This is an archive of past discussions with User:Castncoot. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Koreatown, Fort Lee, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
Congratulations, Castncoot, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia!
Thank you for improving and expanding articles on Korean diaspora communities, and for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
You have done great work on that article! I really appreciate the efforts. There was a completely un-sourced section of sports which was one of the reasons for a failed FA which is now sourced by me. Also I have add more sources and I m searching for few more. So can I please ask you to do copy-edits and find sources for few facts. After 1 or 2 weeks, we can probably nominate it for FA. Cheers! →TSUtp*06:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd be happy to - but what exactly are "copy-edits"?
That's fine. But my goal is simply to make a better article. I won't specifically pander to someone's criteria for "Featured Article" status. By the same token, if it just so happens that constructive edits obtain FA status for this article, then certainly well and good.
I agree and the problems which were responsible for failed FA nom previously are almost addressed. We can go for FA nom in a span of 2-3 weeks. Keep up the good work! →TSUtp*02:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll be also removing few things which make tthe article go off-focus and which are no sourced (and can't find any) and which are not neutral or the sourcing is poor. →TSUtp*04:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasm, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't have a hidden agenda - but as an apparently new Wikipedian, you need to learn how to share and reach a consensus. That's why each article has its own Talk page. Some of the issues you have brought up have already been discussed and debated at great length on this article's talk page, with a consensus arrived at - please go back to the archives to refer if necessary - but you have to play by the same rules as everyone else, as opposed to storming in randomly. Discuss things on the article's Talk page, please.Castncoot (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New York metropolitan area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garden State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Greetings, I see that you made a terrific effort in improving the NY Metro Area article. However, some of your revisions (specifically the Transportation ones) I had to revert back. The extra information you added was wonderful, but that should really go in that bridges' own article. This is supposed to be just a list.
Also, I removed the Driscoll and Tappan Zee Bridges because they doesn't really connect to the 5 boroughs of New York, especially Manhattan. I can understand why you added the TZBrg, but since that's part of the Thruway system, I don't see any need to add it. You could consider the Newark Bay Bridge (along the New Jersey Turnpike Extension) to be a major crossing, but then again it's part of the Turnpike system and doesn't directly cross into one of the five boroughs. Same goes for the Driscoll Bridge.
becareful of adding quotes which pushes a pov.Curb Chain (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Not at all - this symbolic quote has been up for a while, made by a major news organization. The symbolism is the significant issue here, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
In response to this and your msg on my talk: Your rationale is from the perspective of WP:SYN. That's why we don't include it. Hope you can see that.Curb Chain (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC) I think it's a gray zone, but I don't mind either way. Castncoot (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gangnam Style, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madonna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Your additions to "Puerto Rican migration to New York" are really good, however you know that Wikipedia policy requires that you cite and provide reliable verifiable sources to back up your statements. Otherwise, your additions will be removed, something which I would hate to see. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The thing is that I couldn't find any reliable verifiable source to back up the following statements:
"However, in more recent years, there has been a resurgence in immigration from Puerto Rico to New York and New Jersey, with an apparently multifactorial allure to Puerto Ricans."'
"New York City also became the mecca for freestyle music in the 1980s, of which Puerto Rican singer-songwriters represented an integral component."
"and whose influence in popular music continues today, encompassing major artists such as Jennifer Lopez."
Since you added them, you have the option of backing them up before they are tagged as POV, in which case it would be preferable to have the statements removed. You have most likely checked out my user pageand therefore you know that my main interest is to protect the integrity of the Puerto Rican articles that I and others have created for Wikipedia.
That is why I salute you for your contributions, but at the sametime ask you to avoid that the article be tagged POV. It is for the good of our readers and those who know little or nothing about the contributions which Puerto Ricans have made in general who may being to question it's contents. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, well you may not have seen that I've already added one ref in the meantime, and will look for more - they're there, give it some time. (I have a busy real life, too!)
^Excellent! You did a fine job. I understand about having a busy real life. I can relate to that. That is why the time and effort that you have put into this project is appreciated by people such as myself. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Koreatown, Long Island, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hello Castncoot. Seeing as you're the editor who reverted User:Martin Hogbin's recent change to the statement about New York City being the financial capital of the world, I'd like to cordially invite you to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page. In your edit summary of your revert, you state that the subject has been "talked to death" and that there is no obligation to conform this article to another. Not being one of the team of dedicated editors who work on the NYC page, I couldn't comment on whether you have talked about the subject enough. What I do know that things change over time, including economic figures. It may be that New York can still be considered the financial capital of the world but that cannot be established without examining the facts.
As for conforming to another article, we should try to be consistent across Wikipedia, since we are writing an encyclopaedia, not a collection of unrelated articles. Whilst there is no up-to-date Wikipedia guidance about consistency (this page seems to have been abandoned), if two pages about such high-profile cities directly contradict one another, then we are not provided a coherent service to our readers.
There's actually a very good reason for the dab. "New York City" is not the actual name. "City" should only be used to distinguish it from the state. That's why the article is called that. And the parameter is "largest city", so "city" is not needed after "New York". It's redundant. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
You're actually incorrect. "New York City" is official (see the City's official web site at url=http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/?front_door=true ) and entirely interchangeable with "New York" as its common name. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for a superfluous disambiguation, which if anything would unnecessarily perplex a significant proportion of Wikipedia's readership. Castncoot (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I looked (and looked) but I don't see anything on the web site that says that it's the official name. The WP article explains it, but wiktionary says it more clearly: "The city’s official name is New York but is commonly referred to as New York City (NYC); the City of New York; or New York, New York (NY, NY), in order to distinguish it from New York State." --Musdan77 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you're kidding. Look right at the top in the City's web site - it says, "Welcome to the official New York City Web site".
Disambiguation here would anyway be frivolous. Just plain frivolous. Why confuse the Wikipedia reader?
There are a couple of other (purely additional) noteworthy points as well-
- "New York City" is ubiquitously used in common language. Have you ever heard "Los Angeles City" or "Chicago City" ever being used in common language? Didn't think so.
