would be rejected by the vast body of Wikipedia editors. Please also note that I rejected Terryeo's claim that Wikipedia policy needed to better define 'published'. I think both of you have been engaging in fruitless squabling, needlessly filling up talk pages, and hindering other editors from getting on with the business of Wikpedia. So, unless you have something positive to contribute, please don't badger me on my talk page. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 17:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

"A new editor who chooses "Stephencolbert" as an account name, IMHO, is already demonstrating an intent to add unsourced, POV material to WP." <-- New editors add unsourced and POV material to Wikipedia all the time. When dealing with new editors we need to think about Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. "Vandalizing WP because Stephen Colbert says to is definitely not acting in good faith." <-- When did Colbert tell people to vandalize Wikipedia? --JWSchmidt 13:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw his show. Personally, I thought he was pretty funny. All of those people who were inspired to vandalize Wikipedia because of his show are just, uh, uncreative and unfunny. I'm sorry, but someone who creates an account named Stephencolbert and then vandalizes Wikipedia knows exactly what they are doing and wears out any assumption of good faith after the first edit. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Would have concluded from A Modest Proposal that Jonathan Swift was an advocate of eating children? Have you adopted the position that anything you view as being vandalism is vandalism? Do you think that your approach to vandalism removes the need to understand the motivations of other editors? --JWSchmidt 18:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you trying to argue that entering nonsense or patent falsehoods into Wikiedia is satire, and therefore exempt from being labeled 'vandalism'? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 19:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
New editors sometimes add useless text into Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy calls upon us to try to understand the motivation of new editors, explain to them what Wikipedia is all about and help new editors become productive. I've been trying to get Wikipedians to explain clearly why we should label the two edits by "Stephencolbert" as vandalism. As far as I can tell, the two edits made by the "Stephencolbert" account were made at about the time when Colbert was doing a satirical commentary about the Bush administration's ability to create "reality". It seems reasonable to explore the idea that the intent of this mysterious editor was related to the satire rather than an effort to vandalize the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 23:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I am well aware of the differences between unfamiliarity with policies, experimentation and vandalism. I'm with Cyde on this one. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

An univolved and experienced editor could be really useful here: Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States. See the last few sections at the bottom. Any help would be appreciated, I am at a loss on how to handle the situation there. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 04:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I need a day or two to look things over. I'm a bit busy this week in the real world. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for an advice

Hi Donald, could you please tell me about your opinion re these User Expatkiwi logs. I've already deleted a few. You can check the deleted versions to have an idea. Cheers -- Szvest 13:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

I need two or three days to look things over. I'm a bit busy this week in the real world. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again

I have tried to edit the Apalachee page again. You never responded to my other post, so I hope you will notice this one. Please let me know if it needs more corrections and what I can do. I am still learning, but I read all links you posted on August 2nd. I'm not trying to be difficult, so please let me know if that's the case. But I'm sure you would feel the same about editing a page on the internet about your family. Thank you, and I appreciate any advice. Charissa2154 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't respond earlier. I'll take a look, but I may take a few days to respond. I'm very busy outside of Wikipedia right now, and am having trouble keeping up. I will try to help, especially as I realize I was too abrupt with you the first time I commented on your edits. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not create redirects from more general concept to more specific

This is a bad policy. Coelenterata is more general concept to Cnidaria, as they include comb jellies too. The article is minimal stub for now, but it may be expanded if not improperly redirected. Consider: you can't make a redirect from France to Paris if there is too little information in the article about France. I'm not going to start any wars, but this issue cannot be solved by your sole decision, it needs discussion. Please discuss this in the article's talk page. Your arguments presented there right now are not enough. Best regards, --Maxxicum 00:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A redirect is better than the existing article. We do not need to duplicate information all over different articles. That is why we have redirects. I am not aware of any policy or guideline that supports your comment. If you are aware of one, please let me know what it is. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
A redirect is better than the existing article. Who decided that? You? I disagree, it is not, because it is confusing, and it is not exactly the duplicated information only. We have a disagreement - 1 to 1. What should we do in this case (not start the edit war, I hope)? --Maxxicum 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. As for policies or guidelines, I don't know. There are a lot of them, and I'm not really familiar with all of these. It's just some common sense, I'm surprised you don't understand that. I asked a question here: Wikipedia talk:Redirect, let's see what the response will be. --Maxxicum 02:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please read up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That will make it easier to discuss what is or is not proper in Wikipedia. I recommend that you start with our fundamental policies, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
And which of those would allow redirecting from Human to Caucasian or Bird to Chicken just because there is, for instance, no valueable infromation in Human and Bird? If you don't like the Coelenterata article, put it for deletion. But please, don't redirect it to something which it is more general to. --Maxxicum 02:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't be so belligerent. I'm not going to revert you for now. I am trying to engage you in a conversation about how we do things in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you for your help. --Maxxicum 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiFlorida meetup

