User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

March 2006 to April 2006

Image Tagging Image:CategoryTOC.PNG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:CategoryTOC.PNG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 15:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Good edit on Thomas M. Cooley Law School!

It took a pretty sharp eye to catch the incorrect latin motto. Good job, and thanks for all of your excellent contributions to the 'pedia! Helpmeoutnow 16:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Granholm article

Hi. It is not a good idea to add a reference footnote to a poll article which will change when the next poll is released. It's better to cite the source within the body of an article when dealing with a subject which is constantly revised. Steelbeard1 17:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? Is there some guidance about this? If the reference changes, you update the contents of the reference citation. I don't see why that is any worse than updating an inline url. I won't revert this again, but I really don't see that there is such a big difference. Personally, I think we should be encouraging all sources to be done using cite.php. older ≠ wiser 17:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense.

Wait

[1] The Cooley wave is currently coordinated. Don't try to fight it until later when trollish interest wanes.

Lotsofissues 13:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Even if the more recent (post feces) edits are coordinated, they have been based upon valid wikipedia rationales. For example, some discussion of the motto issue is supported by statements of Brennan himself, as shown by a link to the Cooley website -- the correct response here is to edit this section, not delete it. Just because there is a coordinated effort to work on the Cooley page does not make this trolling or vandalism -- the recent edits have seemed decidedly good faith. Helpmeoutnow 19:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Award nomination

Congratulations on two years of hard work, and your 25,000th edit! You have been nominated for a Wikihalo award, not just for the quantity of your work, but for the quality. Please come indicate whether you accept the nomination! Best wishes— Catherine\^talk 01:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

GWU

Hello, I'm trying (again) to get The George Washington University moved to George Washington University. Since you weighed in on this when it came up last year, I thought you might like to weigh in again. john k 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage you to change your vote or to abstain. As you don't seem to understand that GW is in fact "The George Washington University", or that "GW Law" refers to "The George Washington University Law School", you don't seem to be the right sort of person to vote on this article. Note that I teach at GWU. ... aa:talk 05:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. As I indicated, there are many other universities that are very particular about the use of the definite article in their name and that has no bearing on Wikipedia article naming conventions. older ≠ wiser 13:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Washington University

My apologies, I didn't mean to entirely remove Washington University in St. Louis, but merely move it down into the cluster of private schools. (Obviously, I failed to do so.) I'm still not convinced it belongs in the ranks with Notre Dame, Northwestern, and U. of Chicago though. It seems to be centrally a liberal arts school even though it has other programs (as do most of the other schools listed as liberal arts schools). I also am unsure as to whether all the maybe-midwest schools should be listed here, but that's an entirely different issue. Thanks, Craig R. Nielsen 18:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Tahquamenon Falls

You qualified the second largest statement. I am curious now - what are the other contenders? Rmhermen 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 21:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Thinker in Detroit

Hi, the fact in question in Detroit Institute of Arts was whether Rodin's Thinker was in fact sitting in front of the first Museum in 1888. You cite: [2] as your source, and it does indeed claim that this was so. However, this is a claim, not a fact. Here are three reasons that lead Kresspahl and me to believe that this cannot be true

1. According to The Thinker, Rodin finished a first small scale version in 1880. The first large scale bronce cast was not done before 1902.
2. The Museum collection information tells us, that their cast of the Thinker has an accession number 22.143 indicating that it was purchased in 1922.
3. The Thinker project, which lists all existing versions, clearly identifies the Detroit version as the one purchased by Linde in 1904 and acquired by the DIA in 1922.

Please consider this evidence. --Concord 19:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The policy Wikipedia:Verifiability is explicitly NOT about truth, but verifiability. If you desire, update the text to indicate that "it is claimed that ... " or some such hedging. I have no specialist knowledge whatsoever in this regard. The {{fact}} tag simply asks for a citation -- whether the cited source is accurate or not is another matter entirely. older ≠ wiser 19:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Monroe County

This seems like a silly thing to go on arguing about, but "Monroe County" is utterly meaningless to almost all possible readers. Only by giving it a link does anyone know what Monroe County is, where it is, or help people to disambiguate this location from the others. It is meaningless in itself. Saying it is in Monroe County but not explaining to the reader what or where "Monroe County" is is not helpful. The link to the manual of style provided says nothing about county names. It says simply not to link country names, and this makes sense. Leaving the name without a link provides no function in disambiguating the place, and removing the link provides no stylistic function recognized by Wikipedia. Sarge Baldy 02:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. The other links mention the county name. It would not be unusual to refer to the Charter Township as simply Berlin Township. If a reader gets to that disambiguation page, they are most likely looking for an article about one of the Berlin Townships -- the county is the primary means of disambiguating these types of entities. If the county name does not mean anything to the reader, a link to the county name is not going to help -- if they are looking for something called Berlin Township, they might as well click on one out of the three township links rather than try their luck with the county article. MoS:DP says: Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link. Including more than one link can confuse the reader; including no links at all makes the entry useless for further navigation. older ≠ wiser 02:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Middle Ground move

Just wanted to say thanks for moving Middle Ground per my request. Much appreciated! (No reply necessary.) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 15:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle Creek Sanatorium

Is it necessary to keep an article in its absolute original name when it is referred to in so many references as the Battle Creek Sanitarium? Ansell 14:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes, that that is what redirects are for -- it's not a big deal though, but the unusual spelling is somewhat significant. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I can run with that then. Thanks Ansell 14:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Mackinac

First of all, I should let you know that this is the first time I have commented to someone on the editing of Wikipedia, so please keep this in mind.