- Aesthestically it looks nice in the pictorial section, with New York City displaying three words, Los Angeles displaying two words, and Chicago displaying one word. See? There's a method to the madness!
First of all, you obviously like to belittle people. Your first reply starts with "You're actually incorrect" (which I am not) and your second starts with "I'm sure you're kidding."?
1. Again it's distinguishing it from the State. That's not saying it's the official name.
2. How in the world would that be "confusing"?
3. Actually, "Los Angeles City" is used sometimes to distinguish it from Los Angeles County. It's not used as often because a state is (obviously) much bigger. And Aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder. It's your opinion (which I disagree with). --Musdan77 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not trying to belittle you. This is just such a frivolous argument which you are advancing that I am not going to spend much more time on it.
1) ALL of Wikipedia uses the term New York City to describe the City. It's a Wikipedia convention. It's been like this forever. Are you going to want to revamp ALL Wikipedia articles mentioning the City now?
2) The name "New York City" is as official as the name "New York", to describe the City, as you have seen on the City's website. Nobody can ascribe that the actual motivation for the City was thinking about distinguishing itself from New York State when it calls itself "New York City" on the "official New York City website". In fact, the website itself is "NYC.gov" - that should tell you something. It could have just as easily called itself the "official City of New York website", for example. As a matter of fact, "The City of New York" is just as official, as you'll see at the bottom of the site page. These monikers carry equal weight and significance, that's the endpoint.
3) And EVEN if it were ever meant to officially distinguish itself from the State, then obviously that should tell you that it is then just as important to similarly service the reader properly to avoid ambiguity with New York State, which is where "New York" directs to throughout Wikipedia.
4) NOBODY ever says in common language, say in Cleveland, "Hey, let's fly to L.A. City tomorrow." Even locals will say, "Let's go to Downtown L.A. this afternoon"; or "hey, let's go to Hollywood tonight"; but nobody says, "hey, let's go to L.A. City today". But the term "New York City" is used as frequently if not more than "New York" in regular, everyday language, by both locals and out-of-towners.
5) Just a question, how much DO you know about New York City? Have you ever contributed to the article about that city?
6) The aesthetics were a minor point. I don't care about that.
So, you think this is frivolous, but it's not too frivolous for you to revert. You can't say that "all Wikipedia uses the term New York City." I'm sure you haven't been to all of the articles on the site. No, I have not made it my mission to change it everywhere, but if I happen to change one, I guess you'll be right behind me to revert it. The New York City article itself says, "The city is referred to as New York City or the City of New York to distinguish it from the State of New York". I guess now you're going to change that too. And I checked the history of what I quoted from wiktionary, and found that it's been there almost from the beginning (Feb. 2006). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I request that you please don't comment on this Talk page about this matter any further. Thank you.
Are you not having problems with saving the page or things being super slow? I have consistently been getting timeout errors. It would be nice to discuss on Talk:New York City how to improve the article, in this aspect, to somehow reduce the number of templates on the page. Templates are known to be a problem if too many of them. --Aude (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, as a matter of fact, no, I have not had such a problem. This was simply a specific edit directed at the climate table, however.
hmm.... okay then. Let's see how the new templating engine (coming next week) helps. Until then, I can't edit too easily. The article looks quite good now anyway and don't see that much for me to help with. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I would just like to let you know that the Demographics section has only been placed before the Government section for the past few months, so that is hardly "longstanding". I distinctly remember it being after it just like almost every other article on a nation or political division. The conventional organization of sections in such articles is the reason we don't put "Culture" as the first section and "Government" as the last section. Your response to my edit also sounded very caustic. I placed the section between "law enforcement" and "Economy" if you look at where that actually is, it is hardly the "bottom of the barrel." Now I know why Wikipedia has gotten the reputation of having hostile watchdogs who think they own articles. I'm not willing to make a fuss over a little rearrangement but most of all I wanted to inform you of your attitude. Have a nice day. Cadiomals (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. Now please take a look in the mirror. Have a nice day.
Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my changes to the New York City article, with the comment:
Undid revision 554682440 by DocWatson42 (talk) You have a browser issue. This looks horrible and there are editing errors as well.
I intend to check on the possible browser issue later today, but right now I'm curious about the "editing errors"—besides image placement, what errors do you feel I made?—DocWatson42 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
If I remember, in at least one instance you had left the File parameter brackets dangling. I appreciate your good faith, but I know you've tried to make this edit several times, and with all due respect, it looks awful, not to mention that it would be aberrant amongst city articles, of which images are a big part and deserve their appropriate prominence rather than being shoved together. Please do check your browser.
So I checked (a while back—my apologies for the delay in my response ^_^;) using Firefox 18 and Google Chrome 26 on a 1920×1080 monitor, as well as my own (1600×1200; under Firefox 2 <sweatdrop>), and while I have a browser problem, it is independent of the problem with the article which I was trying to fix: that (in wide browser windows) there was excess white space cause by the position of various images. There was a huge amount of white space above the weather template, a small amount at the bottom of the Demographics section, and some at the bottom of the Sports section (in a 1600 pixel window, it is the height of the "Citi Field" image and its caption; check for yourself). I was also fixing:
An instance of capitalization (since which census is entirely unclear in the the text)
The columns in the "New York City Global Partners network" subsection
The bottom navboxes
The position of the "good article" template (per the MOS)
Someone (or several someones) has since fixed the first two instances of white space and the columns, and I just fixed everything else (again), with the exception of the Sports section, since I wanted to discuss it with you.—DocWatson42 (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, DocWatson42 (talk). I believe your most recent edit represented a significant improvement from your previous layout edit. The only issue that stuck out like a sore thumb was the Regions of New York template being placed at the top - as pegging a big city article, especially a world city article, into a regional or state template, is anomalous; I therefore moved that to the See also section.
Please also post when you've had a chance to examine the article and its Sports section in a wide browser window.—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Haven't had a chance to look at the Sports section in a wider browser window yet, but I really do like what you did with the Regions of New York navbox, thank you.