Would you come to one? I get all jealous of the people who went to Boston. I'm thinking February. Bastiqueparler voir 01:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested, but there has been a meetup in St. Pete in the middle of January both in 2005 and in 2006, and I sort of expected there would be another one in 2007. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cypher links

Hi Dalbury,

I like to ask you to please consider leaving the Cypher links, as our technology is the topic of interest for many of the Wikipedians looking for novel and exciting approaches in NLP state of the art. Although we are a company and not a OSS vendor, our system is free and the archiecture is open. We released the alpha as a gesture to share and diffuse the NLP techniques we've developed. Considering the alternative of patenting the techniques and charging $50K for our software, tagging our software as commercial without the proper context really isn't fair our team nor the users, students and professionals who are looking for such software. Please take a closer look at what our team is doing.

I re-edited several pages, including Natural Language, Semantics, and Linguistics, but will forego additional edits if you or other editors still feel our links don't belong.

Cheers, sherman

I've referred this to the spam project for discussion. It looks like others agree iwth me that it is spam. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"?

Did you read what my edit to the Holocaust article was? All I did was split the Victims section off into its own article, Holocaust victims, with a clearly indicated link. Just because you don't agree with that edit is no reason to throw words like "vandalism" around. The Holocaust article takes too long to load. Sometimes browsers on slower computer give up on loading pages that take too long. This is too important a topic to let that happen. Also, the victims deserve their own article. Wryspy 00:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I see what happended. One minute before you made your edit, Danntannerisgod (talk · contribs · count) vandalized the article here. My revert caught both Danntannerisgod's vandalism and your edit. I somehow missed Danntannerisgod's edit diff and saw the vandalism as your edit. I apologize for the error, and for what appears to be my carelessness in analyzing the edits. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 04:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I see. That explains your confusion when trying to figure out how that meshed with my edit history. No problem. Although I haven't checked, I would assume that the Holocaust article might be among the most frequently vandalized, so it certainly needs people to look out for it. Best wishes, Wryspy 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Miami Municipal Airport

I corrected information that stated "The airport was later named Amelia Earhart Airport. It was closed in 1959 and is now Amelia Earhart Park" because that is absolutely false information and it distorts Miami's aviation history for everyone who reads it.

You changed it back to the erroneous information and remarked that it was sourced at http://www.crazedfanboy.com/npcr/laflapcr192.html Wow, personal websites are never wrong? You can believe the erroneous information all you want, but unfortunately that website and author are in error and you shouldn't be repeating the erroneous information on Wikipedia.

Why is the information in error? Because:

1. Miami Municipal Airport was EAST of LeJeune Road, not WEST.

2. Amelia Earhart Regional Park was always surplus undeveloped federal government land located north and west of where Miami Municipal Airport used to be and immediately south of Opa-locka (not Opa-Locka) Airport. The park is located north of Gratigny Road (East and West 65th Street in Hialeah) and west of LeJeune Road. Miami Municipal was east of LeJeune, south of Gratigny Road and north of E. 53rd Street in Hialeah.

I grew up within a few miles of both the park and Miami Municipal Airport in the 50's and 60's and still live within 10 minutes of both. I hunted on the land that is now Amelia Earhart Regional Park in the late 50's as a kid and I know darn well that there was never an airport there. I also saw National Airlines DC-7's using Miami Municipal for pilot training touch and goes in the mid to late 50's and it was where I said it was.

