User talk:Student7/Archive 10

Trouble with St. John's editor

I have just read your email. I have no idea at all why you couldn't post on my discussion page. I had decided that I would not take further part in this matter, as it looked too complicated, but having read your appeal for "an admin willing to judge here" I thought, "well, if all admins take the same line as me then nothing will be done, so I will try to look at it". I don't have time now, so it will have to wait a day or so. If I haven't got back to you within 48 hours it is probably because I have forgotten, so please do feel welcome to remind me. Alternatively you could try posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. The drawback of that is that it often produces long drawn out time-consuming inconclusive discussions instead of getting quick action, but it does increase the number of admins who are aware that there is a problem, so it's up to you. I don't promise to solve the problem, but I certainly do promise to at least look at it. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Student 7 - I know that you have been highly critical of me as you believed that I was some type of vandal. I hope that once we can get this UDallas ranking down, you can perhaps see that I have been dealing with an actual, true vandal over at the St. John's page (ElKrevbo, his numerous sockpuppets, and his many friends). As I mentioned on the UD talk page, I sincerely thought that you were vandalizing the page and were part of ElKrevbo's group (he reverts everything I do anywhere). As I also mentioned on the UD talk page, after a close look at the data, I realized how unclear it was and that it was entirely possible that you, like I am sure nearly everyone else who looks at, were misreading the badly-placed data.

I have spoken to some people who have been around the St. John's page for years, and ElKrevbo, under many aliases, has tried so very hard to deface that page. I'm not trying to convince you, I just know that you joined his chorus trying to get me shut up. CAtruthwatcher (talk) 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Naming of San Diego neighborhoods

Hi, Student7! You might want to take a look at this discussion: Talk:Allied Gardens, San Diego, California. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

University of Saint Thomas (Texas) Faculty

I would like to have a discussion about "notability" justification for removal of Nicole Casarez from the list of UST faculty. Casarez's work has been recognized on a local and national level. Her body of work was recently recognized by the American Law Institute. I have including articles discussing Casarez's contributions and recognitions.

Citations related to Casarez's work on the Graves case: http://app1.kuhf.org/houston_public_radio-news-display.php?articles_id=1288652030

http://www.khou.com/news/-Man-freed-from-death-row-thanks-former-students-106157068.html

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2010-10-01/feature2.php

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7267798.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130895436

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/101028-students-helped-free-death-row-inmate

Citations related to her scholarly work:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Nicole+B.+Casarez%22&hl=en&prmd=ivo&wrapid=tlif12892300789231&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

http://www.law.uh.edu/ihelg/monograph/00-12.pdf

Announcement election to American Law Institute: http://www.stthom.edu/Public/Index.asp?0=0&page_id=3618Source_URL=%2FHome.aqf&Content_ID=10384

On the Board of IPOT: http://www.ipoftexas.org/index.php?action=board-of-directors

Thank you very much for your time, Terence —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerenceTMC (talk • contribs) 12:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

She needs an aricle. See your talk page. Student7 (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

History of immigration to the United States

The "other links" you removed were the author information part of the reference. I have restored it as well as added a date. Rmhermen (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Luke

I noticed that you made an edit on Gospel of Luke. I have been having trouble with an editor named Leadwind. He is pushing an explicit POV on Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke and Gospel of John. His view on the topic is comparable to that of the Jesus Seminar. He deletes a large number of edits and sources because he thinks they are "sectarian". I question how familiar he is with the topic, as one of his edits was that the author of Acts of the Apostles didn't think Paul was an apostle, despite the obvious reasons to believe that the author did view him as such. I deleted it and he restored it. If you have a few minutes, could you look at some of his recent edits on those page and let me know what you think. He has another editor working with him, so I am outnumbered right now. If I could have another editor or two on my side I should be able to overcome his POV pushing.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I completely agree that it can be overwhelming. Gospel of Luke seems to be the one that was most altered by Leadwind's edits, so it is a good one to focus on for now. The major problem, as I see it, is that Leadwind deletes sources that he describes as "sectarian", even though they are mainstream publishers and the authors are mainstream scholars (like Darrell Bock) who are well published.RomanHistorian (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at this reversion too.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote was a bit too broad IMO. Need one with specifics. And we can talk all we want on this page or any other page of our choosing, but I prefer the article's page so other editors can see it. Student7 (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Could you address the issue that Leadwind is pushing, that "sectarian" publishers should be removed from the page?RomanHistorian (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored some of Leadwind's POV pushing here. Let me know if you think his original deletions were appropriate.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Zondervan

I am not as expert as you guys nor up-to-the minute. Zondervan is, unfortunately, a inspirational publisher, not really into historical stuff, per se. I haven't seen a publisher placed off-limits before, but maybe this is appropriate for Zondervan. I suspect that serious scholars go elsewhere for publication. Nice people, just not scholarly. But that is the only one I can remember right now.

But it is preposterous to place (say) someone who holds a theological degree and is a recognized scholar, out of bounds, merely because they are religious. That would be intolerably bigoted IMO.

We are not getting the communication from the other editors that we need to proceed. I appreciate your willingness to communicate. My suggestion, though, is to focus on one question. When they try to change the subject and don't answer, start a new thread with their new comments and keep on hammering away at the old until they choke up an answer. Right now, one of them is acting insulting but not really communicating information. We need to get him to focus. I'm not convinced (after I made a mistake yesterday) that they are always wrong. A bit hysterical sometimes, maybe, but not necessarily wrong! Student7 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy to see that we agree about Zondervan. It's a start! Leadwind (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think the issue of authorship has settled down, but the larger issue is this matter of "sectarian" publishers. A lot of good scholarly work comes out of Zondervan, (I could provide a very long list if necessary) so I disagree that there is a problem with them. The problem isn't one particular publisher, it is the tendency of certain editors to delete material from an article because it comes from a publisher that has a Christian-bent. We need to establish that publishers are to be excluded if other (non-Wikipedia) sources have commented on their tendency to be sloppy or not fact-check. Very few of the publishers whose books have been deleted fall under that category. What usually happens is one of these editors goes to the website of the publisher, sees a Christian-related mission statement, and uses that to ipso facto declare them unreliable. It is this that needs to stop.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was wrong about Zondervan. If so, my apologies to both Leadwind and RomanHistorian. I know that Zondervan is no Jack Chick, and they produce carefully edited, noteworthy books, I hadn't realized that any of them were scholarly. Says more for my lack of knowledge, than against Zondervan. We had probably best resume judging authors and books on merit, than blanket by publisher (excepting maybe Chick Publications!  :). Student7 (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable people

Thanks for the heads-up and support :) Dkriegls (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind now disrupting other articles