New York City, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn(talk)02:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Ethics?
Whats wrong with my ethics? Anyway I suggest you concentrate more on responding to my edits and hold back on the personal insults. Not because it concerns me, I have pretty thick skin (must be a commonwealth thing), but because it will derail any discussion on improving the article. I know you think my edits are horrendous, I feel the same way about some of yours, but improvemnt is my main aim. I am hoping that it is yours too. AIRcorn(talk)15:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New York City. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
I also want to warn you against further personal attacks against Aircorn, who's a great editor with a long track record of quality work. Your attacks against his ethics and honesty are inappropriate. This is not vandalism, it's not sabotage, it's not sock puppeting, and certainly isn't "the biggest rogue sabotage, vandalism, and destruction of a Wikipedia article in history". Accepting good faith is a core principle of Wikipedia--your wild accusations only undermine your own case. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Very funny. Aircorn could use some spelling lessons to begin with. And I have every right to disagree with your assessment.
You have every right to disagree, but you'll get more results if you stop edit-warring and personally attacking other editors. Wikipedia decisions are made by community consensus, not by insults and tantrums. In this case, several editors have double-checked Aircorn's decision and agree it was a good one. The best thing to do now would be to keep working to improve the problems in the article; thanks for your work on it so far. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh please, stop with the faux condescension. I'll fix the sentence in contention about the slavery issue.
Again, I don't need your condescension. By the way, Khazar2, have you seen editor JimWae's appropriate and thorough criticism of Aircorn's editing abilities on the NYC Talk page, in the "Lead" section?
What difference does that make to the article's status, exactly? Aircorn pointed out legitimate problems and gave you weeks to fix them, and you chose to throw a fit instead of addressing them. When asked for a second opinion, other experienced reviewers agreed that the problems required delisting. I'm sure Aircorn's flattered by your mounting obsession with him, but it's time to move on and focus on content. So far, the rest of us at GAN agree with him; it's about the criteria, not about him. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
You have GOT to be kidding, on both fronts. I AM flattered by YOUR insults, however. The point I'm trying to make is that three experienced editors - JimWae, Oknazevad, and, with all due respect, myself, have all expressed diametrically opposite viewpoints to that of Aircorn in recent days on various pages, but this seems to have gone completely unheard. Khazar2, can you explain to me why or how on April 25, this article became a Good Article after an exhaustive review by someone else? (I'm trying to trace that editor, perhaps you can help.) Perhaps this article does not qualify for FA status at this time - but GA status? Come on, that's ridiculous. I can pick out a bucket of articles labeled GA that would fail the exceptional criteria you have mentioned.
That review--here it is--doesn't look exhaustive to me; it's got about four sentences, raises issues with no followup discussion, and the reviewer didn't even bother to complete the checklist. The editor who did it now seems to be indefinitely banned from WP. So I think that explains how something might have been missed that was later caught.
Anyway, I guess we just disagree about how the GA criteria work. It happens. If JimWae and Oknazevad want to post there about this issue, I'll be glad to discuss with them, but I think you're overinterpreting their comments; neither seems to have addressed the key issue of missing citations needed to meet the GA criteria. This'll be my last post here on this, though. Good luck sorting it out. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I must say, based on your edits at NYC and here, you seem unwilling to work collaboratively. The lede alone should be enough to get the article delisted (or at least have some serious comments). LEDE clearly states that in many instances citations aren't needed in a lede (particularly generalities already cited below), yet the NYC article goes to the 40s before the lede is finished. If you disagree with Aircorn's review, you can ask for a community reassessment at GAR.
As for Jimwae's comments, I note that he did not begin edit warring on the page after reassessment was completed, but engaged in discussion on the talk page to work towards a consensus regarding ways to improve the article. Given that you are pointing to Jimwae as an example for Aircorn or Khazar to follow, you may want to take your own advice.02:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
GA status appears to have lost its significance today. Educating the reader is far more important than following a cookbook recipe. Given the scale of NYC, following a cookbook would deprive the reader of constructive information. "One size fits all" truly is an unwise algorithm (and boring). Have a great day!
I don't think anyone's tried "one size fits all". The level of detail expected for NYC would be far different than that of an obscure lost film such as Gagak Item, for instance. However, certain standards are set which apply throughout the encyclopedia which are intended to a) make it more easy to use; b) make it more reliable; and c) present a unified voice and thus give a more professional appearance. It looks like discussion on the talk page is bearing fruit, so I'll let you all work that out. I don't doubt that the NYC article (with a bit of work) will soon be back at GA standards. With so many dedicated editors who know each other and work together well, it's hard to imagine otherwise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey there! Looking at discussions you are involved with, I'm guessing your user signature includes a line break? I was initially confused as to what text you wrote or if your signature was just some sort of test edit, see WP:SIGAPP. Perhaps reconsider this practice? Thanks and cheers! — MusikAnimaltalk02:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me so much credit. No, it's just a random habit. I can change it though, if it confuses people. See, like this! Castncoot (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we try for a consensus? Do you agree that the ELA are the experts? If so, wouldn't the best thing be to quote their actual statement on this? Please see the talk page.
Robocon1 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Didn't know about the small discussion there, dominated by yourself. Going to take out the entire sentence - too much doubt. In any case, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge doesn't have a single count for its two tunnels. And truth be told, the Trans-Manhattan Expressway tunnel underneath the apartments just east of the George Washington Bridge is likely the busiest.
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Lady Gaga, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ]17:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Lady Gaga shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Demographics of New York City.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
Bergen County#Korean American Community
Hi Alansohn, shouldn't the Korean American Community section precede the other communities, rather than follow? That's how it had been for quite a while, even before being separately subsectioned. It looks really odd following the rest.
