User talk:Vanished user azby388723i8jfjh32: Difference between revisions

	Archives
	FEB2005-JUL2006; AUG2006-

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:42, 7 November 2006

I will try to respond to you here on my talk page in order to keep continuity in the conversation and on your talk page. Likely only the latter if I'm pressed for time. —ExplorerCDT 00:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sussex County, New Jersey notables

First of all, welcome aboard to WP:NJ! Feel free to use the group to help with any New Jersey-related goals you may have in filling in the gaps and expanding the details for the state. I saw that you've been adding notables for Sussex County. My only question is if it's justified to do this on a countywide basis, and not at each of the individual municipalities. If it should be done at the county level, presumably it should be done only for the most notable individuals. Have you seen this done elsewhere? Alansohn 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason i chose to do it on the county level rather than the municipalities is that as you may know, new jersey's municipal boundaries have a history all their own...for instance, if someone were say born in 1753 in Newton, NJ (That is Newton Township) when Sussex County was formed, they could be born in practically two-thirds the current county...which would be modern day, Andover borough, Andover Township, Branchville Twp, Byram Twp, Frankford Twp, Franklin Twp, Fredon Twp, Green Twp, Hampton Twp, Hardyston Twp, Hopatcong Borough, Lafayette Twp, Montague Twp, Newton town, Ogdensburg borough, Sparta Twp, Sussex Borough, and Wantage Township. And the municipal lines are redrawn every few years (the last that i know was in 1996). Setting it up by municipality could be deceiving. I don't know about putting such lists on county sites, but practically every university has a list of notable (and some not-so-notable) alumni. I used that as an example. I think as far as municipalities go, there should be lists of notable people for major cities and towns, but for each and every one of New Jersey's 566 municipalities...it could, given the historical oscillations of boundaries, be confusing and demand too much research. —ExplorerCDT 03:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction, Montague Township wasn't part of Newton Township (1751-1864), it was split off from Walpack Township (which had the other 1/3 of the present-day area of Sussex County in 1753) in 1759. Sandyston was split off in 1762, and Pahaquarry in Warren County in 1824. —ExplorerCDT 03:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Nicolas de Gunzburg

Aristocrats alphabetise their names not by the "de" or "von," but by the thing they are of...in this case, Baron de Gunzburg is alphabetized under Gunzburg. Only the lower classes emphasise the preposition in the title. —ExplorerCDT 04:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not worth the energy to me at present ot argue about this one. I am most familiar with both European custom and American custom and I can tell you for a fact that it is most often alphabetized by the "de" in this country where titles have little meaning. Check the telephone book for a clear example where even case and spaces are often ignored. Most English speaking persons will look for it under "de" Not "G". Wikipedia's practice is to follow "common" usage. So for a book on peerage you would be correct, but not here. Doc ♬ talk 14:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phone books are so lower-class. I encourage you, in common usage (which does not have to be mutually exclusive from Wikipedia's policy on accuracy) to look at the Social Register as a greater indicator of "usage" in this regard. —ExplorerCDT 14:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position. Also understand that it is not the social registry that guides policy here on Wikipedia, so unless you are just looking to toot your horn and be out of step with consensus here, I suggest that you follow the norm for the turf you're on. Doc ♬ talk 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the social register is a more appropriate, and I would think more substantive guide than say your local yellow pages. Especially with regard to social norms. The problem is that there are no established norms on this regard, and even if a norm is popular, it does not make it correct. Last I checked, accuracy seems to be more important around here. Just because some social climbing arriviste emphasises the "de" in their name to toot their horn by saying "hey, my name sounds aristocratic", does not mean that they should be incorrect by thinking their last name starts with "d." Beaumarchais was one of those social climbing arrivistes, adopting and emphasising their title and we still find him under "B." Do not presume that American usage is the only English usage. Further, I find your accusational tone with regard to "tooting my own horn" to be indicative of an unfortunate pattern of incorrect arrogant presumptions on your part. —ExplorerCDT 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You prove my point by the suggestion you made: "*People with multiple-word last names: sorting is done on the entire last name as usually used in English, in normal order and not (for example) according to the Dutch system that puts some words like "van", "vanden", etc... after the rest of the last name. Example: ~~[[Categorie:Nederlands voetballer|Basten van Marco]]~~; ~~[[Category:A.C. Milan players|Basten, Marco van]]~~ → [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Van Basten, Marco]]
" Thus "de Gunzburg" should be alphabetized by the letter "D". Thanks for giving me the direct citation. Doc ♬ talk 14:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to see that Beethoven is the exception NOT the rule. Niki de Gunzburg is not an exception but follows the rule. Doc ♬ talk 15:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. See the talk page at the Gunzburg article. Every other European noble follows the rule, from Hindenburg to Beaumarchais (who wasn't really noble, he just married into it) being alphabetized under H and B respectively, and not by "von" or "de"...why do you refuse to let Gunzburg be alphabetized correctly? You are being so OBTUSE it is aggrevating, and you are bordering on vandalism because of your obtuseness. —ExplorerCDT 15:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the mirror, you are doing everthing that you accuse me of. The issue here is the Wikipedia standard and you are trying to follow what is given as only an "exception" not the standard. I've listed this for RfC as you are too intent to see what is here. Doc ♬ talk 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've recommended you for Administrator inventervention into vandalism...but in the end, I'll win. The guidelines I've cited show that you are incorrect. Please provide me the link for the RfC—ExplorerCDT 16:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uses of same sources

