Jump to content

User talk:IveGoneAway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you talk here, I'll reply here. If I talk there, please reply there.

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, IveGoneAway, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! S.G.(GH) ping! 16:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Tesla Roadster for you!

[edit]
A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Tesla Roadster for you!

[edit]
A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Automotive Safety Integrity Level may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fossiliferous stratigraphic units

[edit]

I obtained the data for the lists of fossiliferous stratigraphic units by state from the Paleobiology Database, so my articles may reflect the conflicting or archaic taxonomies used by different authors in the sources for entries in the database. You are welcome to rename or delete any of them to better reflect up-to-date science. I have no expertise in the area and will defer to your own. You're exactly the kind of person I was hoping would take these sorts of article under their wing. I'd be very excited to see the fruits of your efforts. Happy editing! Abyssal (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, to be honest. I'm sure the guys at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology would know better than I do how to proceed. You should ask that question at their talk page. Abyssal (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have looked for any discussion on the issue; there should have been at least one. When I started on this, my entry was the Niobrara Formation page, where I also saw Talk:Niobrara Formation#Outcrops only in Kansas?. Generally, around here, its The Niobrara, (like The Dakota and The Ogallala), although Niobrara Formation is taxonomically correct. KGS uses "Niobrara Chalk" omitting formation while using "Dakota Formation" rather than the vernacular Dakota Sandstone. I think the convention is to is to use the lithographic type and drop formation when the formation as a definite dominant and consistent stone type. IveGoneAway (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Geology Barnstar
For your recent work on the geology of Kansas, especially correcting the misnamed stubs I created. Keep up the good work! Abyssal (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered nominating the Cottonwood Limestone for a DYK? Abyssal (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being a good sport about it. What would be a DYK hook about the Cottonwood? It's major in Kansas, but it's no Empire State Granite? IveGoneAway (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like "... that rock from the Cottonwood Limestone of Kansas was used to build landmarks like [Landmark 1], [Landmark 2], and [Landmark 3]?" Abyssal (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, decent idea. When I get a non-OR citation for Bill Snyder Family Football Stadium, it should look great next to the University of Kansas Memorial Campanile. Oh, better yet; "... that the University of Kansas Memorial Campanile is made of Manhattan Limestone?  :)
IveGoneAway (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, make it snappy, 'cause you only have four days from article creation to nominate! Abyssal (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it, in case it's seven days. IveGoneAway (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cottonwood Limestone

[edit]

Harrias talk 12:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Seems we have a problem with your recent article Cottonwood Limestone. As I was checking the unfamiliar term Osagia I checked the reference and found the following:

from the article, section Lithologic character and thickness: From southeastern Nebraska to central Kansas, the lower half of the Cottonwood Limestone is a fine-grained buff limestone composed of minute particles of fragmented fossils, especially the algal-foraminiferal intergrowth Osagia, echinoderms, and bryozoans (bioclastic facies).
from the source: From southern Nebraska to central Kansas the lower half of the Cottonwood Limestone is a fine-grained buff limestone composed of finely comminuted fossils, especially the algal-foraminiferal intergrowth Osagia, echinoderms, and bryozoans (bioclastic facies). The upper half of the unit in this region is fine-grained buff limestone with abundant small fusulines; fossils typical of the bioclastic facies are also present (fusuline facies). (Laporte, Léo F. (1962). Paleoecology of the Cottonwood Limestone (Permian), Northern Mid-Continent (Abstract)).

I would suggest that you rewrite that problem text asap - and any other similar problems. Vsmith (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to work it over when writing it, combining multiple sources, sometimes I got really sleepy.  What was left there was also somewhat redundant; looks like incomplete, leftover integration.  I remember getting confused at the time whether the source was referring to the visible assemblage of the Bottom Ledge or to the microscopic fines therein.  How is the change? IveGoneAway (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've covered it, gotta be extra careful with copyvio stuff. Vsmith (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osagia

