User talk:Carlossuarez46/Archive 8

Thank you

CS, thank you for bocking that IP editor. Appreciate it. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 00:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject California invite

Hi, I noticed you've been working on a lot of California related articles. I've recently been trying to revive WikiProject California, so if you would like to join, or just add the project to your watchlist I would appreciate it. At the very least you would get a heads up when we do things like running a bot for auto-assessing the articles right after you tag them with the project template (not sure if you noticed that). On another minor note it is generally advised that you don't put {{talkheader}} on every talk page you come across, since it dilutes the meaning when it is placed on articles, see the templates documentation for more info. I know because I used to do the same until someone told me otherwise. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re [1]: Thanks, I think even in the best wikiprojects most people do just work on whatever they're interested in and check in when they see something that matters to them. There's a lot of geographic articles to deal with in California so as long as you're contributing to articles anything else is just to help with that. With the talkheader, yeah I that they would have come out with some reduced template or a tweak to the mediawiki software to post some of that same info, but so far nothing. Thanks, -Optigan13 (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Thank you for fixing my mistake on Smash the Piñata. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Award for being swell

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I salute you for doing the best you can :) Mrpotatohead 2 (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Keep up the good work and keep smiling Mrpotatohead 2 (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of The DAMN! Show article

Why did you delete the article on The DAMN! Show? This show spawned a national tv show (Mtv2's stankervision) their DVDs are in stores nation wide and one of thier characters (Yucko the Clown) is a regular on Howard Stern. Please restore the article.

72.152.174.25 (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistagging of Montalvin, California

Thank you for alerting me of my error and correcting it. I must not have noticed that source when I tagged it as unreferenced, so thank you for fixing my mistake. Regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swanson

I didn't delete any content I moved it and oranginzed it, it's not vandism. B64 (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 4

If you would be so kind as to review my response in Support #37, I think you will find your primary concerns have been addressed in this RfA. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Finnemore

The article on Martha Finnemore has changed substantially since you nominated it for deletion. You may want to take a second look. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on my RfA

Thanks for your questions at my RfA. I'm having a bit of trouble with 9d, though: did you mean "are" instead of "all"? -kotra (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Math Fair

Why did you propose and subsequently delete the "Math Fair" entry? How can I recover the original article, or is it now gone permanently? Math Fairs have now been held in over 15 countries, there are essentially free information booklets available in four languages, it seems peculiar that there would not be a Wikipedia entry.

I want to use "user talk" but it is not easy for a stranger. I have no idea whether this will go to the intended place for you to read. JGTechjunkie JGTTechjunkie (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thank you

My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 so I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. Special thanks go to GlassCobra and FlyingToaster for their nomination and support. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage-Nationality categories

Circa 2005-06, several (many) of us spent about 6 months carefully garnering consensus on a fairly limited set of allowable categories. I write standards and practices reasonably well, and was somewhat proud of our resulting text. I thought it was as objective as possible.

Over the years, folks have been ignoring the reasonable restrictions. I'm beginning to agree with you that they should all be removed, as letting the camel's nose into the tent.

You asked me to join you. Do you have a plan?

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish. I may still be naive enough to think that more editors would come around if a core group chimes in at every CFD with the radically normal idea that racial, ethnic, and religious categories make no sense. It was a "strategy" I learned about while reading on the US Supreme Court - a couple of justices refused to uphold any death penalty judgments coming to the conclusion that capital punishment is wrong. Eventually they swayed a third member. For a while executions were stopped, basically until the various justices who had been opposed to it died and were replaced by other justices who were more malleable to the political will. We don't have a political will driving people's behavior. What's best for the 'pedia is what drives me and an abiding sense that these categories do nothing to enlighten because there is no objective criteria for inclusion and only divide both wikipedians and people in general. And what makes them definitional? Being of some small % of Fooian descent makes one do what differently, that a small % less doesn't make one do? Laughable. Even Goebels would have a hard time explaining that logic. So, as for a plan - I keep chiming in to delete these at every opportunity, nominating the most egregious ones I come across so as not to be disruptive. If you do as well, and a few other decent people do so, consensus can and will change. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed, I've been more proactive. I've got a string of recent deletion precedents now, and am requesting the entire disentanglement of Ethnicity and Nationality. Please bring your thoughts at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#People not by ethnicity and others on the page. Note that some are delete, others are rename (removing ethnicity).