Leadwind is now introducing his POV into Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew, using the same destructive edit warring method he used on Gospel of Luke. Yet again, he deletes a lot of sources from scholars who are personally religious. Not only that, but he adds liberal scholars and then suggests they represent the mainstream. One of his changes modified a sentence that stated liberal scholar Bart Ehrman's opinion and restated it as though it represented consensus.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Graham Gund page

There are good references for Graham Gund's work, and he is a noted architect. I have it in my plans to work on this article, however my musician edits have been taking up the majority of my time. Good references exist in architectural publications, and newspapers such as the Boston Globe should also be combed through for information. I had looked online at one point and found information. It is just a matter of knowing the sources within which to conduct a search. I am in the process of finalizing a musician article, and that is currently my focus. The Graham Gund page should not be deleted. If you could possibly help me build this article, that would be a great help. Doc2234 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• I posted a response on the Graham Gund talk page. Doc2234 (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pergamon

Hi and thanks for your message and sorry it has taken me so long to reply, however I was helping a friend with a tough breakup. Back to the issue at hand, I think you may be right, it's definitely my fault, sorry about that.

I wanted to raise 2 pints, If I may. First, I believe Omulazimoglu is using one or more accounts, in this case User:85.110.224.133 contribs. Given the history of this user, involves reverting back to this image and then the users next edit was in fact made on User:Omulazimoglu page. I also believe, given what Omulazimoglu has told me, that Omulazimoglu did have an account with Turkish Wikipedia and has since been blocked. This was based on the fact that Omulazimoglu informed me that this image was his original image, witch was 'Original uploader was Mulazimoglu at tr.wikipedia' and has been blocked. The question I am asking myself is why he was blocked, if Mulazimoglu and Omulazimoglu are the same person?

Do you tink you can help me out? Thanks for your comments anyway. Seric2 (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise, however do you think you can can help me with reporting sockpuppetry to WP:SSP. I have found the process to be quite complicated and I am unsure how to proceed with this situation. This is defiantly a first for me and I would be extremely grateful for any advise/help you can give me. Sorry for being such a nuisance! Seric2 (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if Omulazimoglu starts up again - this is effectively image vandalism, compounded by logging out to edit-war by IP.I see some other attempts to include favored pictures on other pages like fishing, which, while pretty, aren't terribly encyclopedic. Acroterion _(talk) 13:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me updated with the latest news, I really appreciate it! Also I wanted to say a thank you in general, I don't think I would have been able to take it this far by myself, so thank you for helping. Seric2 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

felix owino

actually, it does relate to the college and should be included. He was in fact an employee of the college for several years and as a matter of full disclosure should be included in the history of the college. To not include his tenure there would be dishonest and inappropriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.0.79 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

by your logic of the person becoming notable because of the accusation, then it is relevant. i assume you are a magdalen graduate? I will have to go over your head on this one. I am reverting it back and contacting the appropriate regulatory personell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.0.79 (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(The results of this were kind of funny, actually. The "appropriate regulatory personel" identifying himself as such (an admin) took a 2x4 and hit him the side of the head* while I, totally innocent of anything, not even complaining mind you, stood and watched! Ouch! )

• (for the new editor, this did not happen in the physical world. It was all virtual. Hyperbole, if you will.

Student7 (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

St Peter's Basilica

It would very interesting to track down the earliest source of the tradition of St Peter's Martyrdom. My resources are mainly architecture/art. The person who left the edit about the Church Fathers was an unnamed editor. Have you got any time, or books available? Amandajm (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked for some sources. It's a wonder someone who writes on Catholic theology hasn't done it by now! I'll see what gaps I can fill. The info is all there on Wikipedia, in one place or another. Amandajm (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Retract this. I still haven't found the earliest source for the burial place. I'll keep looking. Amandajm (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

newport vt edit?

As near as I can tell, that guy IS a notable resident, though there's no cite that I could find that was definitive. But I don't think adding him was vandalism. Maybe? Jessamyn (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to explain it to me, my research was cursory but it had looked okay to me. Now I know what to look out for. Jessamyn (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)

Hello. You recently reverted several of my edits on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) calling them "vandalism". In what way were my edits vandalism? McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Level 5 Warning?

Hi Student7! I'm confused as to why this warning was placed at a user's talk page before they were blocked. ceranthor 14:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Elisha Article

Apparently, you have decided to take ownership of the Elisha article. I'm not sure why you choose to redact the mention of the King James word "tare" from the article since it really is the word used there. That's not an opinion, it really is in the KJV; look it up. As for the idea that there is some dispute over the age of the so-called "children," obviously there is. Check out the discussion page and also the fact that YOU continue to edit the page over and over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.0.37.134 (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Franco-American Portal

I must admit that when I lived in the Lyman area many years ago, we did have a dog that only responded to French commands. :-) Yworo (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Graham Highlanders Pipe Band

The article Graham Highlanders Pipe Band has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable secondary school musical organization

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Naming of neighborhoods

Since you have participated in previous discussions about how to name the neighborhoods of cities, you might be interested to know that another proposal along those lines is under discussion at Talk:Alta Vista, San Diego, California. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Transportation categories

I think you misunderstood me. I understand what you were trying to do, and I was trying to convey my agreement with the essence of your attempted change (my questions applied only to the particular method of implementation). As far as the renaming I suggested, I was not trying to convince you to do it—as I wrote, I am willing to do all the work for nominating Category:Transport disasters. In any case, I understand if you choose to not involve yourself in the issue anymore. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Causes of the U.S. housing bubble

I restored the sentence about the differences in land values and that a 6% commission on a real estate deal was greater than the entire land value in some cities.

Before you undo edits please bother to read the information. The section already had references to the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy database. Please read the data and see that land prices in LA and San Francisco are more than 20 times the value of the low cost areas. Recently land prices in Atlanta were as low as $10,000 while LA and SF were at least 60 times that. The comparison of CA to Rust belt cities are even more extreme.Phmoreno (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bartholomäus Herder

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bartholomäus Herder, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07251c.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to see you reverse yourself

Seems like many people have a strong opinion and assert it, but don't change it easily. But I've just seen two places in last few minutes of reading where you made a comment to try to frame an issue and then based on others comments, updated or changed your stance. Seems like you use the discussion to actually help think through things. Very cool.TCO (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:American schoolteachers convicted of sex offenses against students

Category:American schoolteachers convicted of sex offenses against students, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Student7 (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas (Col 1:16) History2007 (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Prophets as saints

FWIW, many of the Old Testament prophets are listed in the Roman Martyrology, and as such are considered saints. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoa Nellie Deli