[edit]
My concern with the term Osagia (that interested you) is that it may be regional term (Osage County, OK) coined and used by university professors from schools located in the Flint Hills, while the algae facies could/should have a more general/wider term.  Because the term cropped up so often in my study of the Flint Hills geology, I felt it should have its own page at some point if I ever found good material, that’s why I red-linked it; haven't gotten to that yet, don’t know when.  Another concern I had was the general age of many of the sources; and the respective authors seemed tocollaborate at some point.  It is a common, repeated facies in the lower Permian cyclothems.  IveGoneAway (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the term was familiar - think I remember my paleo prof using the term when I was working on my BS back in the late 60s at SW Mo State in Springfield, MO. Vsmith (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was long enough ago and close enough to NE Oklahoma to be corrupted. In the 80s and 90's I traveled and camped a lot in Missouri, but that was before I really got interested in geology. Your backyard reminds me of some parks in KC, especially the side trail near the Australian section of the KC Zoo. I can find algal structures in rocks around KC, I recall seeing similar around Rolla, all generally more mineralized than in the Lower Permian here. I think the original late 19th Century intention was the Osagia to be a taxon, but it seems to also to be used in the 20th Century in general reference to the alga bed facies. I have some pictures to upload as I work through the Permian, the algae is present in the top beds of at least half of the limestones here. I would like to get it strait. IveGoneAway (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

inspection/machining

[edit]

I see what you are saying, but most commonly the use of gauges, micrometers is in the cases when the manufactured part requires precision finishing. in such cases measuring the part right after the mold/weld/stamp is part of the fine tuning step, rather than of, say, molding. Of course, this is not at all necessary when NC machining is involved: measurement is only as a final inspection. So for a layman (for whom wikipedia is written) a primitive picture is more visual: you lathe it a bit, you gauge it, you lathe it a bit more, etc... That was my reasoning. Anyway, I self-reverted. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, rereading the article more carefully, the statement is an example, and yes, measuring machined dimensions (as opposed to non-machined dimensions) is a good classic example. Measuring finish color would not be a good "example", even if it is a true inspection.
I like the adequately abstract ASQ definition best:
“Measurement - The act or process of quantitatively comparing results with requirements.”
Elsmar has this definition for inspection, which has exactly the same meaning as above, but in less flowing language:
“Inspection - Activities (e.g.: measuring, examining, testing) that gauge one or more characteristics of a product or service and the comparison of these with specified requirements to determine conformity.”
IveGoneAway (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, IveGoneAway. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry!

[edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Pawnee Republic

[edit]

User talk:Ammodramus#Pawnee Republic

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, IveGoneAway. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Risk

[edit]

I recently found myself thinking that there ought to be a WikiProject Risk. While searching to see if one already existed, I encountered this discussion, in which you noted having felt much the same way. I'm afraid I can't take the time to create one at the moment, but if you can (or if you know someone else who can), then I encourage you (or them) to do so! N.B. I am not watching your talk page, so please WP:PING me if you reply. Thanks :) Zazpot (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zazpot: Yeah, I've already been scolded for saying something ought to be done, while saying I don't have the time to do it (eventually I did it partially). I think Iit could work, I have to wonder if this isn't the only place in Wikipedia multiple where disciplines or practices work with a subject and as a result the subject ends up with either disjoint articles or article that only cover one practice. (A microcosm of this is the geology formation articles that are presently Balkanized by state borders.) Thank you for reminding me, though. Just creating the Project might not be that big of thing, and I could be excused if no one else shows up to help. I have a lot of IRL stuff to get through, Risk isn't going anywhere, but my Dad is. IveGoneAway (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC) 18:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IveGoneAway: completely understood. The way I see it, there is WP:NORUSH re: Wikipedia. Also, expressing one's view on what should be done is valuable, because it provides useful guidance/feedback to the people who do have time to actually do it. (Those people might include our future selves, but it's OK if they don't.) So, even if others might scold you for that, I won't. Quite the contrary: I am grateful to you for it.
I have mentioned the idea for a WikiProject Risk to a couple of people offline: one Wikipedian and one risk professional. Perhaps they will make it happen before either you or I find time to do so.
More importantly, I wish strength and peace to you and your dad. Zazpot (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IveGoneAway: hope things are going OK for you. Here's a start on WP:RISK. If you like it, please feel free to add your name here. Zazpot (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zazpot: Thank you. This action has prompted me to review the discussions for the main Risk article. I see two things in reflection, now: 1) various hostility to the present article, and 2) no response the proposals in response to the hostility ("gain" and "intentional interaction with uncertainty" should be dealt with).
I will look into the appropriateness of/conventions for commenting on the proposal, in particular, the idea that an early action would be fully converting Risk into a Broad-concept article and encouraging disciplines (represented by the associated projects) to create their Risk (<discipline>) articles. Within this WP:BCA, I think there would be an appropriately broad mention of "Risk processes", again with disciplines writing their own specific risk processes within their discipline articles.
Vis-a-vis the Cline issue, I would also invite Wikipedia:WikiProject Education as clearly a discipline that discusses risk.
There are a couple typographic errors in your proposal: "other, related" and "umbrella of risk"
IveGoneAway 14:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I would also add Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment (huge discipline with its own variance on definition and processes that has been a source of issues in the subject).
IveGoneAway 14:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@IveGoneAway:, many thanks indeed for those suggestions :)
As you can see, my pace is a slow one, but it feels good to have the ball gently rolling.
User:Charles_Matthews has not yet signed the proposal but is, I believe, supportive. Likewise a fairly prominent risk academic that Charles and I contacted recently. The academic may provide suggestions to us re: structure, sources, etc, rather than editing directly; we will see. With luck, this means we have enough people to build a little momentum over the coming months, as our time permits.
I hope no-one will be too prescriptive about the direction that the WikiProject should take until those two people, and perhaps others who might be interested, have also had a chance to make refinements to the proposal and/or the draft, but do please feel free to make gentle improvements as you see fit. If you know anyone else who might be interested in the proposal, please alert them to its existence.
Thank you again for your assistance and support. I am looking forward to working together with you on this :) Zazpot (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zazpot: Hey, sorry about the edit to your user space. IveGoneAway (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IveGoneAway: No need to apologise. I should have been clearer in my previous comment, and said: "do please feel free to make gentle improvements to the proposal and to my userspace draft as you see fit." Constructive edits to my userspace drafts are generally welcome, and to the draft WikiProject Risk page especially. Thank you for making one :) Zazpot (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Template:User Foote quote 01

