User talk:Piledhigheranddeeper/Archives10

Messages 2020-2021

Tagging at Death of Michael Rosenblum

Could you be a little more specific about the issues that motivated you to place these tags on the article? Perhaps on the talk page? Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Specifics

This article is not written like an encyclopedia article, with background, facts/events, and discussion. Instead, it reads more like a newspaper or magazine article, "beginning near the end" with the discovery of the skull fragment and then moving around, temporally. There is, for example, very little about the family of the victim: the story jumps from his birth year to his late teens in the next sentence. A fair amount of the text could be seen as taking a particular point of view. One might compare other crime articles, especially "murder of ___", such as Murder of Meredith Kercher or Murder of Travis Alexander. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Piledhigheranddeeper:There is, for example, very little about the family of the victim: the story jumps from his birth year to his late teens in the next sentence. Blame the sources, not the article ... what details I could find, I put in. But it is a thanatography, not a biography, and the reader only needs to know those details that help explain why Rosenblum was in his girlfriend's car 40 years ago, anyway (which is what's in the sources, too).

For the same reason, that this is the story of a death, not a life, I began it with the discovery of the skull, which confirmed that he was dead and ended the search. Deaths, however they happen, are events, not lives, and our articles about them need to reflect that, which means we begin by describing what happened, not who it happened to. Suggesting it be about the latter is, frankly, well established as not in keeping with BLP1E.

I don't think the Meredith Kercher article, given its tortured history, is really the best example to look at here (nonetheless, I would also point out that it spends all of two grafs on her life before she went to study in Italy) (and likewise, we get one graf of Travis Alexander's life in that article).

It seems, really, that your quarrel is with the structure of the article, perhaps, more than the tone. And if you believe there are POV sections, could you please give some specific examples here, as I asked?

Also, you haven't explained what your issue is with the referencing. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Tone: as before, much of this article is written in a breezy magazine-style tone including, for example, its referring to its "star" adult victim by his first name, even in paragraphs where no other person with the same last name is mentioned; see the "Disappearance" section. The opening of the next section ("Unlike its driver, the Sunbird soon reappeared") is similarly unnecessarily purple prose; the short paragraphs throughout add to the flavor. I'm not going to list every single incidence of un-encyclopedic tone; this should be enough to get the idea.

"even in paragraphs where no other person with the same last name is mentioned". I think the general rule of that SAMESURNAME thing is (in my experience, when having written professionally elsewhere, and in other people's professional written work elsewhere), if the mentions of the other family members aren't confined to one section of the article but are regularly mentioned throughout it, just stick to the first name. SAMESURNAME even says as much: "When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing." In this case I think there are enough scattered references to Michael and his father throughout the article to justify usage of first names throughout when referring to members of the Rosenblum family.

And that is properly referred to as a usage issue. As for tone, I fixed the one thing you pointed out. If you are willing to tag the article with {{tone}}, I think you should be willing to list more than one example.

The short grafs are not a problem; the point is for it to be easy to read. MOS:PARA does not specify a particular graf length; it does, however, point out that "paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read." Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Viewpoint: The article (not just one section) definitely seems to want to blame the police, without actually saying so. Is there some way to dial that back?

That no doubt reflects the sources. All we can do is report what they say, leave conclusions to readers without nudging them there, and update the article if any new information becomes available that might put things in a different light. No one on the police side of things ever said much on their own behalf; where they have I put it in the article (Chief Gaburri's "I don't know what his problem is, and I don't really care", and Miscenik's "Is rhat right?") along with the results of the official investigations and the village's CSC overturning Gaburri's firing. Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

References: This article relies heavily on a small number of sources, one of which (apparently a magazine article, although the URL is sitcomsonline.com) is cited 63 times (spread out over 4 footnotes)—far more than all the other sources combined. It would be improved by additional sources.

--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I went to great lengths to find what old newspaper articles I could that covered the case to supplement the magazine article. I count about 17 other sources besides it, which are cited about 41 times total.

I'm sure there are additional sources ... I'd love it if the Post-Gazette would make more of its coverage, or the Press's for that matter, available online (I understand they might have to digitize it as it was all pre-Internet). I'm sure some of them are in libraries and on microfilm, perhaps, but as I don't live near Pittsburgh, or in Western PA, I can't easily go look for them. Should they become available in the future, and offer some additional relevant information, I'll add it (or, of course, someone else can). Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Why?

I don't get it, why?.

As the much larger Union forces assaulted the lines, desperate Confederate defenders held off the Union breakthrough long enough for Confederate government officials and most of the remaining Confederate army, including local defense forces and some Confederate Navy personnel, to flee Petersburg and the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia>>,<< during the night of April 2–3.

I mean, sometimes I can get 'basic' English wrong (e.g. The compound-modifier conundrum) but I just don't see the 'why' here. It seems jarring to me. Shenme (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a long-standing rule (taught to me when I was about 10) that when you have (city and state), it should be written (city)[comma] (state)[comma or other punctuation].

they traveled to Richmond, Virginia, to make the request.

they traveled to Richmond, Virginia.

they traveled to Richmond, Virginia; the trip was a failure.

etc.