Thank you very much for your gracious comment, especially since I had expressed a mild disagreement with an earlier remark of yours. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable

Student7, since you have devoted so much of your life to editing Wikipedia, please explain why a first novel with the title of the place and in which much of the action of the novel occurs is not notable, while songs with few connections to the place are notable? Corduroyalmond (talk) January 5, 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

Content protection

Thanks. I am generally unhappy about the lack of "content protection" in Wikipedia, not just on that page, but all over the place. I think the fact that there is not enough protection is actually discouraging some people from spending effort in content development, given that if they do not watch the page for ever, the content may just evaporate away. Some time ago, I started working on User:History2007/Content_protection and I should get back to it sooner or later. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That is an incredible analysis. I was wondering if you had talked to any of the bot maintainers? I have seen ClueBot do incredible things. Someone is perhaps thinking along the same lines as you. If they can put it into a bot, they will! Student7 (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD of Yuan Cheng

It appears Twinkle broke when you tried nominating Yuan Cheng at AfD. I have completed it for you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuan Cheng. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Haiti quake

Hi there. About the depth... I am sorry that I wrote up my deletion like that - I was trying to be "nice" to a newbie editor. I thought that that would be the end of it... Actually I tend to guess that that information is not significant enough to include in the article at all. If it is included, I feel that we need something more science-based rather than an article on the South American quake. Looking at our "earthquake" article, depth is not discussed. Can you find any info? Best, Gandydancer (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Found a ref. Let's keep it! Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 00:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

you have an incredible array of tools on your page

Wow!

P.s. I like the specialist idea. I think listing the roladex is helpful.TCO (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Real World: Denver

Hi. I don't think removing valid, sourced content from articles, as you did with this edit to The Real World: Denver, is warranted. Biographical information on cast members of TV shows, when properly sourced, is present in those articles because it is explanatory and relevant to those articles. It is has nothing to do with "making them famous", or with whether they are "non-actors". Information on the cast of reality TV shows is just as appropriate as those of scripted fiction shows. As for notability, that guidelines determines whether a topic merits its own article, not whether biographical information on a person can be included in an article on a TV show on which that person has appeared. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason for a physicist to not be mentioned as the author of a given paper. If the paper is mentioned, then naturally, its author should be mentioned. So are writers of columns or articles sometimes specified in articles. When editing a portion of the Zeitgeist: The Movie article that dealt with criticism of that film, I specified the names of the critics in order to emphasize the attributed nature of that information. We do all this for the same reason we mention the parents, children or spouses of a BLP article subject, the influences upon a writer or artist, and so forth: Because it's explanatory and relevant to the article. Removing information on the entire cast of a TV show makes no sense, as does the notion that every person mentioned in an article on an notable subject has to themselves be notable. Encyclopedic material on a given subject is naturally going to include mention of the people directly related to that subject, which we could not do if they each had to be notable. That is one of the obvious roles of an encyclopedia, and not just almanacs or entertainment periodicals. Where a senior editor with 41,000+ edits under their belt since November 2006 gets the idea that we have to remove mention of anyone not notable from an article is beyond me, but it's a completely inane idea. Nightscream (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"It appears to me that the mention of his name, for non-notable in the above case, is WP:SPAM." Then your perception is wrong. The page detailing that makes it quite clear what constitutes wikispam, and it does not mention any of the informal, subjective criteria you describe, since whether someone "could use publicity" or "doesn't need it" are your own arbitrary criteria, and can't be formally or objectively measured. One mentions the author of a paper or article because it's relevant. Not because they're trying to "promote" him or her.`

"If we can mention people who are non-notable, where are the barriers? " Relevance to the article's topic, and the ability to exhibit logic and common sense.

"Notability needs to mean something. It can't just be a random word that is bandied about, meaning whatever the editor wants it to mean for some particular article." Agreed. It refers to the criteria by which a subject merits their own article. Not whether they can be mentioned in another one. They can indeed (and for that matter, have to be) mentioned in other articles, if they are relevant to that topic. The idea that we cannot mention David Ross in Jim Lee's article (even though he was one of Lee's influences), Piero da Vinci and Caterina in Leonardo da Vinci's article (even though they were his parents) Suri Cruise in Tom Cruise's article (even though she's his daughter, and is the focus of much media attention), Gunter David in Peter David's article (even though, as Peter's father, he was an early influence on Peter's decision to become a writer), or John Soule in Horace Greeley's article (even though he is thought by some to be the originator of the phrase "Go West, young man" that is commonly attributed to Greeley), is just flat-out silly. The criterion is not notability, but relevance, plain and simple. Nightscream (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: PVI

In the 111th Congress 7 were replaced by governors, which prompted special elections in Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, West Virginia. These events occur due appointments to higher office. President Obama was a senator, he knows senators, he picked a senator as his running mate and secretary of state; he picked a senator as his secretary of the interior, across party lines. These events occur due to regular resignations (Martinez of Florida), and deaths (Senators Byrd and Kennedy). While there have been Congresses in which there were no replacements, I don't see how you could predict that, especially since President Obama's pick of Salazar resulted in a Democratic governor selecting a Democratic appointee, he has at least two years where other vacancies may arise where he might appoint senators he knows to be qualified (and confirmable, since their colleagues know them). There are also 3 senators in their eightees. There are 6 senators older now than Senator Kennnedy was, including two (one after the 14th) who have opposite party governors. That one, Senator Lautenberg, at 86 (87 on the 23rd) the oldest current senator, is nearly 10 years older than Senator Kennedy was, though Byrd was 92 and Thurmond 100. Please, if any of this makes you have to think about it, consider putting the section back. It was just the facts, albeit gathered from other articles, without speculation. 75.202.165.24 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This has got to be the most biased Wikipedia article I have ever seen, but I am glad to see that this website does have safeguards to show an biases such as what they provided here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.139.18 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

List of county roads in XXXXX County, Florida

FYI, User:Admrboltz left a tag on List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida labelled "Lead too short." I asked him to show me an example of a list page with a satisfactory lead so I could get some ideas. He pointed me to List of state highways in Utah as an example. So I looked it over, converted/rechewed etc. to come up with a new lead on the Volusia County page. I think it turned out pretty well. Gamweb (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)nks

Thanks. I just cut and pasted in Brevard county roads! Student7 (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought you might do that. ;-) Gamweb (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 02:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

List of all County Maps by Florida DOT

BINGO! I figured there had to be a listing of FDOT County Maps ~somewhere~ and I finally ran across the right page today. (I realize they are not always 100% accurate, but its the best reference point we have for citations.) Notice they are available in Large, Medium, and Small sizes. I have no idea what a "DGN" file is, but the others are PDFs. Gamweb (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