[edit]

Template:User Foote quote 01, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Foote quote 01 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User Foote quote 01 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Gardner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Testit

[edit]

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

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

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Testit. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Fencepost limestone. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Fencepost limestone. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. reddogsix (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, somehow my saved edit to tag it for deletion didn't get committed. IveGoneAway (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already ask that it be deleted. As I stated, it was a mis-save. Fencepost limestone is my intended article.
How could you review it if I already tagged it for deletion myself? IveGoneAway (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fort Hays Limestone Member, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High Plains (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. IveGoneAway (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fencepost limestone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belemnites (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not see the link to the disambiguation page Belemnites, I linked and piped from Belemnitida. IveGoneAway (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Fencepost limestone

[edit]

On 19 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fencepost limestone, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fencepost limestone. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fencepost limestone), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, IveGoneAway. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yocemento, Kansas, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Big Creek and Saline River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Yocemento, Kansas

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Yocemento, Kansas at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IveGoneAway, I'm a little concerned that you may have misunderstood my comments at WT:DYK and be overciting as a result. I've added an additional word of explanation here. Hope that helps. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, I was told "the article contains many unsourced statements", so, that means that correcting the two can't mean that I am done, because there must be approximately many left to correct. I am highly motivated to get this promoted before may father completely loses his ability to read. I have hundreds of hours into finding the citations to document the stories he and other of his generation have told, so I hope I have time to figure out the rest before it is pulled from prep. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC) 03:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Yocemento, Kansas

[edit]

On 3 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yocemento, Kansas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kansas City Union Station (pictured) was constructed using cement manufactured by a mill in Yocemento? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yocemento, Kansas. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Yocemento, Kansas), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (8110.34) has been reviewed!

[edit]

Thanks for creating 8110.34.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I've removed the PROD. Redirects are cheap and this is a plausible search from a short to full name. I wouldn't beat yourself up over it.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Barkeep49}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Barkeep49:
Thanks.
The redirect I requested deleting is for a different, but similarly numbered FAA Order; 8130.34 vs. 8110.34
FAA Order 8130.34 is pretty newsworthy.
FAA Order 8110.34, not so much.
Ah, maybe I was intending to make a short to full name redirect, like you say, but made a typo in the page name (easy to do, there are a number of important 8110.x Orders.)
Maybe the thing to do is move 8110.34 to 8130.34, correcting the existing error. And if I ever run out of things to do, even make a FAA Order 8110.34 stub (more than it deserves, maybe).
IveGoneAway (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IveGoneAway Apologies for not noticing this difference in numbers. I agree that moving the page feels like a good solution. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed link to Roca Formation (disambiguation) per usually incorrect. IveGoneAway (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kansas River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Blue River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the law contradicts reality

[edit]

Regarding update of List of U.S. state minerals, rocks, stones and gemstones according to State Statute, whether to address the error in the statute, and the question of which image to use.