I'm not sure why, but suspect it's to balance the comma before the state, similar to an appositive. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi

I hope to contribute to content on Wikipedia Sirbrown2020 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

What a long, strange trip it's been! --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Crécy

You take issue with my assertion that diplomatic considerations and naval engagement occupied the first few years of the Hundred Years' War ("No, it didn't") and ask for a source. It is Hundred_Years'_War#Beginning_of_the_war:_1337–1360. While the phrase inserted is a simplification, of course (it's not easy distilling eight years into fourteen words), leaping directly from the start of the war in 1337 to Edward's sailing in 1345 a sentence later begs the question (in the vernacular sense) of what was happening all that time. Something is needed; if you'd care to try your hand at it, I'd be happy for an improvement in the article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Piledhigheranddeeper, that's a fair point about the gap. Sadly, as WP:WPNOTRS notes (in bold!) "Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose". I have myself taken two articles on battles, one on a campaign and one on a siege to FA which all happened before Crecy. The Campign box - which is not complete - further lists three campaigns, two sieges and a battle. So hopefully you understand my doubts about filling what we both agree is a gap - and many thanks for flagging that up - with "Diplomatic considerations ... dominated ..."

What would you, or anyone else following this (we could do with some sort of consensus), feel about something like 'There followed eight years of expensive but inconclusive warfare: Edward campaigned three times with a large army in northern France to no effect; Gascony was left almost entirely to its own devices and the French made significant inroads in attritional warfare. In 1345 Edward attempted another campaign in the north and his main army sailed on 29 June and anchored off Sluys ...'? Feel free to tweak - I am not wedded to this form of words, other than that I know that I can source it.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

How 'bout: "There followed eight years of intermittent but expensive and inconclusive warfare: Edward campaigned three times in northern France to no effect; Gascony was left almost entirely to its own devices and the French made significant inroads in attritional warfare. In early 1345 Edward attempted another campaign in the north; his main army sailed on 29 June and anchored off Sluys" etc.

I definitely like the Gascon stage-setting, but would also welcome other contributions.

--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I like it. Let's leave it up for a few days and see what sort of opinions it collects. Meanwhile, courtesy pinging the editors involved in reviewing it at various stages @Sturmvogel 66, Tim riley, CPA-5, Jens Lallensack, Praemonitus, and Nikkimaria:. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I like it, but I lack the context of knowing which article we're referring to ;-) --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66: ah - good point - Battle of Crecy. Sorry, slightly over focused there. :-) It jumps from "This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War, which was to last 116 years." [1337] to "In 1345 Edward's main army sailed on 29 June and anchored off Sluys in Flanders until 22 July ..." It has been pointed out above that something to bridge this would be helpful. A tad embarrassing that we all missed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a vague memory of asking for more context on one of my reviews, although I'm pretty sure that it wasn't this one or even about the early campaigning. At any rate I think that it would be a worthwhile addition and might be usefully added to the Crécy Campaign article as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66: cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Most courteous of you, Gog, to invite reviewers to comment. My comments were pretty much on prose and clarity rather than fact, as I know little of the history of the period. In short, if you are happy with the proposed change, I am too. Tim riley talk 22:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Tim riley: Thanks for popping in Mr riley and for your generous proxy vote. I shall endeavour to use it wisely. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Balaam (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Virginian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit about trees

@Piledhigheranddeeper: Hey, thanks for taking an interest in the article! I think it's important to keep the fact that the streets were named for characteristic trees of Texas (not just for any old trees that someone thought were nice). Also, do you have a source for the assertion that the Philadelphia plan also originally had east–west streets named for local trees? I'm not saying they weren't, it's just that I don't see any names on the map that's included in this article. Thanks for being bold! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Bryanrutherford0: After I made the edit, I thought to come back and restore the note that the trees were local. As to Philadelphia, it was the archetype for the "Pennsylvania town", its streets laid out in a grid pattern with a central square, many of the streets named for trees (not necessarily local trees, I might add). I know this is mentioned in the Atlas of Pennsylvania, but will look for a better cite. Central Philadelphia's streets include Chestnut, Walnut, Locust, Spruce, and Pine (south of Market, timber trees in the order of the hardness of their wood), as well as Filbert and Cherry (north side, fruit/nut trees); I must admit that I don't know when they were named. Here's a list with some: List of Philadelphia placename etymologies (the first entry mentions "one of William Penn's streets named for trees"), and here's another not-very-scholarly cite: [1]. Maybe the text could say something like "Following the Philadelphia pattern, many streets were named for trees, but Waller gave his plan a local flavor by naming his streets for Texas trees." --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! Yeah, if we can find a solid source to show that the Philadelphia plan also included east–west tree names, then that would definitely be a helpful point to make here (and probably also in some article about the history of Philadelphia?). I like your proposed wording! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