FDOT: Surveying & Mapping Office - Online County Maps

Inserted external link in Transportation in Florida. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Brevard County Roads

I found this PDF document from the Florida DOT which may be helpful to you. I have used FDOT PDFs as references on other articles in the past. Gamweb (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• FDOT General Highway Map Brevard County

Thanks. I've posted it under Transportation in Brevard County, Florida for use by other editors (and readers) as well. Student7 (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Another useful one, perhaps. A bit cryptic, but it contains reference points for most bridges throughout Florida. FDOT Florida Bridge Information Gamweb (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As you say, cryptic but the best I have seen so far. I put it in Transportation in Florida as well as Brevard Transportation since Brevard was conveniently at the top! Probably a companion guide to interpreting this someplace or with additional information. Thanks again! Student7 (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Municipal Codes in the State of Florida - A bit difficult to obtain a "hard" url to use as a citation, but search through by County and City to see if anything is designated "historic" or "scenic." There are several roads that have this designation in Volusia County, and Daytona Beach. Gamweb (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Missed this one earlier. Put it under Government of Florida external links. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Geography of Florida

Geography of Florida is in decent shape now (I just manually removed a bunch of the citation templates that weren't used in the section). Turned out to not be as much work as I had thought. Still needs some work, like an intro, but basics are there now. AlexiusHoratius 01:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making it readable and useful again! Student7 (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Bald Eagles

Well, I was just following how that's treated in the Wiki article about them -- I saw that and figured it was the proper name of a type of eagle. I'm certainly not wedded to it -- sometimes I tend to follow existing "Wiki style," which may not be correct...

RadioBroadcast (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(Cripes! He Was Right About Capitalization! And I Am Mystified! "Mr. & Mrs. Bald Eagle." Have To Get Used To It, I Guess. :) Student7 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Kılıçdaroğlu

You have time to write long edit summaries. Why didn't you clarify who Kılıçdaroğlu is? Is that because you don't know who he is? Kavas (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of him. Pov of person making statement appeared to be germane to the article. I'm guessing he is a political opponent. Devious not to disclose this IMO. But unencyclopedic and WP:POV.

BTW, everyone should write "long edit summaries." It is the only way other editors can figure out what is going on and why. Student7 (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean if you don't have time, you cannot edit WP. Yes, Kılıçdaroğlu is an opponent, and he is the second famous politician behind Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Kavas (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Look. I was brought to the article like any reader. As an editor, I realized the material was slanted against the mayor and not reported without WP:BIAS. I never heard of any of these people before, and don't care if I never do again! But the article needs to report the facts in a WP:NPOV manner befitting an encyclopedia. It was clearly prejudiced against the mayor. It is not Wikipedia's goal to replace sitting mayors with unseated ones! All we do is report the facts. Candidate A claimed this. Mayor rebutted with that. End of paragraph. Not a rant against the mayor, who, like every politician in the world, is trying to do too much with too little and make everybody happy, and failing! The voters will point that out to him, if necessary. Wikipedia should not be involved! Student7 (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

United States Marshals Service Roll Call

Twinkle puked and didn't finish the AFD. I've fixed this for you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up on some concerns

Hey there! I noticed your concern that you posted to AIV. It's not quite vandalism, but I'm interested in helping you out with this case; I'll drop a note at Ddonald99's talk page, but I want to get a sense of what you're concerned about, too. m.o.p 21:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Persons convicted of fraud

Since you Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud participated in the recent CfD of Category:Persons convicted of fraud I wanted to inform you that the category was recently recreated and relisted. Here is a link to the current CfD should you wish to participate. [Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud]]. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Corinth

I dont think that the Cathedral is irrelevant to modern Corinth. Neither the medieval fortress (for sure doesnt belong in city's ancient history) Abt the ancient street simply mentions the city's ancient history...

But if you wanted to remove it, you should leave the others Greco22 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Chrome

Thank you for your kind response. I have been working on this article for a couple of months and yours is the first constructive comments I have received. I am still in the editing stage of the history of chrome, but I have several questions on how to complete and submit the article for publication in wikipedia. First, I have the information you suggested I needed to verify the statements made in the history. I was the creative director of the company for over eight years and designed and produced the marketing collateral used to sell our products. Some of the resource publications are no longer in business. I have actual hard copy of these publications and would believe there is some record of these publication on the web. Where, I am not exactly sure. Would you give me specific examples where I need additional verifiable resources? I think I can find them if I know exactly what needs resources. I have several photos and graphics (original brand logos) that I would like to include in the layout, but have had no success in getting them into the layout. I tried uploading a photo of a "catalog custom" bike to the photo resources section, but the photo was deleted by another user. I owned the copyrights to the photos and graphics after the merger was completed, but I believe these are out of date and no longer apply. How do I get these into the layout of the article? As you can read I need some help to complete this project. Any suggestions, directions or additions you can make would be greatly appreciated.

R quillen (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brevard Family of Housing

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Brevard Family of Housing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Pol430 talk to me 22:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark up of article on Chrome Specialties

I am a real novice at Wikipedia. I am not sure how to place or put the article Into this area called "sandbox". Do I just copy / paste the article into a sandbox page? If I get it there will you explain how to get it submitted for publication?

R quillen (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Culture, Demographics & People of the U.S.

Not sure where this discussion is supposed to be taking place. I went to discussion pages and couldn't seem to find anything. Could you give me a pointer? Or if there isn't a ongoing discussion, start one? I think you have a good point. You might want to notify Project United States when the discussion is started. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually bother to start a discussion if the reason for the merger seems obvious. It's not necessary unless there's disagreement. All the prefab links point to Talk:Culture_of_the_United_States, so if there did need to be a discussion it should be there. -- Beland (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, some stuff from "People" needs to be merged into "Culture." "Demographics" needs to remain but may contain info from the others. And "People" goes away. I guess this is what you said. Student7 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Portuguese template language pointers

Hi! I've removed the pointers because they refer to the prior categories. I've just made the correct changes, sometimes the same category in Portuguese were appointed in two categories in English. Sorry for not explaining it in the summery field, and sorry for my writing English too. LPrati (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

invite to assess with PPI

Hi Student7,

I saw some of your contributions on the foster care article which falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy,(my masters thesis was a study on foster care.) I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comment at List of people...