I am not an expert in geology or law. I'm trying to find a clear statement that there is nothing called "greenhorn limestone" in the Flint Hills. While there is an apparent mismatch between the statute and reality, it would be useful to have a confirmation by a reliable source. It is possible that architectural stone was quarried under the name "greenhorn" even though geologists would not use the designation. Nix v. Hedden shows that legal and scientific designations can be at odds. My first search, fairly limited in scope didn't turn up sources that addressed the apparent contradiction. Since the symbol list is more "legal" than factual, I'm erring in favor of the statute. If a reliable source says the statue is wrong, I would put that in a footnote. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"When the law contradicts reality" = Lysenkoism
All bedrock in the Flint Hills is of Permian Age. (See also map on this page)
All bedrock in the Smoky Hills is of Cretaceous Age. (See also map on this page)
I did try to find some journal that noticed the error; no dice.
All Greenhorn is within core the of Smoky Hills.
While the Flint Hills and Smoky Hills are adjoining regions, the Greenhorn is separated by the red sandstone of Smoky Hill Buttes subregion of the Smoky Hills from the Flint Hills.
The typical limestone building in Kansas is Cottonwood Limestone (with some Fort Riley Limestone (aka Silverdale) occasionally, and beautiful Americus (aka, Tuxedo Grey)). Older buildings might have imported Indiana Limestone.
The one other building stone in Kansas is the Fencepost limestone which is a 10" bed of the Greenhorn. Nothing else in the Greenhorn, which is mostly shale as you can see in the picture you used, is suitable for construction. However, the Fencepost limestone is only used in buildings within the Smoky Hills. There is no mistaking Cottonwood, Americus, or Silverdale for Fencepost (color, dimensions, and fossils). What was distinct about the Fencepost was its use as fencepost, and you see souvenir stone posts all over the state. However, within the last 10-20, the stonecutters have been making faux stone posts out of Cottonwood.
Originally, you just heard that "limestone" was the state rock. OK. Fine. One would figure that either the Fencepost or the Cottonwood should be the state rock. Someone probably argued that it was the fenceposts that were uniquely Kansas, someone else probably observed, "hey, we have a lot of stone buildings in Kansas", and someone else said, yeah, all of that limestone comes from the Flint Hills. Oh, well, I got both pages onto the DYK, anyway.
IveGoneAway (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Kansas City Star article about the legislation mentions only limestone, not any specific unit or region. It does picture the Cathedral of the Plains, which is Fencepost/Greenhorn. One would probably need to read the minutes of the deliberation to figure out what happened. The KGS FAQ also just states limestone. Really, you are asking to prove a negative.IveGoneAway (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only to the standard of one reliable source. It's really annoying when getting things right would be original research. I'm not even sure where to go to get some appropriate opinions. Maybe a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology would get more ideas on how to address the contradiction. It would be appropriate to drop a link to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kansas, which looks less active. I find open RfCs attract people more interested in Wikipedia policy than the subject. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't take the KGS interpretation of the legislation, maybe the best we can get is Roadside Kansas.[1]. It describes I-70's traversal across the State. In one chapter it describes the Cretaceous Rock as it passes through the Smoky Hills, recording the Fencepost/Greenhorn only in the central portion, then it describes the Permian rocks of the Flint Hills (making no mention Greenhorn or any other rock not native to the Flint Hills).
Is it OR if anyone can easily verify it? It is easy to verify this; used the ground view of Google Maps and see that the posts and buildings made from Fencepost/Greenhorn are visible only from highways in the Smoky Hills. None are to be seen anywhere else. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreting images is OR. I'm thinking that there is a way to put it into a footnote. List it as "limestone" and then add a footnote: "KS Stat § 73-3701 (2018) specifies 'Greenhorn limestone, a staple of the Kansas Flint Hills'.<cite statute> According to <source>, the Greenhorn formation is in [the middle range of] the Smoky Hills."<cite source>
It would be better with a source that says, "Greenhorn limestone comes from..." I have "the middle range of" bracketed because it might not be in the source you choose. I based it on this, a tolerable but not ideal source. It isn't OR, since it is two sourced statements. The risk is accidental synthesis of sources by saying anything that inappropriately links them (such as "despite the fact that"). In other words, you cannot state the statute is wrong without an unambiguous source. You cannot say that Greenhorn limestone does not come from the Flint Hills without an unambiguous source. A statement on where Greenhorn limestone comes from can be included as long as it follows from the text. I hate to tell you how much this problem has tortured me, but you probably have me beat. BiologicalMe (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overview: The caption of "Greenhorn limestone" is accurate to the statute; however, the stone posts were what was intended, so a picture of a Kansas stone post (with a leaner) might be better. The error in the statute mislocating the rock is immaterial to this.
"Here's what happened." (see following excerpts from the Legislature minutes) What you hope Kansas Legislators know is that the building they work in (as well as most limestone buildings in the state) was built from (mostly Cottonwood) limestone quarried in the Flint Hills. So, in a form of promotion of what is the most promoted geography of the state, they specifically, and correctly mentioned the Flint Hills. The Flint Hills limestones are the most used for buildings in the state and the Cottonwood is the most used of those. Fine and good. But, during Senate testimony, it was suggested that a specific limestone particular to the state of Kansas be actually named in the statute. Cottonwood limestone would have been a decent candidate for the stated reasons. However, no other state or country in the World has anything like the Fencepost limestone and its particular use as fencing, and within the state, it has been a de facto state symbol, especially of rural Kansas. From the minutes it is clear that the Fencepost was intended. As I have said, the formation that the Fencepost limestone comes from is the Greenhorn, which is the foundation of the Smoky Hills. "Green horn" legislators who don't know rock chalk from flint carelessly tacked the word "Greenhorn" to the front of the sentence without recognizing that the Greenhorn Formation does not exists in the Flint Hills.
If you are a Western Kansan, you know what happened; predominately Eastern Kansas legislators who "have no idea of what is west of Topeka" were less than diligent in amending the statute.
  • "Minutes for HB2650 - Committee on Federal and State Affairs, Short Title: Designating the state rock as limestone, .... "[2]
  • "Today I’d like to propose limestone as the official rock, ... of the State of Kansas."[3]
  • "Jackson & Mariner Svaty, young Kansas citizens, spoke to the committee regarding HB2650. Jackson and Mariner spoke to the committee about some important facts about all these proposed Kansas symbols. Jackson recommended that instead of naming the state rock, limestone that we should declare a limestone specific to Kansas. Their recommendation is the green horn limestone, which has the most distribution state wide from Ford county to Washington county [i.e., Smoky Hills]. (Attachment 2)" ... Chair Bud Estes asked if we might have a conceptual amendment to have the green horn limestone be inserted as the state rock.[4]
  • "Mr. Chairman, we would recommend that rather than naming the state rock “limestone”, which is prevalent in different forms around the country, we should declare a limestone specific to Kansas as the state rock. Our recommendation would be Greenhorn limestone, the famous “post rock” limestone that has the largest distribution statewide,[sic - Cottonwood and other limestones have larger distributions in the state] running from Ford County all the way to Washington County [i.e., Smoky Hills], and can be seen as fenceposts everywhere in between."[5]
As introduced
Section 1. Limestone, a staple of the Kansas Flint Hills that is used in the construction of buildings throughout the state, is hereby designated as the official rock of the state of Kansas.
As amended by the State Senate and passed
Section 1. Greenhorn limestone, a staple of the Kansas Flint Hills that is used in the construction of buildings throughout the state, is hereby designated as the official rock of the state of Kansas.