Can you please stop inserting false information into the article? Thank you. -- 72.145.9.209 04:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I also grew up in Miami in the 1950's, and I remember Amelia Earhart Airport as being on the south edge of Masters Field and Opa-locka NAS. In any case, what you or I remember doesn't count, as that constitutes original research. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Please provide one or more sources that support your point. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 09:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Donald, either you were on drugs or have no sense of direction if you honestly recall Miami Municipal/Amelia Earhart Airport being south of Masters Field.  : ) If it was south it would have straddled NW 103rd Street, which it didn't. It was west of Masters Field and is now occupied by the City of Hialeah Police Department and a railroad intermodal freight yard. Were you a Hialeah boy by any chance?

Verifiability of incorrect information is more important than the truth? I hate to put down Wikipedia but that is an absurd concept. I have written the website author of your reference with the incorrect information and they are looking into it and will make changes if I am correct, which I am.

And please, one more thing, it is Opa-locka, not Opa-Locka as you spell it. Surely you have forgotten the rules on spelling contractions in that you don't capitalize the beginning of last section of the contracted word. You can verify that on the City of Opa-locka's website among other places. -- 65.3.72.33 19:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This site states that Masters Field and Miami Municipal Airport (renamed Amelia Earhart Field in 1947) were connected by a taxiway across the (Seaboard?) railroad tracks. The coordinates for Amelia Earhart Field given here 25°53′N 80°16′W / 25.88°N 80.26°W / 25.88; -80.26 resolve to the CSX tracks on the west side of MDCC. As the previous source indicates that Miami Municipal Airport was across the railroad tracks from Masters Field, the coords appear to be slightly too far east. It appears from this that Amelia Earhart Field was the rectangular area just west of the railroad tracks and south of the Gratigny Road extension in this Google Maps view. That area is immediately adjacent to Amelia Earhart Park. OK, I'm convinced. I'll take out the reference. It appears that Amelia Earhart Park is located on part of the old NAS Miami Mainside (Opa Locka), but as I have determined that by 'original reasearch', I'll just have to leave out any mention of the park in the airport article.
As for verifiability, not truth, please read the Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. Those three policies are the most fundamental in Wikipedia. We insist on verifiability because people disagree about what is true (as we have disagreed here). With a reliable source, we can point to it and say, This is where we got it from. The web source I used is not particularly high quality, but it is all I could find on the subject.
As for the correct capitalization of Opa-locka, just Google for 'NAS Opa locka'. More than 95% of the returns, including some government sites, use 'Opa Locka' or 'Opa-Locka'. The City of Opa-locka may protest all it wants, but 'Opa-Locka' is in common use. You are welcome to correct the spelling wherever you see it in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay Donald, I have a new reference source for you regarding Miami Municipal/Navy Municipal/Amelia Earhart Field and All-American/Masters Field/USMC Air Station Miami and it is located at [2] You can see the photos and how the area evolved and the airports disappeared. I hope it suffices for clearing up the issues we have discussed. And, did you grow up in Hialeah and if so, where? -- 65.3.72.33 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an extensive collection of old aerial photos and charts at [3]. It has some interesting stuff about All-American Field/Miami International (Master) Airport/Masters Field, but it misses the boat on Masters Field after WW II, which makes me a bit uneasy about the rest of its 'facts'. It also has an image of a 1937 map showing a Navy airport, dirigible base and municipal dirigible hangar in Opa-locka.
I grew up in Allapattah and North Miami. On cool winter mornings in Allapattah I could hear the jets taking off from Masters Field. I don't think I ever saw Amelia Earhart Field. I got to visit Masters Field in 1952 or '53. Of course we boys had to ask the pilots whether it was true that jet engines would explode on contact with water. In North Miami our next-door neighbor was a Marine pilot until he moved away when Masters Field was closed. I was back on Masters Field a couple of times after the base closed, for a sports-car race and an Explorer encampment. My grandmother lived in Hialeah from maybe 1951 until the middle '60s, first down at the south end (the little square houses with the patios on the roofs that were advertised as being atom-bomb proof), and then in northern Hialeah, and my uncle and his family lived in northern Hialeah from the late '50s until the late '80s. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The old airports site (#3) has some great stuff, not only on the airports we've been discussing but many others as well. I'm glad to see historical stuff like this on the net. I knew an Albury family somewhere in north Hialeah (Palm Springs section) at one point in the 60's, possibly from my neighborhood or my Herald route or both and I bet it was your uncle and his family. The name just kept bugging the hell out of me so that's why I asked you about living in Hialeah. There was a Diane Albury who graduated from Hialeah High a year ahead of me. Getting back to airports, I'm going to be doing more research on Miami Municipal/Amelia Earhart and Masters Field in the future and getting what I can onto the net. I only went to Masters twice, once for a great air show around 1957 or 58 and once to an open house for family and friends because my dad's girlfriend was a lady Marine Reserve officer. I wish I had gone more often and that I had taken photos way back when. Thanks Donald. Don -- 72.145.3.76 06:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that you cannot use a web site you create or add to yourself as a source for Wikipedia. Instead, cite the sources you used. I know that sources can sometimes be wrong (the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica described the Everglades as a large lake), but we insist on reliable sources because it is the best way of ensuring that editors are not inserting made-up or misremembered 'facts'. None of the sources I've cited for the Opa-locka Airport are very good, but without those sources the History section of the article would have to be empty. I do re-visit aricles I've worked on and try to find new/better sources for them.
My relatives in Hialeah were my mother's side of the family. There were quite a few Alburys in South Florida because it is a common name in the Bahamas, and Bahamians have been migrating over to Florida for almost two centuries. I believe one of my father's cousins lived in Hialeah, but we only visited there once a year at night, and stopped going there sometime in the later '50s, so I have no idea just where. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I tried to add my own site as a source because I had doubts about being able to do that if it was my own site. But that's okay because Google will pick up those pages on my site within a week or two and give them high ranking, probably higher than Wikipedia's placement as least when someone searches for Miami Municipal Airport, Navy Municipal Airport, Amelia Earhart Field, Masters Field or Marine Corps Air Station Miami. I just want accurate history displayed on the web and I've done that with the old government photos and descriptions and there's more to come. In addition, Mr. Moriaty (whose website was the source reference that started all of this) replied back to me, said he did additional research, and found what I said to be true. That was: 1. Miami Municipal was east of LeJeune, not west; and 2. Amelia Earhart Regional Park was never an airport. He was mislead by other longtime local residents relying on recollections and thus the errors on his site. He will be having someone correct his website which is the referenced source material. I accomplished what I wanted. I'm sorry your last name got me going but it's interesting to find people who lived near me 40 to 50 years ago and I thought either your family or relatives were the Alburys near me. Take care Donald! Don Boyd -- 65.3.198.131 21:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairlawn, Florida