Thanks,
Castncoot (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why looking odd is a justification to place one community before all the others. The county's Korean population was about 57,000, while other communities that merit a bare sentence or two include 190,000 Italian Americans, 130,000 Irish Americans, 98.000 German Americans, and 83,000 Jewish Americans. The Korean community section is entirely disproportional to the other communities and should probably be trimmed and the other sections expanded to provide some small measure of balance. Restoring the Korean section to follow an overall summary of community diversity would be a start in the right direction. Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Alansohn, thanks so much for your communique. In my humble opinion, the notable differences here are, as stated and referenced, that the Korean community in Bergen County is the highest proportionally of any county in the United States, and in Palisades Park actually accounts for the majority (52% and climbing), which is not remotely true of the other communities; it is also much faster growing than the other communities you have noted, all of which tend to be stagnant or shrinking through intermarriage or emigration. Furthermore, this community exerts a profound identity far exceeding the others by no less than establishing two very large, independent, and growing Koreatown business districts, which the other communities don't do; the only other such phenomenon which comes anywhere near this in Bergen is the Jewish community in Teaneck, and perhaps you can expand upon this section further if you feel indicated. Wallington, New Jersey's Polish aggregation falls rather significantly behind by these metrics.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warren County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Puerto Rican migration to New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Juan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cape May, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I have no idea - I'm really not the person to ask. You can post over at the Admins' Noticeboard, if you like. But ups and downs in article page views are pretty standard. The spike might be because the San Francisco page was linked from the Main Page, or some popular external website. Neutralitytalk05:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seat of local government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kent County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carbon County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Washington Bridge Plaza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Modern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclear energy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The logo is a non-free image, owned by the hospital. It cannot be used, except pursuant to a fair use rationale. A rationale has been put forward to use it in the article of the hospital itself, but it could not be good fair use in the article for the county (and indeed, a FU rationale has not been put forward for that article. So when I removed it, it wasn't an editorial choice - it was an attempt to enforce our non-free image policy. I've reverted your edit. -- Ynot?14:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hudson River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
No problem at all. Add the name of Jose "Joey" Torres where it was in the "Puerto Rican migration to New York City" article. Just remember to add a verifiable reliable source that states that he is of Puerto Rican heritage and that he served as mayor. I have written over 600 Puerto Rican articles and sometimes it is a little difficult to keep "tabs" on all of them. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pine forests (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saratoga County, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independence Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Regarding your reversion of my edit to New York City
Hello. I noticed that you've recently reverted one of my edits to New York City, and I would like to explain my reasoning behind said edit so that we may see eye-to-eye.
You are unquestionably correct that MOS:DASH allows for either em dashes or spaced en dashes to be used in an article; however, I think you may have misinterpreted the Manual of Style. For one thing, the characters you reinstated are neither em dashes (—) nor en dashes (–), but rather hyphen-minuses (-), which are not acceptable as per the style guidelines. Information on how to enter em dashes and en dashes via a keyboard is available at WP:How to make dashes.
Secondly, I think you may not have considered punctuational consistency throughout the article. If you take a look at MOS:EMDASH specifically, you will see the following two sentences: "There are two options. Use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes consistently in an article." The key here is the word consistently; that is, all articles should use either only em dashes or only spaced en dashes. In the very next paragraph of the article's lead, as well as in the remainder of the article, em dashes are used. For the sake of consistency, then, em dashes should be used, not spaced en dashes, and certainly not hyphen-minuses.
Lastly, I would like to mention that while you may find one particular punctuational symbol more readable than another in a given situation, this preference should not be weighted more heavily than the established punctuational standards.
Thank you, and I look forward to hearing back from you.
Absolutely, thanks for your great explanation here - two en dashes were what I intended; but they look just minus signs - (as such) what is the difference? If anything, the entire article should be converted to en dashes, but at least here in the first sentence, the em dashes are extraordinarily distracting, while the en dashes (or minus signs) enable one to breeze through this crucial first paragraph with excellent comprehension and without distraction. If you could explain the difference between a minus sign and an en dash, I would greatly appreciate it, so I can convert the next deployment of em dashes as well. Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure! I, as well as many other editors, am always happy to help. Don't be afraid to ask a question.
As for the differences between hyphen-minuses (-), en dashes (–), and em dashes (—), be aware that aside from their rather obvious varying lengths, they do have differing purposes. As hyphen-minus explains, a hyphen-minus is the character you can enter normally on your keyboard; it plays the role of either a hyphen or a minus sign (as used in math). To clarify, hyphen-minuses only exist in the realm of computers as a means of replicating what are, traditionally, two unique characters—hyphens and minus signs. Some, but not all, functionalities of en dashes and em dashes are the same; thus, there are times when they may be used interchangeably. However, em dashes and hyphens never can be used interchangeably, and en dashes and hyphens also never can be used interchangeably. Rather than explaining the various purposes of each character here for you, I will strongly suggest that you read through all of the sections of the Manual of Style to which I've provided links. In fact, you should take the time to sit down and read the style guide in its entirety. It's rather lengthy, but extremely helpful and thorough—not to mention that it is, more or less, (part of) the law here on Wikipedia!
One more thing: There is never any reason to go through as many articles as you can, replacing all em dashes with en dashes or vice versa. As I've previously said, not all of their uses are identical; further, switching all instances of one symbol to the other is something that should not be done without first seeking consensus on the given article's talk page. As per MOS:DASH, either em dashes or spaced en dashes may be used. I understand that you find em dashes "distracting", but this does not mean you may elect to switch all of them over to en dashes without first asking for the input of others—unless, of course, the vast majority of an article uses en dashes. In such a case, you would be resolving the consistency issues of which I spoke earlier. The same is true for inconsistencies concerning the improper use of hyphen-minuses—if you ever see any editors using hyphens to approximate em dashes or en dashes, fix the issue, let them know, and direct them to the relevant portions of the style guide! As you can see, I typically prefer em dashes where the two are interchangeable, but that is my personal preference. Don't let your preferences or opinions ever get in the way of editing from a neutral standpoint!