• No problem. You've made some nice additions to articles.

Second of all, the name used by Mackinac Historic Parks, the state agency that owns the primary field of battle on August 4, 1814, is "Battle of Mackinac Island". Please see http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-18835_18896-44278--M_2002_7,00.html here.

"Battle of Fort Mackinac" is a name that makes a lot of sense - the battle was preceded by a direct bombardment of the fort, and was the climax of a failed campaign to reduce the fort. But if it were up to me, I would go with the State of Michigan's name.

Thanks and best wishes. Bigturtle 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now it seems a close call. The link you mention doesn't really identify it as any sort of official title -- it doesn't even use title case to refer to it (i.e, "the 1814 battle of Mackinac Island" vs. "the 1814 Battle of Mackinac Island"). I just did a simple Google search, subtracting Wikipedia and most mirrors, and "Battle of For Mackinac" was handily ahead. But it was not overwhelming (my browser crashed, or I'd provide some actual numbers). However, I then noticed that many of those links were directly or indirectly from one source on tripod.com. I did find a publication (albeit a children's publication, The Mitten) from the Michigan Dept. of History (or whatever the official name is) that had a one-page article titled "Battle of For Mackinac". The paucity of Google hits leads me to suspect that professional historians might use other terms to refer the battle. I'm not dead-set on any of the possibilities so far--this will take a little more digging to see how historical accounts describe the battle. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 01:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work on this and many other articles. There are two historical markers on Mackinac Island describing the battle; the older one (1958) referes to the battlefield as simply the "Battlefield of 1814", and the newer one (1983), at a golf course built atop the western half of the battlefield, does use the title "Battle of Mackinac Island" to refer to historic site #S0550A.(http://www.michmarkers.com/startup.asp?startpage=S0550A.htm). Until the Internet age nobody, as far as I know, referred to the battle as the "Battle of Fort Mackinac." I guess on the whole I view "BOFM" (despite its advantages) as a meme that ought to be nipped back. Yours, Bigturtle 17:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Location of Ashland, Pennsylvania

Hi, thanks for clarifying the location of Ashland, PA as in both Schuylkill and Columbia Counties in PA. I was wondering what your source was for a small part of it being in Columbia County as I can't find it on the USGS map at www.topozone.com [3] or on the PennDOT map of Columbia County [4]? The reason I ask is I have been adding maps to PA counties and I want the map for Columbia County, Pennsylvania to be accurate (right now I just have it shows a red line on the northern border of Ashlandin Schuylkill Co.). Any clarification you could give would be appreciated. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 13:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at American Factfinder from the Census Bureau. While I wouldn't depend on the Census Bureau data being absolutely 100% accurate, it is pretty reliable at least as of the census year. Sometimes muncipal boundaries change in the interim, but from one census to the next, they do a pretty good job of working with local officials to ensure that the boundary mapping is accurate. older ≠ wiser 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I use the Census website but had not checked there. I have fixed the map and uploaded the corrected version to the Commons. Appreciate the information, Ruhrfisch 15:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:ARCHIVES

Made the changes you requested! Staxringold 02:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cricket subcategories nominated for deletion

I have nominated Category:Cricket subcategories for deletion here. This is just a courtesy note because you took part in an earlier inconclusive debate on the same subject, and may wish to comment on this one. If you're not interested, please forgive the intrusion. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD subnational entity

• you once worked on federal district, maybe you like to look at: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Subnational entity - regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Electronic reprints of old books

I've replied at Cite book. —Serein 18:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Smeetfrog park

Argh! Smeetfrog Park is not real! Frog Island Park is real, Smeetfrog is a hoax. It's not just non-notable, it's nonexistent, and the sign that someone put up is just part of the prank. · rodii · 03:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but it seems to have taken on a life of its own, at least to a small degree. older ≠ wiser 03:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Mississippi River

Frankly yes Mississippi River (United States) is the main article, but there are multiple "Mississippi River"s throughout the world. I find it would be best served if articles linked to Mississippi River (United States) instead of being redirected through Mississippi River which should be a dissambiguation page. I will convert the references and then set up a disambiguation page. -- Aetas-nex

Disambiguation

Okay, I do see your point, I'm new to this and just trying to help out. I still think it should be a disambiguation page, but I understand that almost nobody will be pointing the the only other option. Thanks, sorry for the inconvenience. -- Aetas-nex