-- watching this thread here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back again, and having a sense of humor, some of your comments at CfD have me laughing out loud! My expression of humor has a tendency to be sarcasm, not always well received....
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helios (fire performer)

Why was my page "Helios (fire performer)" deleted???? It was under construction and I don't appreciate you thoroughly deleting my page without discussing it first. From the looks of all of these complaints, it seems as if you take time to delete our page, but do not take the initiative to discuss it with us first.

Thanks

Thanks for catching and fixing my typo on the List of people with synesthesia archive. Edhubbard (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible deletion of template

A template you created, Template:AzerbaijanBook, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}, TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi. You weighed in on the AfD for St Nicholas' Priory. I've added some preliminary detail on the monestary, its background and its current use. I'm hoping you'll reconsider your !vote. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch!

I'd always taken it for granted that Imperial County was pretty much covered...until I saw the Bonds Corner entry. Darn good catch. The US NAFTA port of entry is in the area. Great work, man. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore request

Please restore Don't bother me, as it was actually a user talk page before it was moved to the mainspace, so please restore it, and move it back to the user talk page that it was move from, which is the talk page of the user who moved it in the first place.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 18:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages are still rarely deleted, and even further, if this user requests an unblock, that evidence of past behavior needs to be accessible. The user essentially got away with getting his talk deleted without even requesting it.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 18:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just that, that the user cannot edit their own talk page. Thank you for the restore, and thank you for your time.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 18:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you didn't restore it, my bad. What I mean is, thank you for leaving the note.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 18:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our Portuguese permissions queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi Carlos. If we can manage an article about this tiny barn and is is considered notable I think we can safely say that ALL places are notable! Next time somebody moans about notability of villages provide them the link to the article on this. Unbelievable. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humboldt County, California: Unincorporated places

I wanted to bring to your attention that as many as half of the articles you have created for Humboldt County are places that exist primarily on the USGS only. Many of the places have been absorbed into larger communities or simply no longer exist for all practical purposes. I do not have the time to research and cite all of them, but I have actually been to many of the areas that are covered by your new articles and there is nothing there, save a few buildings. In many cases, the people who live there nor County of Humboldt officials would ever use the names the USGS provides in their obscure references. I am a historian and a sixth generation son of Humboldt County and wanted to share that the number of places you have generated from the USGS is cause for concern. There are very few areas of the county I have not been to and I can tell you that the place previously known as Indianola (Field's Landing) is no more. This is just one example. I see that the USGS shows 168 populated places in Humboldt, but they are the only ones who believe that. Norcalal 22:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Afd OpenCart

I thought, I should notify you I have nominated OpenCart for deletion.--Jamie Shaw (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThankSpam

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~~

Sockreport

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justme89. Your input is appreciated.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum fractal

Would you be willing to email to me a copy of Quantum fractal or drop a copy in my userspace if that is easier? Skimming the sources presented in the AfD, I think that there could be a valid article at that title, but the mention of hoax indicates that that probably was not it. Best regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 06:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are most kind :). - 2/0 (cont.) 06:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Gae

Hello, my making of the dab was related to somebody's vandalism. But I'll read the guideline. Thanks.--Caspian blue 00:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IBazar

Regarding this, I believe IBazar was one of the biggest Internet auction site between 1995 and 2002, and could add materials about this. I think it is representative of this age of the internet. Why should it redirects to EBay, when it has been an independant company for almost the entire time its name was known to people? Lerichard (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I know all this - I'm just extremely cautious and wanted to discuss first to avoid entering any "edit war". Cheers, Lerichard (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tazabina

You might be interested in ongoing debate: Talk:Noragyukh (Nagorno-Karabakh). brand спойт 20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this address your concerns?

In my RfA, you stated "The more you are willing to work close to the line, the more you need to be able to receive the criticism (rightly or wrongly your due) that comes with that. Since you are unwilling, I think we should not enable you." Accordingly, during the RfA, I established a page for IP addresses to communicate with me (linked at the top of my regular talk page too). Does that address your concerns? — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. To answer your question, no, I have not tested the waters on these pages, but a checkuser/sockpuppet investigation immediately after the RfA confirmed the indef blocked user was indeed the one who was making those comments, so the problem user is still out there. Accordingly, I've left my talk page and user page in the state they are in. I'll admit I was hesitant to make such a page as it might attract more vandalism/accusations of felonies/death threats, but I've also noticed that no one is using it and I think I know why: a lack of an audience. The only person that will see it is me or an admin/oversighter whom I ask to look at it. Ergo, no audience=no problems. In short, thanks for the feedback and I hope I can count on your support next time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't alert me that messages are there, but it is in my watchlist (which I check regularly). As for "I wouldn't assume that you have no audience at that page - as you are going to be a candidate at RFA all the regulars at RFA will scrutinize it." It would only be an audience after the fact (i.e. at my next RfA) and anything truly problematic can be oversighted in a hurry. I would expect User:TomPhan to use his usual route of block evasion and not even use the page. Accordingly, it will probably only be used by legit users wishing to contact me. As far as I can see, it is win-win. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for the feedback! — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion that may interest you