Oh, I'm quite sure you'll be checking back here. I was asking you merely for some guidance on dashes, but thanks for your lecture on basic Wikipedia principles. Clearly you have a preference for em dashes. I must say, however, that I am highly impressed with your aptitude for articulation in the English language. Cheers in return! Castncoot (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bergen County, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hackensack. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, I noticed your contributions and thought you might be interested in joining WikiProject Asian Americans.
If you are interested in Asian American-related themes, you may want to check out the Asian Americans Portal. If you are interested in contributing more to California related articles you may want to join WikiProject Asian Americans (signup here). ~~~~
For creating Filipinos in the New York City metropolitan region, I award you this barnstar. May you continue to improve the article to the point where it is clearly notable and worthy of elevation to Good Article status and beyond.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Filipinos in the New York City metropolitan region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medical center. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
May I suggest to this editor to bundle their references per WP:CITEBUNDLE, this makes for better appearance, and avoids WP:BOMBARD. Where there are cases where the same reference is used for multiple different sentences, using "ref name", that is unavoidable. Just thought I would bring that up as a better editing practice. YMMV of course.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion, but I actually greatly disfavor bundling, because I believe it takes away from the appropriate WP:WEIGHT of what's being conveyed. Personally, I like the aesthetics of more than one citation in certain instances as well. YMMV, of course. In any case, an excessive number of references should never be used. Castncoot (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Manhattan Skyline Photo
Manhattan Island aerial
The photo I added, has more commercial use, but non the less, the pic you reverted to was taken from Central Park looking south. I agree with the IP user that it also looks to have been taken with a fisheye and the city looks like it is at a slant, and distorted. I did a whole series of pics today, of the ENTIRE skyline of Manhattan, and will create a nice group of those shots for the lead pic, on that page, so as to get a proper aerial perspective that is now out of proportion, like the one you reverted back to.talk→WPPilot21:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@WPPilot:, what I was actually trying to convey is that the lead picture you have posted only shows Lower Manhattan, so it really can't be advertised as the "Manhattan skyline". Therefore, it would be appreciated if you could please post a lead pic which contains the entire skyline. (By the way, I don't know what you mean when you say "commercial use".) On this note, would it additionally be possible for you to procure a panoramic image from the Queens (east) side, for the Cityscape section? We have an excess from New Jersey. It would certainly be appreciated if you are able. Thank you, Castncoot (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Funny, somehow I didn't notice the image you posted here until just now. I will post this new image as the lead pic. Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That looks great, I have a LOT more that, over time I will include into my gallery and we can review them at another time. Often the photos on Wikipedia will be used for commercial use, by media agencies, so, IMHO a lead photo should be of a "commercial" or professional quality. BTW, yes I did get a shot of Queens, and I will over time post that here too. Cheers! talk→WPPilot02:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@WPPilot: OK, thank you. I actually meant panoramic Manhattan from Queens, although if you also have pics of Queens, those would be great for the Queens article itself. In the meantime, it would be nice to take these pictures on days that are partly sunny/partly cloudy, rather than totally cloudy or sunny, to give a relatively accurate representation of Manhattan's climate.
Have you ever been to New York? In Central park you can not see the world trade building, as the Mid Town structures (the ones you see IN MY PICTURE) are in the way. What on EARTH are you talking about with regard to the background is New Jersey? My photo was taken, by me just over a week ago, as I was standing on Rat Rock. That park you see, in the for ground is in CENTRAL PARK, perhaps you can go over and see for your self, when your in New York yourself. ;> talk→WPPilot22:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Please stop the rude behavior, starting with the all-caps in the edit summaries. First of all, you must have discovered your error by now, that it was your Statue of Liberty edit with New Jersey in the background which I was referring to, and not your Central Park image, which while an OK image, is certainly excessive in light of the large Central Park photo just below. On the other hand, the outer borough parks could also use attention. The Flushing Meadows-Corona Park photo is not only of acceptable photo quality, but it lends itself to a constructive caption. Speaking of which, I'm not questioning your photography skills, but I can't say the same of the care you exercise in your grammar and punctuation skills in these captions, as well as your judgment in procuring and placing photos. I don't have much more to say about this, but I am going to remove your Central Park photo for the same reason. I would appreciate your cooling off for some time. Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem, you are in violation of the 3RR's rule. I disagree with you 100% and will now take this to the Admin board. Your photo is super low res, of really poor quality and has no real advantage to the photo I have contributed. With Central park being the lead of that section, it makes no sense to have the photo you have placed next to the part about central park. Who is it here that is rude, you remove a great new pic of that area that is mentioned in the story and you insist on violating the 3RR's rule as you feel that this grainy poorly taken pic is in some way more effective in this section of the Wiki. Really??? I when typing in peoples talk space do not always proof read the thought, even when it has no logical foundation such as yours, never the less, allow me to retort. Editors, most of the time are respectful of contributions of seasoned contributors. It only takes a moment to review a editors history to ascertain his/her contributions, as a whole, and most do this before reverting a edit with no real foundation. Your edit that removed the photo was without reason, you continue to revert and only after being confronted you first become defensive, personally deem that I am rude, then go on to attack my grammar all before addressing the real issue, and it looks like you made that up as you were thinking on what to type. Then to assert that it was "too much" for the page, yet the page had room for the poor photo that you offered is non sense. The New York page looks great, why on EARTH (note: all caps) would you place a poor image like the one you have used, on the page and please do not assume anything, I do not need to cool off, that is more non sense, you need to provide a foundation for your edit war (remember that you started this to begin with) and the removal of a fine photo to be replaced with a poor 9 year old fuzzy photo on a primary page of a major US State. Please explain? Thank you! talk→WPPilot23:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You are still out of line. Why do you feel that the photo taken in 2006 is a quality image? What is it that was unconstructive? Are you unable to put a justification in your edit summary? What is it that made you feel I was unproductive? Is it the fact that I am correct in my review? LMK when you do provide an answer to my many questions and have a nice day! talk→WPPilot16:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