Hi, Dalbury- Could you look at this. There is a question as to whether this is a real place or a hoax article. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 08:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Links on Pattern matching article

Could you please point me to the criteria I should use to determine what is considered advertising on Wikipedia? This commercial link appears on the Pattern Matching page directly above a link I placed on the page. Both software are implementations of pattern matching algorithms and very relavant to the article subject, and both are available for free for educational and non-commercial use. If there is any resource which clears up the policy on this a bit more for me for future reference, I'd be greatly appreciative. In the mean time, I've reverted the page edit, although I'm aware of your warning. If there isn't a documented policy which distinguishes the above link from the one I placed in the article, then I'd like to request that my edit be allowed to remain. The goal isn't so much to sell a few hundred dollars of XML content files, but much more so to expose experts, students and professionals to new a new tool and methodolgy in this field.

Thanks, sherman—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shermanmonroe (talkcontribs)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam for a discussion of the criteria we apply to identify undesirable links. Wikipdeia is not a place for commercial advertisements. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 08:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification

That makes sense. I will refrain from adding links to my site and projects. Thanks again. sherman

Regarding ==Categories==

Thanks. But I'm confused. What was that link supposed to be for? And what does that have to do with vote stacking? And if its related to categories & userboxes not referencing, how?100110100 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was on the proposed removal of a project which aimed to manipulate AfD and other deletion discussions by recruiting like-minded editors to 'vote' in such discussions (i.e., vote-stacking). The defenders of that project then tried to 'stack the vote' in the referenced discussion by leaving messages on the talk pages of editors who were listed in a particular category. The defenders hoped and assumed that the other members of that category would support their position. This was a very real and dangerous case of some editors trying to organize a block of editors so that they could overwhelm discussion and impose their POV on selected articles. They were using categories to identify editors that they assumed would support their agenda. We have enough problems with POV-pushing as it is. We don't need to be helping the POV-pushers organize their cliques by giving them an easy way to find new members. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Now, that raises the question, why are there some categories, and not others?100110100 04:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ISBNs

Hi Donald, can you give me an example or two, preferably on my talk page (click my surname).Rich Farmbrough 23:42 25 August 2006 (GMT).