Your comment about rape victims was extremely offensive. Do you know why people don't report rape to the authorities? It's because of stuff like this and this that happens when they go to the police. And then if the case ever gets to court, you get cases like this one and this one and this one. Please strike your comment. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

List of excommunicated people, esp. nazis

I am not sure that I have anything at all to contribute to the discussion, as my Italian is very rusty from years of disuse. Add to that the possibility that this document may be a forgery-lots of scurrilous stuff in circulation. Still, I'll admit that most(all?) of those Catholic-born who were connected with the 'final solution' would have incurred latae sententiae based upon their actions: Genocide and racial cleansing are definitely excommunicable offenses. And since this is excommunication in its most basic form, would a statement signed by an ecclesiastical official been necessary?--Lyricmac (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that that didn't work with the nazis simply because of the nazi (s)creed of atheism and occultism: They simply didn't give a damn what anyone else thought. Add to this that I am convinced that the enemy of mankind brought all of this together, as well as Hajj Amin al-Husseinis (Jerusalems Grand Mufti) support for the shoah (of course the Muslims have hated the Jews for almost a millenium and a half).--Lyricmac (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. state reptiles

Hi, could you please, in all your U.S. projectness, review this article? TCO (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Day, month, year

RE: your question about how we are supposed to record dates: I have no clue, and I'm sure the problem becomes insoluble if you look internationally. In Germany and many parts of Eurpoe they routinely list day/month/year (today would be 20/3/11) while in the US we routinely list month/day/year (3/20/11). That's why I always use the spelled-out month (March 20, 2011) whenever I put a date. Sorry I couldn't be of any help! --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sexual harassment in education

I think the Sexual harassment in education and Sexual harassment in education in the United States split is unviable. IMHO it would be better to just have a Sexual harassment in education article with a {{Globalize|date=March 2011}}
banner (see for example Sexual harassment, Family therapy or School bullying). Sexual harassment in education in the United States actually contains info on a British study and the media examples and external links are not US-specific anyway. Although most of the studies in the article are US specific, the results probably can be applied globally. Also with Sexual harassment it is way too complicated having three article tiers.--Penbat (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You can reply here if you wish as i am watching your talk page. I have been doing Wikipedia work in related articles such as

• Bullying in teaching
• Bullying in academia
• User:Penbat/bullying in the medical profession (which includes medical schools)

There have been plenty of international studies (see above articles) such as for Canada, Australia, UK, Norway, Finland, India, Pakistan. They generally all say that female students are harassed more than male students.

Also as long as US studies are clearly identified as being US studies (for example, from the citation details) you should leave it to the reader to decide how much those US findings are globally relevant. --Penbat (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. On one hand, I'm not sure that we should leave it to whoever that a study applies to them or not. US is fairly drastically different. We are regarded oddly on the International scene, even by Canadians. Even worse - They know better!  :(

If the study does apply, as you have mentioned, and other facts in the paragraph tend to be in agreement, I concur that they should be brought up to the main article as applying to Europeans, if that seems to be the thrust of the study. Presumably underage children are all affected the same way regardless of country. Loss of trust, mental health issues, etc.

As you know, the courts in Europe are different. The judge gets the alleged perp and grills him. And puts the child in the box (no witnesses. No jury) and asks them questions. Pretty much strikes at the heart of the alleged crime fairly efficiently. No Bill of Rights. No game playing. My guess is that generally teacher abuse is way less abroad than it is in the US and really should be a separate article for that reason, if for no other. Student7 (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO the current arrangement is a mess and is unviable. There is nothing stopping you in a combined Sexual harassment in education article having sections clearly identified as US-specific - in fact you have one now still Sexual_harassment_in_education_in_the_United_States#United_States. Legal details are obviously one thing which are country-specific and in other articles different countries simply have their own sections with in the same article, for example: School_bullying#Legal_recourse_in_the_US and Workplace_bullying#United_States. --Penbat (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

there is loads of non-US material in Sexual_harassment_in_education_in_the_United_States anyway for example 2 refs i noticed are UK sources and 1 an Australian source. --Penbat (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO it remains a horrible mess. I can think of about 10 reasons why it should be renamed Sexual harassment in education. You havnt convinced me one bit. Rather than let a long winded discussion go on on the talk pages I intend to put the article up for an AFD with a view to rename the article and clean it up. --Penbat (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please check out this article

Hi, Student7! Could you take a look at an article I recently wrote (and have nominated for DYK)? It's John Gerald Driscoll III. Someone just added a "cleanup needed" tag to the article, but when I asked him what needed cleaning up, he replied "Gee, it seems blatantly obvious to me. Just look at the article." The article looks OK to me. What am I missing? Thanks --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah

I have taken no offense at Cresix adressing me as dude. The next time you want daddy and mommy to stop fighting, take your own advice, and use user talk pages. The article talk page was not the place to make such a plea. I might be able to learn from you example of whatever it is you want to profess. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Laughing point award

• 
  I hereby award you the above laughing point (award introduced by User:Extreme Unction) for your brilliant suggestion which you made recently on the Manual of Style talk page.

Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

San Diego

Income statistics are really more of a demographic matter, so it's definitely not inappropriate to move them back to their proper place. If you'll look at the vast majority of US community articles, you'll see that they're still included in demographics: you can hardly have a good basis for arguing for the existence of consensus that's almost universally not practised. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

True. Right where the bot placed them in 2005, before "Economy" sections were even thought of. Student7 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Florida State League (Baseball)

I don't know if you are a fan of minor league baseball - but the Florida State League is about to start its season next month. Many of the team pages need work (I'm working on the Daytona Cubs) Gamweb (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• List of FSL teams
  • Bradenton Marauders
  • Brevard County Manatees
  • Charlotte Stone Crabs
  • Clearwater Threshers
  • Daytona Cubs
  • Dunedin Blue Jays
  • Fort Myers Miracle
  • Jupiter Hammerheads
  • Lakeland Flying Tigers
  • Palm Beach Cardinals
  • St. Lucie Mets
  • Tampa Yankees

Vermont Counties

Thanks for noticing my additions to the Vermont Counties. You might be attributing to much too me. In any case please feel free to add, subtract, or correct anything I've added or changed. The full story is that at WT:NRHP, I pushed the idea that there should be links from each county to the list of NRHP sites in that county. Well, I've got about 46 states done so far. Many of the county articles are pretty good, but some have end matter that is a bit confused, which I try to correct on the fly. Who knows what I come up with sometimes? All the best. Smallbones (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification requested on Sea of Japan

If you have a chance, could you follow-up to my request for clarification on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names? It sounds like you're proposing that we change the current guidelines (which already use different names on different articles); that's different than just opposing the proposal by Chunbum Park. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Lee E. Emerson

I'm almost certain that Vermont Governor Emerson's middle name was Earle, not Earl.

Never mind his gravestone -- I'll send you a copy of his death certificate if you want to see it.

Now, I'll concede that "Earl" is the common (to use your word) spelling of Lee E. Emerson's middle name. It even shows up that way in some official records, including his World War I draft card.