True, but [1] should establish notability for four of them by indicating that they're breaking political barriers. I don't have a problem with redlinking them. Best, Castncoot (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Featured Photos Comments
I am sorry that you unaware of how that part of the site works, perhaps, before making random comments on project pages you are unfamiliar with that you learn or at least read about the section. Please refrain from making random comments, in regard to placement, on those pages. Your proposed photo in no way makes it clear that the island is a island, and in fact it could be a shoreline anywhere with a statute on it. As you have already reverted the photo, regardless of what other quality members of this community feel about the photo itself, you go right ahead and use the photo you like, if that is what you need to do to feel happy ok. talk→WPPilot05:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Pictures need to represent more than their simple value as images. Wikipedia is not a photo gallery. Pictures need to be placed in an optimal context. In this case, I will place your photo in the Jersey City article, where it best belongs. Castncoot (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that the other editors did not agree with you. This has nothing to do with photo galleries, it is consensus and that is what we have here, like it or not, you were the one that asked for other editors perspective. POV pushing is also not acceptable here, on Wikipedia and your POV does not represent a consensus of perspectives from vetted contributors and Featured Photo contributors. The photo best belongs where the collective editors of Wikipedia feel it does the most good. The quality of the image, in the eyes of the contributors also provides foundation for its use. Have a wonderful day! talk→WPPilot15:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Capitalization for the city and state of New York
Thank you for caring about the articles about the city and state of New York. I have a question about your recent reverting of my edits to those articles. Would you agree that it would be inappropriate to capitalize the first letter of the word "state" in a sentence that says "... often called New York City or the City of New York to distinguish it from the state of the same name"? Changing the prepositional phrase to "of New York" shouldn't change the capitalization, right? Generally, I have no problem with proper nouns such as "City of New York", "New York City", "State of New York", etc., but, IMHO, "state of New York" is not being used as a proper noun in this particular sentence. Do you disagree? Leegrc (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI aerial photography is really the pinnacle of the art of Photography. I shoot on overcast days as the sun is so powerful that, from a overhead perspective, it turns anything white into a blown out over saturated mess. I have been doing this for 30 years. Using a polarizing filter does reduce glare but it also removes depth that, I feel is a important factor in the photos. Airspace and air traffic control are also a big consideration in obtaining aerial photos. That area of this country is really really busy. If ATC (Air Traffic Control) tells you a route that is cleared for you to fly, that is the route that you fly. Over NY the airspace is busy, and the continuous tours that fly around south NY harbor, keep it challenging to fly around. Lastly the costs involved are simply put off the chart, hence the reason you do not see many aerial photographers donating costly work to a site that has so many users/editors that simply do not appreciate the work. --talk→WPPilot17:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for these details. The problem then is a plethora of images with overcast skies which are not representative of NYC's typical sky conditions. You must then be a seasoned ground photographer as well, I would guess; if so, it would be appreciated if you could get some good shots from ground level, with at least partly sunny skies - otherwise, it may be best just to let other seasoned photographers procure NYC skyline images. Best, Castncoot (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Amante Choate 48 photo WPPilot - YESTERDAY :)
You really are a hoot. My photos have already been selected, by a consensus of readers as featured photos from that shoot. I am sure another pilot is going to jump in his plane during the middle of winter and fly the "Hudson Skyline" route to go get you pictures. I am a editor of the Signpost, and don't have time for your games. While you are clearly entitled to your opinion, it is, as before once again not what other editors/administrators think about my work or the photos you so dislike and think I can just jump out in the freezing weather and redo, at your request clearly shows you have no concept whatsoever of what you are talking about. I am sorry I don't "take requests", I am a film producer and this is a hobby, nothing more. If you care to cover the costs related with a shoot that is timed, to your liking of weather conditions and have me, on standby so as to capture that, LMK, and I will send you a work order and as soon as the check comes I will book the aircraft for the days you are willing to pay for and you can meet me at Pier 6 and I will even give you a headset to help direct the craft into the shot that you think is so easy to get! What a HOOT! talk→WPPilot19:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hope your piloting skills are (much) better than your attitude! There are three other seasons in the year, by the way, and photographers have taken pics of Liberty Island in front of the former WTC; I guess you just don't have the skill. Inevitably, someone will come up with good images of Liberty Island with the new One WTC in the background, and on a day with at least a fair amount of sunshine. Cheers! Castncoot (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
At least your are consistently rude. Do you have any concept of what it cost to rent a aircraft and have it wait for weather to clear? LMK when you have an extra 7500 bucks and I would be happy to accommodate you. I am busy having fun with life and do not need your uneducated comments, get a life of your own one day... talk→WPPilot19:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Glad someone's having so much fun with his life that he's obsessed with my talk page and sending me message after message after message. Film producer? Aerial photographer? And you can't get a decent ground shot with typical sky conditions?! Fine, as I said, someone eventually will. Keep "enjoying" your life! Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Newport Beach aerial photo D Ramey Logan Feb 14 2015
Perhaps you need to read my profile. I am answering your crass and clearly misguided thoughts in regard to how it is done. Setting aside the fact that I live over a thousand miles away you have been on a mission of hate upon my contributions for over 2 months now, and each time you so rudely comment, I will reply. As I mentioned should you be willing to cover the costs I am happy to take a assignment, then you went on to be rude, again. Consistently rude and out of touch with the reality of your requests should not compound into your unfounded and unsupported criticism. I treat everyone in the same manner as that person treats me, the history of your attacks on my work is clear, and relentless, in the threads above. IMHO you need therapy, more then your visions of new photos for Wikipedia. talk→WPPilot19:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