Good work. Rich Farmbrough 20:31 26 August 2006 (GMT).

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Thanks for your note. I had a look at the article history, which just has a short revert war, but little explanation from either side, something of which I was also guilty. But if you look at the Wikipedia Manual of Style on National Varieties of English, it says that "If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect." It is difficult to see a tie of any kind between the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and the US. There are, however, strong ties between this subject and the UK, as the British Royal Family is a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The sentence in which the word "favor/favour" occurs refers to the Prince of Wales and Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh. This combination of strongly UK-orientated subject and US spelling is very jarring, and therefore the UK spelling is more appropriate in this instance.--Stonemad GB 13:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about the royal house of Britain, it is about the German state of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The British royal house is only one of several royal houses that claim descent from the ruling house of that country. Also note that Saxe-Coburg and Gotha did not exist until 1826, after Prince Albert was born. In one sense, Prince Albert was born into a branch of the Ernestine branch of the Wettin dynasty that became the ruling house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1826.
Also note that when this change was first made a couple of weeks ago, I let it pass, and simply left a talk page message for the editor who made the change. Someone else reverted the spelling change, starting the edit war. You can revert me, but that will likely start another edit war, and I suspect any new edit war will end up with keeping 'favor' again. -- Donald Albury 13:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:24.123.19.166 vandalizes again

Thanks for the heads up.

German names for the Great Dane

Hi. In Great Dane, unnamed user 86.52.75.169 reverted your additions of other German terms (beyond Deutsche Dogge). I'm not going to edit here because I have no knowledge of the terms you mention, but if the reversion was incorrect, please reinstate your terms - they're interesting! Barnabypage 01:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, user 86.52.75.169 changed the name of the article in the German language (:de) Wikipedia that is interWiki linked from the article. I have had nothing to do with the interWiki links on Great Dane. -- Donald Albury 01:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My edits on Naming conventions (Colleges of the UK)

I reverted you because I was misreading the spelling you used (for some reason I saw 'fictious'). I reverted back to your version when I realised I had read it wrong. -- Donald Albury 21:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Until you left a message on my talk page I was blissfully unaware of all this. Incidentally you didn't revert the revert you made, so I've just gone and done it! :) Cheers, CmdrObot 21:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: References for The Holocaust

You wrote "Thank you for supplying the references so quickly [...]". My pleasure. Thank you, too, for asking for citations rather than conducting heavy-handed deletions. There are too many WP editors who just delete stuff they don't like. Asking for citations or (where possible) adding them is a far more constructive past-time. Regards Punanimal, 10:00, 3 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea title dispute

Hi. There has been a long discussion for this article, and there is need for outside opinions. Could you participate? (Wikimachine 16:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Interesting little discussion there, but I don't see how I can help. I am completely unfamiliar with the subject area. While I do have preference in many cases as to what the best title of an article would be, I feel that redirects are cheap and easy to create, and it is generally not worth getting worked up over which title an article is acutally found under, unless the title is misleading or pushes some POV. So, sorry, I must decline. -- Donald Albury 16:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Volusiabar.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Volusiabar.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wwagner 23:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

????

may i ask why you categorically reverted every edit i have ever made on this site? i made several structural changes to badly-written articles and corrected some dates. yes i added a joke in that article on the duke but it was just a joke. as for "unsourced statements" everything else in that article is unsourced too, i happen to listen to those artists and do know about them. why not just delete the entire article for being unsourced???