Summary: Greenhorn Limestone, as the formation containing the Fencepost limestone bed, was the intended rock. So we are good on that. However, testimony regarding the range of the outcrop clearly and correctly corresponds to the Smoky Hills rather than the Flint Hills.
It might be fine to leave my picture of the Greenhorn limestone on the state symbol page. However, given the legislative record, it may be better to have a picture of a stone post, instead of all of the shale in the present picture.
Probably more than you needed to know.
PS. Interpreting images is OR. Not interpreting images; rather, non-citation for easily verified fact. Using Google ground view was offered to enable you to do what thousands of drivers do IRL every day, take a drive through these distinct physiographic regions. Minutes west of the Capitol, on the route through the "star-step" Flint Hills, the boundaries are marked by large, incised Americus Limestone slabs and there is no post rock (OK, the top course of the pedestal might be imported Fencepost, based only on the dimension change and slight difference in coloration). Two and a half hours west in the Smoky Hills, there are stone posts all over the country with stone post and lintel signs advertising individual small towns in Post Rock Country.
IveGoneAway (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor should be able to readily verify a fact. Citing a book without a page range exceeds that. Sitting down to identify limestone fenceposts in streetview also exceeds that requirement. Hopefully one of the sources at Fencepost limestone should work. The list is the state emblems and those are determined by statutes. Knowing how the sausage was made doesn't change the finished project. Your gripe is with Kansas. At least the Indiana Pi Bill didn't pass. BiologicalMe (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I don't know of a place on the wiki where it is necessary to mention the error in the statute, even if we did have a single source stating it, so the question is possibly moot. The KGS statement that the Kansas state rock is all limestone in the state might not be conclusive. So, I can just give you the pages of Roadside Kansas (I wasn't intending to withhold the pages, its just more work to do at the time needed.)