As I stated above clearly, perhaps it may be best for the sake of the Wikipedia project for other seasoned photographers to work on city skylines. Meanwhile, someone's sending me not just messages now, but lovely photos as well? So who needs the therapy and validation here? Maybe time for someone to look in the mirror... Meanwhile, I'm done with this conversation. Castncoot (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You really are a hoot. LMK when you are ready to "put your money where your mouth is", critics are a dime a dozen, I love the fact that you are so critical, and am still willing to let you do just that. I have scores of "Aerial Photos" that are in fact FEAURED PHOTOS. These are photos that I am loading, as you babble so I am simply sharing, do not take it too personally, these new photos are used on project pages. I have no respect for people that seem unable to be respectful, but I will honor my offer, $7500 on a 4 day weather window with a aircraft on hold to accommodate your request, and you will be able to fly along, in the rear seat to direct the shoot. LMK when you have "the money" ready to step up to the plate, ok. talk→WPPilot20:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Glad you're not taking this personally, neither am I. And these two pictures you've posted in this section really are beautifully taken, no sarcasm intended. Thanks for the offer above, but it's not my cup of tea. Best, Castncoot (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
NP and thank you for the complement. The two photos also in part demonstrate my points. In the first photo, from yesterdays race had the sun been behind us the white of the sails and the craft itself would have been super saturated. For Aerial work, the best "light" for photos is early in the AM or late in the PM, on super clear days just after a weather front passes. The second photo is a sunrise example of just that, so as to graphically illustrate the challenges. Obviously I am on the other side of the country now, but that changes often. It was a fun flight and it is one I will do again someday, my point here has always been that aerial photos are rather complex, with a lot of variables that can be financially prohibiting when it requires that "all the stars align" so to speak. Cheers! talk→WPPilot21:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indians in the New York City metropolitan region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monroe, New Jersey. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philadelphia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Comcast Center. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I thought that there was no source to back the fact that NYC is the most linguistically diverse city in the world until I carefully revised the sources. Not to mention the ones you added. I think it is obvious I made a mistake in the page. (N0n3up (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC))
Rebalancing of Bergen County community diversity section
Please take a look at this edit, where I tried to find a bit of balance, especially in the Community diversity section. The section, which includes 16 subsections (!) takes up a disproportionate chunk of the article. Most of the sections are fairly small, listing overall population data and selected prominent population centers, while others are out of proportion to the other sections, to the size of the community an to the size of the corresponding sections in the articles for the state's 20 other counties. I'm not sure what order had been intended, but I tried to take a first stab at reorganizing by descending order of the size of the community. I tried to use 2013 American Community Survey data, though it seems to be more challenging than the 2000 data. EPodunk was great in its day, but it's all 2000 data that needs updating, as do the vast majority of the community-level sources from the Census Bureau. Nor am I sure of the reliability or provenance of the information taken from City-Data.
Let me know what you think and what the next steps should be in further improving this and other county articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Alansohn: Agreed, see edit summary in the article, I think you've done a nice job of reconfiguring and trimming sections with this, thank you. In my own research, no other New Jersey county other than Hudson County seems to match the breadth and depth of Bergen County's diversity vis-a-vis ethnic groups and nationalities, and even Hudson does not seem to have the online source depth to back it up. Hence, the wealth of data on Bergen County which is constructive to the reader as placed in the main article. This may simply have to be the exception among counties, although perhaps we could try to do the same thing for Hudson as well.
In the meantime, my suggestion would be to hold tight for now and simply do spot updates as possible for all counties using ACS figures, but once the 2015 ACS figures emerge, being the mid-point between the formal decennial censuses of 2010 and 2020, I think we should eliminate the 2000 Census paragraph once and for all and replace it with a 2015 ACS paragraph. Perhaps you could start on designing a replacement template for that. :) Best, Castncoot (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The 2015 ACS data will be out in about a year, and we can talk further closer to then. In the meantime, almost all of the population data is more than a decade out of date and needs to be updated and cleaned up. Alansohn (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I'm pinging Epicgenius, since he's the other editor working on trying to fix this. First, I'm not trying to be a dick by reverting, but it's usually easier to make the correction if you go back to a clean version. Your latest edit, still creates an "invoke" error on two of the references. I've been working on updating the List of United States cities by population, so I haven't been able to give this the attention I should. There's a "ref name" (or two) which was in the earlier edit, and for which the article uses more than once, which has been deleted by your edits. That's the issue I was trying to point out needing to be fixed. Hopefully, I've made sense here. Onel5969 (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. By the way, @Onel5969: in the other article you mentioned above, List of United States cities by population, why don't you guys just call it New York City? I know that your answer is that it is "the City of New York", but realistically, it would be so much clearer to the reader to distinguish its commonly used name as a city from the State. Just a "fly-by" thought, since you happened to mention that article above. Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with it, but my preference would be as it is. The table is clearly marked that the first column is the city, while the second is the state. (and thanks for the ping, hadn't realized you responded). Onel5969 (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I do feel it's a necessary disambiguation. Since you don't feel strongly about it, I am going to simply remove a piped wikilink to/from a state that only New York City has among the cities, to keep it consistent with the other cities listed. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Demographics of Filipino Americans in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.