please stop REVERTING MY EDITS. check for yourself if they are false first. at least re-add zetapets and kahimi karie, i do know these things for a FACT as a zetapets user and kahimi karie listener.
You are substituting and inserting false information in articles (Frederica de Laguna and Operation Unified Assistance), and inserting unsourced information that I cannot find any mention of in Google searches in other articles. As I have verified that you inserted false information in some articles, every one of your edits is suspect. -- Donald Albury 01:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that, at least on Neopets, Demodemodemon is trying to make good edits. Many of his edits to that article were OK, and I have reinstated them. Please help check his edits more closely before reverting all of them. —AySz88\^-^ 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I stand by my assertion that he has inserted patent falsehoods into some articles, and on other articles I have checked I can find nothing in Google to support his edits. I therefore suspect all of his edits unless he can cite reliable sources for them. I don't like subtle vandalism, which he has been engaged in. -- Donald Albury 01:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
please point to what i have inserted that is "false"! yes i put a JOKE on one article, that does not mean i'm evil. all my other edits were in good faith and are true to the best of my knowledge.
In this edit to Frederica de Laguna, you inserted her birthdate as November 18. According to this page on the official Frederica de Laguna website, Frederica de Laguna died on October 9, 2005, three days after her birthday. That would make her birthday October 3. In this edit to Operation Unified Assistance, you inserted the sentence, Since then it has gone on to assist in the face of other world disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina and the 2005 Guatemala mudslide disaster. According to this fact sheet, Operation:Unified Assistance ceased operations on 14 February 2005. In this edit to List of Norse gods, you added the information that Andhrímnir and Eir were consorts to each other. I spent a bit of time searching through Google and could not find any mention of that fact. You also added the {{hoax}} template to Electronic warfare. Now, if you can present Reliable sources|reliable sources for those and the other edits you made, I will apologize. In the meantime, please read the verifiability policy, particularly the section on Burden of evidence, where it says that any unsourced edit may be deleted from an article. -- Donald Albury 03:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:V

Hello

When you revert a single edit to this page, could you please state your objections on the talk page so everyone can continue working at hammering the idea out. If you do not want to participate in the disscussion on the talk page, then I would appreciate it if you left it up to others to remove the edit.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Die-hard adherents

Heh. I'm sure I would have to characterize myself as one of those, too. I'm not worried about it, though. We're each of us capable of playing various roles here, from a part of the problem to a part of the solution, and everything in between. I guess there's no need to identify anyone too closely with a role they happen to be playing one day. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I'll still call myself a die-hard adherent of verifiability (not truth), NOR, NPOV and the Wikipedian Way. :-) My trouble is that I'm trying to be a die-hard adherent on too many different policy pages. I've been thinking I should back off a little and concentrate more on adding sourced content to articles for a while (I haven't had an article in DYK for over a month now). -- Donald Albury 00:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it sounds like we're on the same side then.  :) Policy discussions are a quagmire. After a bit of it, article-space edits are a nice break. Still, it seems someone has to sort out all those rules, or we end up with too much chaos. Striking that balance - it's tricky. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah! <sigh> -- Donald Albury 01:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

your rv at WWIN

Hi, you reverted my change at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You also called for a discussion on the talk page, but decided not to start one. Do you not realize the issue here? WP:NN does not link to the essay, and I find it inappropriate that we list a stub proposal alongside well established guidelines. Please tell me why you think it *is* appropriate. Fresheneesz 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

While some essays have achieved iconic status in Wikipedia, I'm not acquainted with the one you linked. In general, essays are just the opinuion of one or a few editors. The proposal at Wikipedia:Notability does have a lot of discussion attached to it. I tend to be very conservative about changes to policies, as I believe that the written form of policies should change only after it has been demonstrated that the change has consensus. If you want to make this change, you can propose it on the talk page, as I indicated in my edit summary. -- Donald Albury 21:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I will propose it on the talk page. But do you have any objection to it personally? Also, the "lot of discussion" you saw was for the essay, which has been moved. The discussion page wasn't moved, until now - I just moved it to its rightful place. I'd appreciate your input on the the talk page at WWIN. Fresheneesz 07:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

MSTRMND

Donald Albury my name is Kevin McLeod, I edit mstrmnd and wondered how you found us, who led you here and why is a tentative article here offered for deletion. i have appended reviews in the discussion section. kbm@mstrmnd.com

I have List of United States magazines on my watchlist, and usually look at edits made there. The MSTRMND article looks to me like an attempt to promote a publication that is not yet notable enough to rate an article in Wikipedia. However, I will not be making the final decision. That will be made by an administrator after considering the reasoning for or against deletion presented by established Wikipedia users on the Articles for Deletion discussion page for this article. Note that another editor previously proposed the article for deletion. If you want to try to save the article, please read our policies and guidelines, starting with the verifiability, original research and neutral point of view policies and the reliable source guideline. Oh, and comments on talk pages and discussion pages should be signed by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the comment. -- Donald Albury 21:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject: Historical information