Roadside Kansas (KGS publisher): Greenhorn Limestone road cut outcrops are mentioned from page 99 (Mile 198.4) to page 103 (Mile 229) ["The Smoky Hills [KGS italics] dominate the view to the east [i.e., the view westbound from mile markers east of 229], as I-70 crosses the eastern edge of the uplands, which are capped by the Greenhorn limestone."

Ironically, the book does not explicitly mention that the road cut at 229 is Greenhorn (the only good (excellent) look at the Greenhorn that the highway has). The image you selected is within feet of Mile Marker 229. But, the book does mention that the Granerous formation underlies the Greenhorn a half mile further down the hill at 228.5. To otherwise cite the Greenhorn at that cut, there is the KGS county map. The detailed KGS county maps have the Fencepost bed marked by a black line at the top of the Greenhorn-Granerous, but the detail Lincoln County map hasn't been uploaded yet.

It is a rare Kansan that knows the name of the Greenhorn (or any formation), but rural Kansans are usually familiar with the stone posts. I am looking for a Kansas project page ask to whether to use an image of a stone post. (Looking at the Kansas City Star article again; I can get them not mentioning the "Greenhorn" part; their readers would wonder, "What the heck?")

IveGoneAway (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC) IveGoneAway (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading some of the other captions, maybe this will fix it: "Greenhorn Limestone, from which Kansas stone posts were cut." IveGoneAway (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't complaining about your lack of a page number. I was just using that as an example of something that is ultimately verifiable, but not readily verifiable. Now that you undid the massive change (I suspect it was everything since I edited the Kansas entry, because you flagged me), I see a much lesser scope in what you were trying to do. I like the caption because it helps build the web and carries a lot of the content of the symbol. BiologicalMe (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Okie-dokie. I may make the change tomorrow. gn IveGoneAway (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rex C. Buchanan; James R. McCauley (1987). Roadside Kansas. University Press of Kansas (Kansas Geological Survey). ISBN 978-0-7006-0322-0.
  2. ^ Minutes for HB2650 - Committee on Federal and State Affairs, 2018-03-06
  3. ^ Testimony of Casey Friend, House Bill No. 2650 Proponent, Attachment 2 to Minutes for HB2650 - Committee on Federal and State Affairs (PDF), 2018-03-06
  4. ^ Minutes for HB2650 - Committee on Federal and State Affairs, 2018-03-15
  5. ^ Jackson & Mariner Svaty (2018-03-15), Testimony in Support of H.B. 2650 (PDF)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatoire (disambiguation)

[edit]

Hi IveGoneAway, since there's no article for 'Purgatoire', the DAB page should be at the ambiguous title. I've made the move and now Purgatoire (disambiguation) redirects to Purgatoire. Leschnei (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salina, Kansas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saline River.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle - January 2022

[edit]
The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements
  • After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
  • On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
  • Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion.
  • The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7.
  • The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed.
  • The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125.
  • The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members

New Members

Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921.

Closed Discussions

Featured Article assessment

Good Article assessment

Deletion

Requested moves

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from DMY.
Aviation pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 142
FL 15
A 56
GA 505
B 4,573
C 11,878
Start 15,082
Stub 18,754
List 2,539
Category 11,638
Disambig 653
File 2,713
Portal 629
Project 89
Redirect 1,518
Template 2,489
NA 66
Assessed 73,339
Unassessed 1
Total 73,340
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 251,763 Ω = 4.92
New/Ongoing Discussions

On The Main Page

Did you know...