The fact that the "common" spelling is Earl doesn't make it the correct spelling, however.

The extra "e" may be a minor point when compared to everything that's going on in the world, but I think trying to be correct about even minor details is worthwhile.

Now, please let me know if you want me to send you a copy of the death certificate so you can examine it and then maybe correct his Wikipedia page.

Regards,

Bill McKern

Billmckern (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We have to go with established, WP:RELY-able sources. They must be published, not necessarily public, per se. So his death certificate, like Obama's birth certificate, is not really a document of that nature.

Not the end of the world either.

Having said that, Carter's detractor's emphasized that he was "James Earl Carter" to overemphasize the similarity with assassin "James Earl Ray!" Not something Carter wanted! But his article, nevertheless, does have "James Earl "Jimmy" Carter" which interrupts the symmetry somehow but maybe positively effective in his case.

No idea, I suppose what or who the "Earle" or "Earl" was for? Not really important since spelling was never that good in the US before the 20th century anyway.

Not really sure where to go here. Have you tried searching on "Lee Earl Emerson"? You will see what I mean about hits. Student7 (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you're going to drag Obama's allegedly unpublished birth certificate into the discussion? And a name chiseled in stone and included on a death certificate aren't sufficient documentation? If those don't suffice, I can't imagine what would convince you.

Call Governor Emerson whatever you want. I give up.

Billmckern (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Kim

Kim only occasionally calls it "Nucklao", as does Mahbub Ali. I am clueless as to what Kipling is doing with this. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've asked on the Lucknow article. Might be someone who has some idea. Student7 (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Early Popes

Interesting about the Romans, and the predecessors of the popes. I now guess this is where we get the current term "pontiff" which is now synonymous with pope. So what I'm understanding is that there was a succession of "bishops of Rome" from about 500 bc to modern popes, but these pontiffs did not become Christian until about 385 ad. I noticed in the wikipedia list of popes that the succession is taken back through the Christian leaders to the Apostle Peter, so that is probably what is recognized by the Catholic Church. This is all interesting to me; my background on world history is weak, but I'm nevertheless fascinated by it.Sarnold17 (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure: I am Catholic.

Here is the List of popes. Probably called "Bishop of Rome" for the first few hundred years. But, in defense, even the primates of other metropolises (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch) recognized Rome as "first among equals" until they had their falling out in the year 800 or so, with the "Orthodox" going one way, the the Roman church another. The Roman Church has since "recognized" the Orthodox, but not vice-versa!

For the record, here is the List of Pontifices Maximi. Gets a bit vague/mythological in the early days, like most early Roman history. Student7 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Turkey Point

I have begun a discussion at Talk:Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station#Surrounding population about the relevance of including the surrounding population in the article and I invite you to give your opinion on the matter. --24.26.42.89 (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Right on red

Please read diffs a little more carefully before leaping to revert them. The original sentence was so poorly worded as to imply that "except for New York City" was a modifying clause of "Puerto Rico".

From the terse comment you offered in your edit summary, it seems you are also under the impression that New York City is somehow not alone in its handling of right on red (which just furthers the case that you really should pay attention to diffs before, during, and after reverting - the New York City bit was still in the version you reverted to), which is quite simply not the case. Outside of New York City, all jurisdictions in the USA "default" to right-on-red being allowed, with signs highlighting the exceptions (and in major cities there are plenty of exceptions). New York City is unique in that signs highlight the exceptions where right on red is allowed, with the "default" being "no right turn on red". Having personally driven in nearly every major metropolitan area in the continental United States, I can assure you that the article is correct in singling out New York City for operating in this manner.

I hope this proved edifying. Badger Drink (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

St Peters Basilica

You deleted a sentence about Pope Julius not paying attention to warnings that the death of his predecessor was "an omen".

The fact is: he was warned that it was an omen. To state that this happened doesn't imply that Wikipedia supports the notion of "omens". What it implies is that in the Catholic Church, in the 16th century, people were highly superstitious. Pope Julius was a soldier, and singularly unsuperstitious. However, a lot of people at that time were very upset about the demolition of the old basilica, that had stood for a thousand years. It is not at all surprising that the were superstitious about it.

If we can't mention "omen" in case it misleads someone, then we will also need to delete every reference to every myth, superstition, or misconception. Did you know that even in the late 19th century houses often had a small animal such as a cat buried under them for good luck, or a pair of boots, baby shoes or horseshoes placed in the chimney? Amandajm (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, Extremely hot has proposed a compromise wording at User talk:Feezo#Surrounding population; can you tell me if this adequately addresses your concerns? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Christian views on money, wealth and business

Hi, could you take another look at Christian views on money, wealth and business? I think I'm ready to move it into article mainspace but I figured I'd ask you to take one last look before I do so. The article doesn't really talk about "business" much. It's more like Christian views on poverty and wealth. Do you think that is a more suitable title? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Places and people

Anyway, why people did it, is irrelevant (non-WP:TOPIC here. We don't care why they did it and only barely care who did it. People are nearly irrelevant to a building/place article. Student7 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You left this on the talk page of St Peter's Basilica, as a tag to your other comments. I must say that as an architectural historian, I find this statement, and most particularly the wording "we don't care.....'" to reflect an attitude that is highly unencyclopedic. On the contrary, I believe that you are categorically wrong! People are often the very reason why a place is relevant and interesting. Why else would Americans make pilgrimage across the world to a damp field where a king once stuck a seal on a piece of parchment? Why do people traipse in their thousands to the Westminster Abbey? It's not because it's a beautiful church; it's because Queen Elizabeth I, Mary Queen of Scot, William Wilberforce, James Watt, Laurence Olivier and Winston Churchill are buried there. It's because of Princess Di, and, now, Mary, Duchess of Cambridge, isn't it? People are, generally speaking, more interested in people than in anything else on the planet. Amandajm (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not the information is relevant and therefore on topic obviously comes down to a matter of opinion in this case. In my opinion the intention of Pope Julius to house his own tomb there is as relevant to the form and grand scale that the building took as is the intention of Michelangelo for the ultimate profile of the dome. These are part of the history of the building.

It is often not sufficiently realised that the patron, with his/her particular set of requirements played a very large role in determining the ultimate nature of a building or artwork.