See the 4th paragraph, which says that "[William] Penn named the east-west streets of Philadelphia after local varieties [of trees]": [2] --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

David J. Cuff, William J. Young, Edward K. Muller, Wilbur Zelinsky, and Ronald F. Abler, eds., The Atlas of Pennsylvania, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1989; p. 149: “the Pennsylvania town is characterized by a rectilinear street pattern [with a central square] . . . and the Philadelphia street-name system in which tree names are used for one series of parallel streets, while numbers are used for the intersecting streets.” Waller didn't go for the numbered streets, of course, but the rest of it is there. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Great, I've added that additional parallel, with the citation you've provided here. Thanks! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stepney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hythe.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That was actually the best I could do, as only the disambiguation page contains the definition of the term linked. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hard to believe how long it's been! --Ph&d

Orphaned ref on 2021 Suez Canal obstruction

Hey, I noticed you added some content in Special:Diff/1014441879, but you added a named ref without the actual reference, causing a ref error. Could you please fix that? Thanks. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Damn. Sorry 'bout that! But it looks like someone beat me to the correction. Compliments! --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong flag

The national flag in the infobox is the wrong one. The flag depicted was not adopted until 1865, but the regiment that is the subject of this article existed in 1862 only. The "Stars and Bars" is the national flag they would have carried. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Figured out how to fix it. Isn't open-source grand? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Piledhigheranddeeper: - That's what I get for copying infobox code from somewhere else with a unit that was active in 1865. Looks like I'll need to go check that on a couple others as well. Hog Farm _Talk 01:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe I should have it corrected for all of those in the series that weren't active in 1865. Hog Farm _Talk 01:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

¿Quién quiere ser millonario? (Spanish game show)

The tone of this article is somewhat less than encyclopedic. Numerous slang and insider terms are used in place of more formal terms. The article should be rewritten so as not to seem like it came from a show-biz trade publication. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Piledhigheranddeeper, I welcome your input as I created this page. Can you give me some examples of non-encyclopedic tone and insider jargon? I would like to disclose that I have never worked for any media company ever in my life, I just wanted to create an article on one of my favourite shows in a language that I speak, to close down this website's bias on English-language themes. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire to diversify Wikipedia's English-centric nature. I've made some changes that show what I mean. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Phillip Davey

It is very interesting that the four years of this man's army service accounts for about 7/8 of the text in the article, while the next 35 years of his life is practically dismissed in two short paragraphs (five lines total), despite that this was a Featured Article. Did he really do nothing of import in the second half of his life? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

G'day Piledhigheranddeeper. This is incredibly common for soldiers whose only claim to notability is their military service and the award of the highest medal for valour. It reflects the weight given in the Australian Dictionary of Biography and in the various books about recipients of the VC. I would not say that the rest of his life is "dismissed", it is covered in as much detail as is available, and the article is therefore comprehensive. Post-war his life was fairly unremarkable, he worked for the railways and was quite ill over many years as a result of his service. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I can see books about VC recipients dwelling on little else, but I would have to think that other works would not be so narrow. Did he have an obituary published in the local paper? One wonders about Wikipedia's notability/FA criteria from time to time.... --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how that doesn't apply to a bunch of different people across a range of fields. It is hardly restricted to military people. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

And I have criticized those articles, too. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vermont flood 1927 - Enosburg Falls.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vermont flood 1927 - Enosburg Falls.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It appears that a subsequent editor deleted (probably by accident) the effective link. Fixed now. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Harding (forger), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ace of Spades.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Bayside Canadian Railway

Thanks for your edits! I am Dutch, my English is good, but apparently not good enough ;-) I also added the sources where you put citation needed's. IIVQ (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries! Glad to be helpful. Keep up the good work! --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hunh?

It is remarkable that this article even exists, being a no-refs stub (four sentences). It is truly amazing that it took over two dozen edits over a course of more than a decade to get it to this point. Couldn't this effort be put to better use? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This article has existed since 2003 as an unsourced dictionary entry. I added a source (from a WP:BEFORE search) but it is actually more of a dictionary entry source. The rest of the article seems to involve original research.

I can see why this would bring "Hunh?" comments from @Piledhigheranddeeper:. == Otr500 (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Hardwick&WoodburyLocoNo.1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hardwick&WoodburyLocoNo.1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Woodbury Granite Company

Hello Piledhigheranddeeper! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Woodbury Granite Company, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.timesargus.com/news/woodbury-granite-co-a-rural-industrial-giant/article_4b45fb48-aa7f-5589-990b-2f2d1b73b75d.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Woodbury Granite Company and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-enwikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Woodbury Granite Company, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Woodbury Granite Company. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Woodbury Granite Company with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Woodbury Granite Company saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad

I am working on a review for Template:Did you know nominations/Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad. Please look for comments and I hope to see this nomination on the main page soon! Flibirigit (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)