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAA Order 8110.37 moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, FAA Order 8110.37, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 11:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cass Limestone

[edit]

IveGoneAway (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An ancient pre-Salina kitten for you!

[edit]

Oh my goodness. How do you do what you do? I have been maintaining Salina, Kansas for a long time. I have never gotten into the kind of history that you have. You are hard core. I only just now have learned enough basic tribal history to comprehend your giant publication, to really proofread it. I never knew the real story of Indian Rock, and that is one bad-ass action story but a true horror. And there's not one single of a whisper of a monument to it or to the Kanza in the whole city, other than maybe what's at the county museum. I guess this implies that there were no slaves there because there couldn't have ever been any white settlers there because it was always Kanza. I read that in the mid 1800s, there were 400 registered slaves in the whole Kansas territory but I don't know where. OK anyway, I'm very interested to hear that guy's sister's account of Indian Rock which you said is very different. We may need to just tell them both, and I'll help if you'll tell me the source. Is it online? 

— Smuckola(talk) 20:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@Smuckola: I have lived on Kansas I-70 most of my life, and always look out the window while traveling it. Over the last four years, I worked on Yocemento, Kansas as a tribute to my father. I leveraged the history from that page to Salina.
  • There are two commemorative signs on the hill.
Discussion of 8 April 2022 edits to Wellington Formation moved to Talk:Wellington_Formation#8 April 2022 edits.
Whoa, look at the time. gtg, I will try to answer your questions later.
IveGoneAway (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I'm really sorry for any loss of technical precision. Please put the right word instead of "elements" then. Like I said in the edit summary my only goal was to relieve the MOS requirement of not having arbitrary bolding and bulleted lists instead of prose WP:PROSELINE. In other words, being a wikignome to support you the researcher. So I was assuming you'd be able to instantly correct that ;) Right? The overall Wellington Formation article is most definitely not a stub; what you're saying is that there are a few sections that are stubs. That's what C class is meant to cover, as long as it is already proven to be a totally viable article with an existing overall structure and body of WP:RS. Start class is meant to be simply that you've proven that it could be that, and stub is pretty darn sure or else a gazetteer article like a map. For that matter, I am quite sure that Yocemento, Kansas is B class though you'd be the one to make it happen, because it requires familiarity with all content and sources. And yeah I definitely want to help your tribute to your dad. You're a good son. When we can align the Wikipedia project goals along with its technical requirements in order to actually serve the public and the truth, then I am absolutely here for that. I am a budding baby amateurishly amateur history buff, particularly interested in tribes and good-guy founders and civic boosters, so I would always like to have a tutor or at least a collaborative thing. — Smuckola(talk) 02:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your one OP opened multiple threads to pull.
If it is OK with you, I want to relocate the above Wellington bullets to Talk:Wellington Formation. ::: And you can see that I opened a discussion on Talk:Salina,_Kansas#Redundant_and_problematic_history_in_the_lead.
I will open a Talk:Salina,_Kansas#Tale_of_Two_Tales to address your other questions.
FWIW, I am older than I-70.
IveGoneAway (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And where were the 400 slaves? (This number is of African slaves. Prior to Eastern settlement, there were great numbers of (unregistered) native slaves in the Territory, held by native tribes.) Well, If I had to guess.... Tonganoxie, maybe north Marysville, how many little places were there like Juniata, where a pro-slavery white settler might have one or a few African slaves? Also, the relocated tribes held African slaves and those slaves were relocated with them, I'd guess more so in some of the relocated tribes than others. Like the whites and the Cherokee, the Wyandote and Shanwee were divided on the issue, (huh, William Walker (Wyandot leader), held African slaves in Kansas).
See page 109: CHAPTER 4—“WE HAD OUR BORDER RUFFIAN WAR BEFORE YOU'ALL DID”: THE WYANDOT AND SHAWNEE IN KANSAS, INDIAN TERRITORY, 1828-1854
IveGoneAway (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC) 14:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Smuckola: "I'm very interested to hear that guy's sister's account of Indian Rock which you said is very different"
Don't let me forget to get that done. IveGoneAway (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smuckola: In case you are interested in my process, you could take a look at User:IveGoneAway/sandbox/Cucamonga Junction, Arizona. I don't normally do this work online, but the page seemed a gnat's whisker from incorrect deletion. I think I have adiquately documented the existence of the community, and want justification to dig deeper and contact eyewitnesses, but the deletion discussion has gone silent. IveGoneAway (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kiowa Shale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saline River.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hello, IveGoneAway