I usually deal with medieval architecture, and the intentions of the specific patrons and architects are rarely known. But when one does know the motivation behind a construction, other than the fact that a building has deteriorated and needs replacement, then it is part of the history of the building. For example, it would be impossible to tell, adequately, the history of St Paul's, Covent Garden, without relating what the priest said and what the architect said, and the ultimate little disagreement over orientation that made it the way it is. The architecturally confronting nature of that blind portico (where, to digress, the first Punch and Judy show was performed, and where Eliza Dolittle sold her flowers) demands explanation, and, luckily, we have one. You refer to buildings as "places". They are places, but, to an architectural historian, they are also works of art and the reasons behind their creation can be as complex, interesting and subject to as much speculation as the Sistine Chapel Ceiling, and involve the patron (in this case the same patron) as much as the artist.

Amandajm (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the policy:

Stay on topic

"The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain such redundant texts. Please be bold in deleting them. "

That is what the policy states. I have read it, just as you have. I disagree with you over whether the pope's motives are entirely relevant or a digression. I believe that the desires of the patron, since known, are entirely relevant. Other aspects of what that particular individual did....his decision to grow a long white beard as a sign of penance, the fact that he requested to be depicted with a sword, not a book, etc.... are not relevant. But the huge ambition that produced the largest grandest church in the world is relevant to the page of that edifice.

I can't be bothered with this sort of nitpicking over an article that is clearly informative and well written, when there is so much work to be done on those that are seriously lacking.

Please don't continue to insult me by referring to journalism. I am beginning to find you tone rather bullying.

Kindly just put this down to a difference in the interpretation of the policy, and leave it at that.

Amandajm (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Jim Banke

Regarding your concerns about the notability of this person. Judged based solely on the local weekly radio show and looking through a completely local point of view, I'd agree with you that Banke would not meet WP:BIO. If you read the article you'll see that this is the last item mentioned and is certainly not the only claim of notability here. Banke received a gubernatorial assignment to a committee reorganizing the State of Florida's aerospace industry organizations He is also the recipient of NASA's highest honor for a non-employee, putting him in the company of Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Lyman Spitzer. Banke meets WP:BIO based on the medal alone.--RadioFan (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

New Essay

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at Curb Chain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Curb Chain (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: edit summary comment on History of Virginia

re: the edit comment regarding linking to Prince Edward County, the MoS provides an exception that it's okay in cases where one mention is a long way from another (as is here, when the two mentions are in totally different sections in unrelated contexts), so I wouldn't worry about re-linking at the Massive Resistance section; see WP:REPEATLINK Morgan Riley (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

History of the Ryukyu Island

• Thank you very much for your comment. I am afraid I could not understand what you mean. Do you mean initiating another article ?--Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Again. I do not understand what is a notable or what is not a notable. For instance, Iha Fuyū (伊波普猷, March 15, 1876 – August 13, 1947), the father of Okinawaology, he himself wrote Ifa, Okinawan pronunciation. He is very famous in Japan concerning the history of the Ryukyu Island. How about writing a chapter concerning him or including his name in the notables. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Notables and History of Kumamoto Prefecture

• Please check an addition to the notables concerning Kanzen Teruya and I have translated a part of Ja:History of Kumamoto Prefecture and if possible, please audit it. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

History of Kumamoto Prefecture

• Thank you very much for your comments. My French friend said that the Chinese letters were extremely strange. However, there were people who understand Japanese and Chinese and English among Chinese Wikipedians, and because I don't understand Chinese, Chinese letters may be helpful to them. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello Student7! You have been mentioned, indirectly, at ANI. If you wish to join the discussion follow this link: [1] Lionel (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011

As one of the editors who has made improvements to the United States Bill of Rights article recently this notice has been left to inform you that it has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011. The goal this month is to get this article to Good Article standards or better by July 4th, 2011. You can also vote for next months article of the Month or submit a candidate for article of the month here. --Kumioko (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

I'm not a vandal! I was reverting what looked like vandalism (section blanking).--1966batfan (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP United States in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject United States for a Signpost article to be published on the Fourth of July. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions and responses may be trimmed if the final article becomes too long. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

East Cobb

Please see the final section of User talk:Keizers, who indicates that s/he is standing up for the truth. We've definitely got a bit of meatpuppetry going on here with this user and Mmann1988 (K left a note on M's talk, so I doubt this is a socking issue), but I caught K in sockpuppetry, M tried to say that consensus doesn't apply to these templates, and you may remember policy violations such as a pointy AFD. Nyttend (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NN

Why are you going around deleting notable alumni of the school? All of this information is verified on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.182.164 (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Cobb County template, again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Don't worry — I'm the one up for trial, not you. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Federal Government of the United States

The Secretary of State (SoS) may be a Cabinet member, but the SoS holds a special position within the Cabinet. This has been true since the United States first became a nation. In fact, the SoS, in practice is more powerful and influential than the Vice President of the United States. The SoS is the highest-ranking cabinet secretary both in the presidential line of succession and order of precedence. In fact, in order of precedence the SoS comes WAY before all the other Cabinet members. The SoS is 10th, while the rest are 17th and within being 17th they come in order of highest to lowest (see page United States order of precedence). Also as I mentioned, the SoS in practice is more powerful and influential than the VP, making the SoS the second most powerful and influential person in the US (and arguably in the world also) in practice. In addition there is a lot of history behind the position of SoS, which is why it should be treated differently than the rest of the Cabinet members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.69.193 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments re: comments within GC article

FYI: I have left a message on the Grand Cayman talk page regarding some of your most recent edits there. Not wanting to make this personal on any level, I opted to leave them there rather than here. Could you take a look and comment as well? Thanks! Lhb1239 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Rome

Thanks for letting me know! I'm fine with the British English. In most Europe-related articles I think British English is best for them. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 17#Category:Companies of China

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 17#Category:Companies of China. Fayenatic (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC) - Fayenatic (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sebastian Inlet edit

Dear Student 7, Thanks for your email containing guidelines for submission to wikipedia. Regarding my edit to the Sebastian Inlet page. I hope you note that every historical correction I made is referenced to the original source newspaper, chart or document. I served 14 years on the Brevard County Historical commission with my particular area of local historical knowledge being the Sebastian Inlet. Historical articles I have written about the Inlet have appeared in newspapers, magazines and history books. I have served for six years as a Commissioner on the Sebastian Inlet Tax District (which maintains and first successfully dug the Inlet). In November 2010 I was re-elcted to serve the people in District 5 on the Commssion for another four years. I have done lectures on the history of the Sebastian Inlet for two decades and written the definitive history of the Sebastian Inlet. I hope that you appreciate my having spent almost five years in libraries and researching historical archives to write the Inlet's fascinating history. It was no small expense in time and money to do this. I am willing to share my knowledge with the general public on wikipedia and hope that you read my edit carefully. I Remain Respectfully Yours, Jedgarculberson (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Jim Culberson V.P. Sea Bird Publishing, Inc. Melbourne, FL

Talkback

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
Message added 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Favalora in light of New Times, Gawker, CWNews reports

Sorry, but the situation has changed since the last discussion. The allegations, supplemented by journalistic investigation and confirmation, have been aired in Gawker, Catholic World News and the Miami New Times. Gawker largely endorsed the allegations, based on its own investigations. The standard for reliable sources includes the following:

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion."