WikiProject: Historical information is better organized than when you saw it last (as Wikipedia:Historical information). Would you care to join it?—msh210 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama

You may want to review this rv. I looked at it earlier and thought the anon was cleaning up some leftover vandalism...some that was there even prior to my rollback earlier in the day. I don't think that "Bold textYou are fool" is supposed to be there :). And then again..maybe I'm wrong...it's been one of those "Wiki-days". Anyhow, Cheers and take care! Anger22 02:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems I'm not been the only one reverting that nonsense back in today. Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it now. -- Donald Albury 03:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Dalbury, thank you for helping me with the David L Cook article. I am still learning and I appreciate you not biting my head off! Please let me know if you see something that needs fixing or could be improved. I am very open to your help and editorial friendship. Junebug52 10:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

References

See {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Burt Reynolds birthplace

There is an edit war currently raging on the Burt Reynolds page about his place of birth. I saw where you were the last person to change it to Lansing, Michigan. First of all, let me say that I saw Reynolds say on the Dinah Shore Show in the 1970s that he was born in Waycross, Georgia. Second, if you type into a search engine Burt Reynolds birthplace 95% of the sources list Waycross. Only 5% list Lansing.

That being said, I did find two websites that insist that Lansing is correct and that his mother and father moved to Waycross shortly after he was born.

I wrote Burt a thoughtful and serious letter on BurtReynolds.com mentioning the dilemma and asked him to settle it. I will copy you with what he or his representative says after I receive a response.--Hokeman 19:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither your remembrance of what Burt said on television nor an e-mail response from Burt would meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This issue has been discussed on Talk:Burt Reynolds, and repeated requests for a reliable source giving Burt's birthplace as Waycross have been unanswered. -- Donald Albury 19:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
No sir, they have not been "unanswered". All you have to do is go to a search engine and type in three words - Burt Reynolds birthplace - and far more "legitimate" sources than IMDb come up.--Hokeman 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Why haven't they been cited, then? I've put in a couple of sources that explicitely state that Waycross is wrong, he was born in Lansing. One of those sources is the Palm Beach Post, which certainly qualifies as a reliable source. -- Donald Albury 19:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

nice

That's some excellent work you did on Treaty of Payne's Landing. I was definitely not expecting that stub to grow much and your expansion was a pleasant watchlist surprise. - BanyanTree 00:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a by-product of what I'm doing with Seminole Wars. When I realized there was an article for the treaty I moved over what I had already done there, and added a bit more from the source I've been using. I've got another book that may have some useful stuff, but I'm concentrating on the library books that are due back week after next. -- Donald Albury 01:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

  On 12 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miami blue, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Sneads High School

the 'Citiation' you need is From the 'news tab' http://www.firn.edu/schools/jackson/sneads_hs/Pirate%20News%20.htm on the schools website.

Quote:

Sneads - Grand Ridge Consolidation

The neighboring communities of Sneads and Grand Ridge will be combining

their high schools and middle schools beginning next school year.

Grades 9 -12 at Grand Ridge will be added to the Sneads High School and

the 6-8 grades at Sneads High will now be at Grand Ridge.

This will now make Grand Ridge a K-8 school and Sneads will be a High School only

with grades 9-12.


If you also look at the calendar tab http://www.firn.edu/schools/jackson/sneads_hs/calendar.htm

You'll see the web page is still from last academic year.

I don't have an online link that's more clear than that but Grand Ridge High and Sneeds High merged this year. I'll get Grand Ridge updated soon to.