Thank you for creating Haskell Limestone.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Thanks!
IveGoneAway (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of FAA Order Order 8100.15

[edit]

A tag has been placed on FAA Order Order 8100.15 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 18:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As ominous as this sounds, this was just clean-up of a cut-and-paste typo on my part that I requested.
IveGoneAway (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: FAA Order 8110.37 has been accepted

[edit]
FAA Order 8110.37, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Onel5969 TT me 12:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for restoring the page.
It may be poor judgment on my part (wrt amity) to comment on the irony of the content of the banner, specifically the announcement of my autoconfirmed status. IIUC, I have been autoconfirmed since 2013, and the Draft-ification of this article had nothing to do with my confirmation status.
I also do appreciate the promotion of the page to non-stub. It still seems like a stub to me.
As a consequence of the summary draftification, I learned the use of SCOTUS as RS.
IveGoneAway (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your email…

[edit]

…yes, my account is named after US 89, not AZ 89, as I’m originally from northern Utah and spent a lot of time on that road. Although before 1992, all of AZ 89 was in fact part of US 89, so I suppose they’re one and the same?? Highway 89 (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Highway 89, thanks. Last summer we drove the stretch between Yellowstone and the Snake Cayon on the way to Salt Lake via Idaho Springs.
I have been studying the history of the Kaibab between Willaims and Ash Fork. Let me know if you have any knowledge of interest.
IveGoneAway (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zhongding Catholic Church, Batang Uprising, Baihanluo

[edit]

Dear IveGOneAway,

Hope all is well. Thank you for your edits and suggestions on Zhongding Catholic Church. I definitely believe that the 1905 attack on Baihanluo Church–the compensation of which provided the funds for the church at Zhongding–was related, but I do not think the Baihanluo riot itself is a part of the Batang Uprising. After all, Batang belongs to Dêqên, but Baihanluo belongs to Gongshan.

According to Gao Zhiying, "1905 年, 德钦、盐井、中甸和巴塘等地爆发轰轰烈烈的反洋教斗争。同年, 任安守又想在丙中洛中丁村修建教堂, 既遭到普化寺喇嘛的强烈反对, 同时也因为强派民工激起了群众的愤怒。普化寺的管事马·库乐应民所请, 对任下了 3 道驱逐令, 任置之不理。旧历七月十五日, 库乐指挥 200 余人分两路包围白汉洛教堂。"[1] (In 1905, conflicts against Christianity broke out in Deqing, Yanjing, Zhongdian and Batang [...] At the same year, Annet Genestier also wants to build a church at Zhongding, Bingzhongluo. He was opposed by the lamas at Puhua Temple [...] On July 15th (lunar calendar), Kule directed 200 people to surround Baihanluo Church in two directions.)

I think the edit you made to the article is very great and it highlights the historical relevancy. I've also put Batang uprising in the "See also" section of the article. Thank you for bringing this piece of history into my attention. TheLonelyPather (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to help. My only experience with Chinese spaces is in providing explainations of folksy High Plains slang and aphorisms to a treasured game wiki translator in China.
My thoughts on the Batang Uprising was that it seemed to be associated with Nepal and a quick SWAG was that Baihanluo was relatively nearby. I could be wrong, because I was too rushed to bother looking as an actual map. I hoped someone like you would look into it. Thank you. If nothing else, there was posibly general anti-Colonial or anti-Christian protests in that decade.
My best quess for the orphan tag was that while there are many links, there were few (more than one, though) links to Chinese topics.
I would hope that the red links to chinese traditional architecture could be fixed. I see that the style names are real, but I am not prepared to hunt down the Latinized spelling variations.
IveGoneAway (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 高, 志英. 贡山县丙中洛地区多种宗教从冲突到并存、交融发展历史研究 [Conflict, coexist and fusion——history study on the religion development of Binzhongluo district, Gongshan county] (PDF). Journal of Yunnan Normal University (in Chinese). 33 (1): 48–52. Retrieved 2023-04-08.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hogback

[edit]

Hey there! Did you get my notification on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hog Back, Kansas? I even told him he'd blown off your plans you wrote on the Talk page, and still he blew off notifying you. These guys are trying to guess what Hogback is so maybe you can clarify. — Smuckola(talk) 07:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IveGoneAway&oldid=1198197581"