Erring on the side of caution, I made it clear that these were widely-publicised allegations - rather than simply stating them as fact. To exclude such serious allegations, widely-circulated by various media outlets, makes for an incomplete entry. I'll be glad to take the input of others on this, but I'm afraid I find it hard to see your actions to date as indicative of a commitment to NPOV. 13afuse (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Do you mind joining this discussion? [2] Pass a Method talk 23:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Indian institutions of higher education

Hello. You just moved the said article to List of institutions of higher education in India, stating in the edit summary: Match other articles with similar names. More objective. I think I agree with the objectivity point, but I can't seem to find similarly named articles. Also, I was wondering if there was a category for such nation-wise lists? Thanks.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Additions to 'see also' section

You appear to be adding "see also" entries to a good number of state articles. In theory, I have no objection to adding relevant links; but the majority of the new links already exist in the body of the article - and as a general rule, I'm not a big fan of needless redundant clutter. So, I object to the mass additions of these links.

Is there an existing discussion that took place on these additions? They seem to be discouraged per WP:ALSO, "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a 'See also' section, and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Please don't. Editor Spyder Monkey also reverting.

Also "main" template is for important articles summarized in the text. e.g. under "Alabama", if there were a History subsection, I might have a "main" template to "History of Alabama" with a summary in the Alabama article. But not in the "See also" section. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

When used in the ==See also== section of an article, Template:Main refers to articles that encompass the entire range of the subject article, i.e., an outline or index of the subject. This has been accepted practice for a number of years. I suppose we could create another template such as “General reference:”, but this would involve altering thousands articles. What are your thoughts? Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition of this sort of thing is not supported in WP:ALSO.

Template "main", signifies the location of the "main" article for that particular subsection. Under "See also", what would "main" indicate? "See also" is merely a catchall subsection for topics/links not performed above. There can be no main for that particular subsection, nor for any of the rest of the bottom subsections: "Reference", "External links," "Notes." None can have a "main" template. The other sections might have "main" articles linked elsewhere" History, Geography, Geology, Notables, etc. might have articles that are longer and merely summarized in the article. Student7 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:ALSO clearly does not preclude the use of Template:Main, and I believe outlines and indexes are quite appropriate here. Please see WikiProject Outlines. Where else would you have outlines and indexes linked? Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"Outlines" are merely aids to editors, usually written after the fact, one reason why we have such a sloppy or undefined link between the federal level of US government and local government (except the state article itself). The outline is nearly useless.

If they could be hidden from regular readers, maybe they could be made more useful to editors who might try to keep them up, but I doubt it.

Perhaps in an article or essay about outlines, one would have a summary and a "main" pointer to the actual outline? Student7 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The object of a Wikimedia outline is to present a systematic presentation of the various important aspects of a subject and provide easy user access to articles of interest. You definitely should join WikiProject Outlines and "straighten the mess out". We could really use your help. Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at Template:Satop. This template was created to get around the problem of placing Template:Main in the See also section of articles. Please let me know what you think. Yours aye,  Buaidh  04:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Higher Education by country

A tag has been placed on Template:Higher Education by country requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. (NOTE: It has been replaced by more comprehensive tmp--Template:Higher education by region.) Funandtrvl (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right, they must have disabled that feature. You probably have to list it at WP:TFD, in the formal long form way. The reason why it's a candidate to be deleted is because it's been replaced by Template:Higher education by region, which is an all-in-one tmp, including all countries, sorted by region, instead of just one big tmp that would have to list alphabetically all 200+ countries. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hitlers Pope

Your reversion of the lede because yout think Cornwells views about "fellow travellers" is fringe doesn't make sense to me. This article is about Cornwells views on Cardinal Pacelli/Pius XII not on the scholarly opinions of the whole subject field. Do you think that the passage in question is a fringe interpretation of what Cornwall actually said? Anyhow I have moved the source of contentious material from the lede where it doesn't belong. Yt95 (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

huh?

You reverted some changes I made to the page on Rudyard Kipling's _Kim_. All I did was add a book to the list of fictional works that were based on Kipling's novel, along with a link to an author interview in which the author said that he had based those works on Kipling's novel. And, by the way, I spent a fair amount of time trying to find the best link. You labeled that "vandalism." How the heck was that vandalism? Pauldom (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Pauldom

You are correct. I apologize for my error. Wrote longer message on your discussion page. Student7 (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for your thoughtful message. Sometimes I worry that I don't really understand all of Wikipedia's rules. In the case of my recent addition, I don't have any interest (financial or otherwise) in increasing anyone's sales. I read the book myself, enjoyed it, wondered what other books were based on the same source, then headed to Wikipedia to find out. But I do understand that it's possible for this sort of information to overwhelm the original entry. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain. I appreciate it. Pauldom (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Haiti: Environment

Hello, Student7. Please could you take another look at this edit? I agree that you have made improvements to the wording of that section, but I was wondering whether some text may also have been inadvertently deleted? The last sentence, "Scientists at the Earth Institute ...", now reads as though some words are missing. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Good job on that rewrite, you didn't change much, but it reads much better this way. It is amazing how many times you can look at an article, and not see things like that 'til someone corrects or edits it and the improvement is so obvious. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 19:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Léogâne with accent marks

My edits are simply making references to the town use the same spelling as the title of the town's article (Léogâne). The MoS says we should use established exonyms where these exist (e.g., Rome for Roma or Munich for München, Gothenburg for Göteborg). But if a place doesn't have a common name in English, we use the name in the native language (when that name uses the Latin alphabet). We don't just drop accent marks, particularly when those accents are widely recognised by English speakers and familiar in borrowed words such as café or château. (And they are sometimes essential, to distinguish between Munster and Münster, for example.) If you disagree with the naming of the Léogâne article, the place to contest it is on its talk page. However, the question of use of diacritics has recently been extensively debated at the MoS. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

For your comments to students here. Feel free to comment more there on at other student projects. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Hitler's Pope. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And just to be completely clear, the next time someone raises a BLP issue, you do not revert, you discuss. I hope that's 100% clear, because I don't want to see you blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jayjg: You could have said all of that without putting an impersonal template on the page of a regular editor. Perhaps you should read the article "Don't template the regulars". I've found this editor very easy to work with in the (recent) past. How about working cooperatively and collegially and talking/discussing first before resorting to templating? Lhb1239 (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)