WP:WQA#User:Wassermann Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite articles

Hi Carlos,

I noticed that you removed the indefinite articles from the beginnings of the entries on the Green-banded disambiguation page. Inclusion of these indefinite (as well as definite) articles is prescribed by the Manual of Style in all cases except for biographical entries. Just something to keep in mind in the future; I have already readded the indefinite articles to this particular disambiguation page.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dab pages

I noticed in your edits to Bridge (disambiguation) (here) and Iris (here), you removed the articles "a" and "the" from a number entries. Please note that according to the disambiguation page style guide, the only time an "a" or "the" should be removed is when the entry is for a person. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your creation of non-notable geographic location articles

As mentioned above regarding Humboldt County, many of the "unincorporated communities" that you have added to the template for Marin County, California are not actually communities and were never even small towns. Some are neighborhoods of CDPs (e.g., Kent Woodlands, which is, at least, a fairly well-known neighborhood of Kentfield in the local press), while others appear to be the names of long-gone rail stops or of developers' names for single-home tracts in larger communities or CDPs (e.g., Sttrawberry Manor is one small development in the Strawberry CDP. Some informal settlements of the past are now just business strips on the eddge of towm (e.g., Tamalpais Junction is at the boundary of Tamalpais Valley and Almonte, and is split into the two sanitary districts). This doesn't seem helpful to me, and is similar to another editor's work to create an article for every rock and swale listed in USGS maps of the bay Area. Both efforts seem likely to lead to many deletion efforts, which won't be time well spent either. I think at least some of your recent additions should be changed to redirects to the approriate town of CDP and could be removed from the template. Comments?--Hjal (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mess. The body of work for Humboldt County (and Marin County) has not been improved by inundating with "unincorporated communities." I think that a result that leads us to have to spend inordinate amounts of time separating proverbial chaff from grain is not worth it. The overall bodies of work related to these areas are not qualitatively enhanced by all these additions. The entire encyclopedia is not served by a litany of article creation because a source or two exist. Norcalal 12:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sad to say I have to concur with Hjal. You've added a lot of "unincorporated communities" in Mono County, California and its template that simply don't exist. For example, Dunderberg Mill. It's just a pile of rubble on the eastern slope of the Sierra. I tend to be an m:inclusionist, and even I think this is unlikely to ever be notable. Are there any verifiable sources (other than GNIS) that can ever grow these articles above substubs? Please let me know. I'm reverting the template, in the meanwhile. —hike395 (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful (to me at least) for you to read the last paragraph of WP:Civility#Engaging in incivility. You are, of course, welcome to invoke any of the WP:Dispute resolution processes, including WP:AIV. —hike395 (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the meanwhile, can you respond to my request for verifiable non-GNIS sources about Dunderberg Mill, Lake Mary, Whitmore Hot Springs (as communities)? It seems to me that you may have WP:V backwards. I am challenging the existence of these communities. As WP:V states, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This is not the first challenge to your additions: User:Hjal and User:Norcalal have also challenged the addition of these communities (above). It's not up to me to prove a negative (although the Panoramio photo of the ruins of Dunderberg Mill are pretty compelling to my mind). Can you provide such material? —hike395 (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these prove that a community currently exists at Dunderberg Mill, nor Lake Mary, nor Whitmore Hot Springs. Lake Mary was a mining camp in the late 19th century of which no structures are left. (see Old Mammoth: A First Hand Account by Adele Reed, ISBN 0-931378-04-4, 1994). Take a look at Dunderberg Mill on Google Maps satellite: there's nothing there (except rubble, as per Panoramio). Given that GNIS is full of historical (non-existent non-current) "communities", I don't see how we can put any of these into a template about towns in the county. I'm willing to have stubs that talk about a historical site, because I'm an inclusionist. Representing these are unincorporated communities is just not correct. —hike395 (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an historical gazeteer lists a name origin or a post office until 1968 is not proof of a current community. A name origin doesn't prove any current residents. As for the other example, the post office at Lake Mary was at the Wildyrie Lodge until 1944. Does this make Wildyrie an unincorporated community, also? It's a lodge, see http://www.mammothweb.com/lodging/wildyrieresort/rates.html ... Does that one building become an unincorporated community?