Actually, I realize the resolution could be just a bit better, but I think File:Flushing Queens May 2015 2.jpg could be a good placeholder for now. If you get some time and are able to capture the same vantage point but perhaps somewhat closer in to the hubbub, like the Brooklyn Chinatown image, it would be even better. But I want to thank you for your time and effort. Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for asking, but I really haven't been a frequent contributor to the former article. Good luck with your endeavor, however! Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinese Americans in New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public school. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:
Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Swarm♠21:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why you're so obsessed with adding bridges to an article on a region. Regions have a wide variety of infrastructure, both tangible and intangible. But I'd sroads and highways, buildings, and geographical features like rivers and reservoirs are much more a 'lifeline' to a region than bridges. This is so irrelevant. Please discuss this on the talk page for Hudson Valley, or better yet, at WikiProject Hudson Valley for more consensus. If I were you, I would undo your edits and seek consensus, because I find the gallery/galleries highly irregular, unnecessary, and unencyclopedic.--ɱ(talk · vbm)02:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Look at your own reverse logic here! You've just said above that roads and highways are a lifeline. Bridges represent an even higher level of a lifeline - they are unique highways which carry those more ordinary roads and highways which you have acknowledged to be lifelines and carry them and their traffic across the prominent Hudson River; if not for those very bridges, each of which is more structurally complex, formidable, and certainly more iconic than those lesser roads and highways, passengers would have a greater difficulty getting to the other side of the Hudson River and the Hudson Valley. At least on the same side of the river, one often has alternate routes to travel. I'm going along with you in the Hudson River article, but in the Hudson Valley article, a gallery of these icons is not only highly appropriate but is necessary and without which the article would be remiss in information. Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree and find error in your logic. Nonetheless, please discuss this on the talk page for Hudson Valley, or better yet, at WikiProject Hudson Valley to gain better consensus.--ɱ(talk · vbm)03:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, feel free to do so; after all, you started this discussion here on my Talk page by stating your logic, so you can at least afford me the courtesy of finishing our discussion here. I've met WP:NOTABILITY criteria (and this is a Gallery you're arguing about, for goodness sakes?!), so the WP:BURDEN is now yours. And by the way, can you think of another region in the world that is as defined by as many iconic bridges relative to its population as the Hudson Valley? - or alternatively, the ensuing transportational and economic catastrophe if the bridges (especially the Tappan Zee) were to all of a sudden magically diappear? Best, Castncoot (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You're not being a good Wikipedian here. I'm trying to sort out this matter and you're being defensive and confrontational. Please let's use the proper channels for discussion. I'm done arguing. Also, please never misuse Burden. I hate when people do that. It's about verifying information, and that the person who added it has to verify it. You added information, but nobody's questioning its truthfulness/validity here. Even if I was, it'd be your burden to prove it.--ɱ(talk · vbm)21:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hudson Valley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Highland, New York. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's the largest "indoor" statue of "Buddha" in "the West". Not the largest statue of Buddha, nor the largest indoor statue, nor the largest statue in the West, nor the largest Buddha in the West, et cetera! How many qualifiers do you need! Next you're going to add a photo of the largest chocolate ice cream sandwich on a black plate sitting on a desk in the west! The region is so big and so important, why waste space mentioning a religious object of a tiny minority of the population. As you said, you don't want people to misread the region as rural, well they're gonna misread it as having a giant Buddhist population (no pun intended). If you like the photo and pop-culture guidebook gimmick of a fact, please keep it on the article for Putnam County, New York and/or Kent, New York. Thank you.--ɱ(talk · vbm)06:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Castncoot. I have manually edited this page while keeping your corrections but i have removed various unnecessary clutter of images, organised the page and have added only notable immigrants from each region.117.192.201.56 (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
The fact that the main dispute on the talk page is about what the Polish government just said, with people disagreeing whether the statement from a few hours ago, or a statement from a day ago, or a statement from three days ago should be emphasized I think sort of illustrates that this is still a "current" event. The attacks themselves are not that "current" but the responses are still ongoing.
Still, I don't think the "current" tag is all that important so I'll leave it up to your discretion as to whether it should be put back or not. Volunteer Marek 22:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
NYC is NOT the "center" of the Puerto Rican American community !!!
On EVERY page regarding Puerto Ricans, you make it seem like New York is the epicenter for Puerto Ricans across the world. I have news for you buddy: IT IS NOT! Period
Stop making it seem like newyork is the glorious wonderful capital for alll Boricuas worldwide, f*ck new york. Cuz obviously we dont like that city no more, alot more Puerto Ricans moving to Orlando, Tampa, Philly, and even Boston, from both Puerto Rico AND New York. NY has a declining PR population, who tf wants to go there, the ones who are there are leaving in droves.
Who the heck is this vandalizing my Talk page? And how did your signature not get on here? OK, I looked at the history revision page to find the culprit (User:Spreadofknowledge). New York's Puerto Rican population has been INcreasing since 2010, there is currently heavy migration from Puerto Rico to NYC secondary to the ongoing economic and financial crisis in Puerto Rico, outpacing outmigration from NYC to other mainland cities, and as a consequence, the New York metro area is still home to by far the largest metropolitan Puerto Rican population outside San Juan. Wikipedia operates based on reliably cited statements as well as editorial civility.
1) Check your facts.
2) Don't ever try this again on my Talk page, or I'll have no problem reporting you to an Admin in a New York minute.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jersey City, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goldman Sachs Tower. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Boston, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Garchy (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC
@Castncoot: - Appreciate the work you're doing on the Boston article! I have noticed that the last 200 or so changes are from you, and that makes it hard for us to track recent changes in this article. If you can use the preview button to condense the work you're doing between edits (to lower the amount of saves you are doing) that would be appreciated. Garchy (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Garchy: - Thank you for the compliment.:) I didn't understand your first comment above, but your second comment clarified what you meant. Let me explain, however, that my brain and I simply don't have the talent that you and other editors (e.g., @Alansohn:) seem to have to be able to do large-scale full-article editing at once - I wish I did! I hope this clarifies that. But I will try to do my best in that direction for this article, per your request. Best, Castncoot (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Castncoot: I certainly know how tough it can be, especially when I'm doing edits on mobile :) I appreciate your efforts, don't worry about it having to be perfect! Garchy (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering why you removed the "U.S." birthplace from Donald's infobox. I feel very strongly that it belongs there. For example, in other featured articles such as Barack Obama and both Bushes. They clearly cite but do not link "U.S." at the end. Even though Donald was born and raised in New York City (which happens to be the largest city in our lovely country), he is still American and NYC is part of the US. Unless you can offer me a better explanation I have gone ahead and restored it. ToriJana (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Simple. You'd then have to replicate it throughout the infobox for consistency, which would create an unwieldy (and totally unnecessary) mess. Everyone knows NYC is part of the U.S., you don't need to crow that commonly known fact. I've restored the status quo. Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You removed it from Bernie Sanders's infobox too. This seems to be utterly arbitrary. We always add the extra "U.S.", even when it seems obvious. I think you should restore them.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Castncoot. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Lady Gaga, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of King jakob c 2 -- King jakob c 2 (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
; see Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of King jakob c 2 -- King jakob c 2 (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
· 
· 
· 