 (I hope I did the Citation Correctly)  Bo 12:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Opting in=

try again

Sporting Options

I added references to Sporting Options from the Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk which discuss what the administrators discovered about Sporting Options' finances. Could you please take a look at the current version of the article? It may change your opinion on the AfD. Regards, TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw that. Those are the only sources that I would say are reliable and relevant. I'll revisit the discussion soon. -- Donald Albury 17:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Tallahassee Airport

Dalbury-- I had removed the Tallahassee Airport link from the top of the page because it was mentioned in the transit area further down in the article. Just asking for your opinion on this. Reply at my talk Thanks-- Noles1984 18:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to new WikiProject

Sorry to disturb, but am wishing to take a moment of your time for something I hope will be of interest. I'd like to invite you to join a new WikiProject I've started, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Should you feel so inclined, please feel free to join. And spread the word to any other interested parties.  :) -Ebyabe 19:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your comments on referencing

Dear Donald: I have also put these notes on my Discussion page after your comments - as I think the discussion should be there too as I seem to be receiving criticism from a number of people about how I have been adding references to articles. Much of this criticism seems, on reflection, to be valid.

First, as a result, I am now reviewing how I reference articles and, as I can find the time, I will go back over articles I have already referenced and try to either change them, remove them, make them more relevant or use them as a base for additions to articles. Perhaps some of the "references" I have made would be better placed under a heading like "Further Reading"? Any suggestions along these lines by yourself or others would be much appreciated.

Now, in my defence, I have honestly tried to just make references in places where they seem to me to be relevant. In regards to the book I have recently been adding as a reference to a number of articles on various fish species - I have just read it and was impressed with the clear way it deals with the threat posed to many if not most stocks of edible fish in the world. I am certainly not trying to "promote" it on any basis other than I think it is a fair and clear account of the rapidly escalating disaster facing us all today.

Many of the Wikipedia articles on various fish species do not even mention the fact that the species under discussion are severely threatened by overfishing, pollution, climate change and other factors. As a person who worked in fisheries research years ago in Alaska, I have a particular interest in these matters and I am appalled by the precipitous decline of fish stocks world wide. I thought this should be emphasised in articles on fish species which are under particular threat. I can see now that I should add something more than just a reference. However, this is what I thought I had done in the article on flounder that you mentioned by adding a brief section on "Threats" together with 3 pertinent references which make specific mention of flounders. Do you think this is an invalid sort of entry?

As regards my two draft books on the "Silk Road Seattle" site. I have used them as the basis for several fairly detailed historical sections on various topics. They are both heavily annotated translations of Chinese texts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE on the opening of the so-called "Silk Routes" to the West and India and are the first translations of these texts into English. They contain numerous geographical and historical references to countries, cities, peoples, and routes as well as trade and products, which are unavailable in other sources. As such, they are relevant to the history of many places and on many subjects. Certainly I believe they have great relevance in a wide variety of fields and I have an interest in making people aware of them and the information they contain (I wouldn't have spent 26 years doing the research for them at entirely my own expense if I did not). They are available for free, and I know from the responses I have received many readers have found them of interest. Perhaps, though, I need to make their relevance clearer in some instances and will endeavour to do so as soon as I can.

Finally, after leaving me some time to update at least some of the many entries I have made, I would be grateful, assuming you can spare the time, if you (or other readers) could review any of these updated references and let me know if I am now on the right track?

Thank you for interest and concern. John Hill 10:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Source cited

For Polk County, Florida. Was about to cite the source, but am kind of slow sometimes (finding the "ref" tags somewhat ackward, I usually put the info in the article and work on the references afterwards on a second edit). Thanx for the quick [citation needed], though. Jcam 02:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW I noticed you wrote the article for the Miami News. I remember the News. Whatever happened to it ? I always liked the Miami News (I am a part of the 1980's White Dade Diaspora). Jcam 02:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It went the way of most evening newspapers, I guess at least partly because TV was too much competition for attention in the evening. I've also seen some commentary that Bill Bagg's stand against the Vietnam War in the '60s hurt circulation and advertising, and the paper never fully recovered. They started sharing physical plant with the Herald in '73, and I guess that helped keep them going for a while longer. My folks moved to Broward County while I was away at college in the early '60s. All my relatives that I know anything about have been out of Dade County for at least a decade now.
I live in Colorado now, but occasionally make it back to Florida. Going to Miami now makes me feel like a pre-ww2 Danzig native visiting Gdansk. The streets are the same and some landmarks are still there, but it's an entirely different place now. Jcam 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm in Palm Beach County now, but I rarely go down there, just for a show, or to the airport or to show South Beach to visitors. Even Palm Beach County is getting too crowded.We're going to be leaving South Florida soon. -- Donald Albury 12:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Donald Albury/Archive 3".