I think we need (at least at the WikiProject California level, perhaps WP-wide) a definition of an unincorporated community. If every historical site in GNIS is listed as a community in wikipedia, the perception of WP accuracy will go down. Speaking as a Mono County local, when I see community listings for places that I /know/ are not communities, it makes me doubt the accuracy of WP. —hike395 (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: let's take this discussion to WP:WikiProject California, to see if we can get consensus on what is a current community and what evidence we need to prove that it is a community.

I am starting to look at census tract data, which will take some time for me to comprehend. If I can show you that a set of these "communities" in GNIS have no residents, would you be willing to stop/revert your additions? I think that GNIS is not a WP:RS when it comes to community definition. —hike395 (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

outdent. Here's an easy case: Dog Town, California, listed as an unincorporated community by USGS, described as "ruins all that remains" by California State Historical Landmark (http://ceres.ca.gov/geo_area/counties/Mono/landmarks.html). My point is that the article /already/ referred to this with verifiable sources as a defunct mining camp before you edited it, you added it to the template and called it an incorporated community on the strength of the USGS database.

Do you see my point? We can go through and list contradictory information about whether a specific town exists or not, but at some point, it will become evident that the USGS GNIS database is not a WP:RS about whether a community truly exists. —hike395 (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These places don't exist /as communities/, which is how they are described in their articles, infoboxes, and templates. They are certainly points on a map, possibly with historical data. Notice that I didn't immediately run to AfD: I just removed them from the template. Your suggestion about my "fixing" GNIS one-article-at-a-time does not address my (and Hjal and Norcalal's) point --- I have some evidence (that I will work on further) that GNIS is not a reliable source for whether a community exists. Your proposed editing will be completely lopsided -- you can dump homogenous data from GNIS into WP far faster than I (or any other editor) can disprove the data one-article-at-a-time. In the meanwhile, WP will have a large number of (possibly false) articles.

Here's a suggestion. Could you temporarily pause the inclusion of GNIS communities that don't currently exist in WP? I'll leave the Mono County templates and articles alone as I do more research. If it turns out that I'm wrong, and these places are populated, I will profusely apologize for wasting your time. If it turns out that I'm right, we can figure out how to proceed, perhaps by discussion at WP:WikiProject California or WP:WikiProject Cities on what is the best definition of a community, and doing an appropriate rollback.

Does that meet with your approval? —hike395 (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds like we cannot agree. Let's open up a discussion at WP:WikiProject Cities, with relevant pointers from WP California. I'll start, you can chime in. —hike395 (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointer to discussion: WT:WikiProject Cities#Systematic inclusion of GNIS unincorporated communities. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz/Indian Gulch

Hi! I'm (slightly) against the dab edit you made to Santa Cruz, California regarding Indian Gulch, California on the grounds that it's highly unlikely that anyone is ever going to go to the Santa Cruz, California article intending to look for Indian Gulch, California. I've opened the subject up for discussion on Talk:Santa Cruz, California and would welcome your comments. — X S G 03:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Just to be clear: while I disagree, I know your addition was made in good faith and will only change it if a consensus is formed on the talk page. Honestly, I don't expect this to happen as it's been a long while since any community has developed around the Santa Cruz article. — X S G 05:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksss! you're a herooo!

thanks for deleting this article about me in wikipedia. i dont know who my stalker is but im sooo relieved that you finally deleted it! it put too many stuff about me and i was too scared to go on it! thank you soo much! it was the article from user:dolce444

-bea roths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.145.16 (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please do not give non-admin users, especially long term ones who are in good standing, "final warnings" about edits when you are engaged in an edit conflict with that user that is not related to obvious vandalism. Let non-involved admins do that if they deem it necessary. This is in reference to some comments on Hike395's talk page. -- mav (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refering to your commentary about me from June 6..."Humboldt County guru." I get your tone and do not appreciate it. I have worked hard to develop and maintain articles on the North Coast of California. I started a couple years ago because there were incorrect edits (some with citations) in a number of articles related to Humboldt County and throughout the region. I got tired of looking up information or checking information and finding these problems. So rather than just complain, I decided to do something about it. However, the issue presented by your addition of dozens of unincorporated communities presents unusual problems due, in part, to the sheer number of articles generated by your work leading to these often, at best "obscure locales." Can you fathom how hard it will likely be to disprove the existence of the places you have added that ACTUALLY do NOT exist or never existed, if in fact the only reference to is is from the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) AND that may include another reference or two that perhaps only directly or indirectly cite the GNIS?

No doubt the encyclopedia benefits from rapacious and worldly administrators/editors such as yourself. But there is no replacing "boots on the ground" regional or local editors such as myself. I think many who have this question and bring it up at this time seek to create some balance in the overall work. Adding dozens of obscurely or singly referenced locales, which overwhelm a template, does not feel like balance to me. I also have to admit that running into you has made this avocation less than enjoyable as I seek to begin to respond to the grain and chaff issue I referred to in a previous edit. In part, my concern is about what feels like an attack on other editors as have I observed interactions between you and others since all this prolific article creation led to the ruckus here in California. I also want to mention one of your recently created articles that I checked on. You created "Dinsmores, California." The Dinsmore FAMILY in Humboldt County has no recollection of there ever being a community or town in the plural form of their name...and certainly no town or community ever existed at 4455 feet anywhere in Humboldt County or its venerable history. There may have been a cabin or a barn or outbuilding at that elevation, but not likely. Do I have proof in the manner demanded by Wikipedia? No, I do not. But it most certainly has never been in existence. Does the existence of that article improve the encyclopedia? You tell me. 06:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you will understand the following request...I formally request that in the future, if there are any edits we have that are in conflict that another administrator be contacted to mitigate. As it is I will likely have to consult numerous local tombs when I have precious time to undo the recent unincorporated communities (added by you), which may or may not exist. I remind you that you began this by referring to me the "Humboldt County guru" after ORDERING me to "move on." I am not sure how someone with power issues like yours becomes an administrator, but the fact that you have that capacity despite your attitude is disturbing. 21:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re

Hello there thanks for the message but sorry I disagree to what you are saying, I have actually added references to most of the names of the people after I have reverted the edits, you removed it and you weren't even bothered to add refs to the lists instead, but at least I tried to improve the article and you give me a message to say I will be blocked if I add un sourced material??? please look at the edits that I have contributed and then review what I have done then comment. Please stop removing the names, I am still working on the article by adding those missing refs, really not helping mate, really appreciate if you don't revert the edits. Thank you! DinajGao (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced back all the names which you have removed in the article, all backed up with references, next time either try to help find references or don't delete them. DinajGao (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, always willing to help :) DinajGao (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost towns

Huh! Now that's what I call a real "ghost" town! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theba, Arizona

Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theba, Arizona and your wise comments therein. While we have sometimes disagreed in the past, I think we are (gasp!) agreeing more and more as time goes on. LOL. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDONTLIKE it as good argument for deletion?

Hi.

I saw your post at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_25#Various_slang_terms_.E2.86.92_Nigger:

"Delete Fullstop's observations combined with the policy above "Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy." and the mantra "Redirects are cheap" would require a "keep" per policy, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to be at work here and as a matter of fact, I don't like these either: they are harmful and useless." (underlining mine)

First off, why exactly did you consider the redirects harmful? Furthermore, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is supposed to be avoided, and arguments based on established WP rules used instead. So why cave in to it (as opposed to explaining, for example, why the redirects are harmful, which is more than just "I don't like it")? mike4ty4 (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Questions

When I answered them, I renumbered them slightly on the off-chance that someone would have made some sweeping generalisation about unrelated topics. I hope you don't mind. Pertinent follow up questions welcome, naturally. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Carlossuarez46. You have new messages at Timmeh's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tim meh 23:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Matters Ohio

Why did you delete the staff and board lists? Perhaps I am unaware of a convention or guideline, as I am relatively new to editing. Thanks. Elu25 (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Oasis, Mono County, California"

A page you created, Oasis, Mono County, California, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Schnitzel MannGreek. 02:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:What do you want to do?

I want them to be deleted ;). Both are untranscluded now [2][3], and they don't have a good name (infobox...). Anyway there are more redirections to delete... Or do you think it deserves a RFD? --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tempate:Ghost Towns of Northern California

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Surnames by Country

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carlossuarez46. You have new messages at Ttonyb1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Common End, Fulmodeston

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Common End, Fulmodeston, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This place fails to meet WP:N standards, is not a parish listed by the district council, and is just an area within a village. It does not even get named on maps such as google maps, streetmap or multimap.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ClickRick (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Common End, Colkirk

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Common End, Colkirk, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This place fails to meet WP:N standards, is not a parish listed by the district council, and is just an area within a village. It does not even get named on maps such as google maps, streetmap or multimap.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ClickRick (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Common End, Fulmodeston‎

I have nominated Common End, Fulmodeston‎, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common End, Fulmodeston‎. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ClickRick (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Common End, Colkirk

I have nominated Common End, Colkirk, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common End, Colkirk. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ClickRick (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Carlossuarez46. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.