I noticed your comment on ElKevbo's page about the issue of sourcing the same thing over and over. Take a look at this diff here [1] (ignoring the edits you made in between my edits). Basically, to sum it up, set a name for the first instance for the source (in this case I named it "years" from Throughout the Years). <ref name="years"> then the whole citation with the /ref at the end. Then for each instance that follows, just put <ref name="years" /> (for some reason there needs to be the / at the end of it, not sure what its purpose is, but...that's what works. I'll try to update a few more like that but I'm on a wiki-slowdown for awhile as I'm in training at my college and have only a few hours to spare throughout the day/night. Hope that helps, Metros232 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, maybe when I'm done I'll try to learn the method and commit it to memory. But if you have the spare time, please save me! :P —ExplorerCDT 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I'll put my hand to some tonight. Question, I noticed there's been some edits going on with the alma mater and the feminist perspective, now that the alma mater is in WikiSource, do you think it'd be fine to take the alma mater out? It's just going to get some more edits like that, it's already in WikiSource, and it'll save room (well, in terms of kb, maybe like .5 at most, but it's long so takes up a lot of physical space). Any thoughts on that? Metros232 02:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd prefer to keep the alma mater up there. It is after all, a tradition. —ExplorerCDT 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The John Gibson edit you reverted...

... referred to the definition of santorum (little s) created by Dan Savage, which you can [Santorum_controversy#Public_reaction_and_criticism|find here]]. It was most definitely vandalism and you were right to revert it. Cheers, JDoorj a m Talk 07:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton University

I agree on the big rewrite - especially getting rid of the neologisms listcruft as I mentioned on the talk page awhile back. I think all the pieces are there, they just need some, well, editing. I am about to move cities so I don't have a huge amount of time the next week or so, but if you take the task I'll help you where I can. Sirmob 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of moving myself. Perhaps, we might have to hold this off for a week or two longer. —ExplorerCDT 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a page User:Simrob/Princeton to explore changes. I think my plan is to print it out and do some paper editing... Sirmob 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought, frankly, that inserting any single source of ranking invites insertions of other rankings, and soon you have a repetitive series of ranks which add up to ... nothing. But I suppose there are a variety of approaches. We can see what works best. - Nunh-huh 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those rankings are meaningless anyway, and only designed a.) to sell magazines (namely U.S. News & World Report, a bad excuse for imitating Time Magazine or Newsweek), and b.) for college administrators to market their colleges. It's a symbiotic relationship. Since intellectualism is something rarely quantifiable, the methods by which statisticians derive such rankings is immediately suspect...even before getting to their motives. —ExplorerCDT 01:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (Retrieved from "User_talk:Nunh-huh")

Exactly. Which is why avoiding these pseudostatistical ratings makes articles sound less like admissions brochures... - Nunh-huh 01:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers University protected

Hello, I requested and received full protection on the Rutgers University article because of the recent edit warring regarding the alma mater. Please bring discussion to the talk page of the article at Talk:Rutgers University. The protecting admin said:

Protected Rutgers University: Users engaging in edit warring. And everyone, please don't call everything "vandalism". Voice of All.

So please take this to the talk page and hopefully both sides can have a positive discussion. Thanks, Metros232 23:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for incivility on my talk page. You know the drill if you want to ask to be unblocked. Metamagician3000 09:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in keeping with blocking policy to block someone when they point out you're wrong. Don't worry, Meta, you're dead wrong, and you're only compounding what will end up happening to you in the end. There's no talking sense with people like you. Eventually, and soon, you'll probably be banned for such nonsense. —ExplorerCDT 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There will be no apology, because I don't apologise to people who are blatantly in the wrong and unabashedly oblivious to their wrongness. —ExplorerCDT 15:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you - the comment on User talk:Metamagician3000 was inappropriate, but not worthy of a 24 hour block by the person directly involved. violet/riga (t) 15:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catalogs

There are two online catalogs that I find useful for classification and nomenclature issues. The New York Public Library "CATNYP" catalog is at http://catnyp.nypl.org/ & the Library of Congress catalog is at http://catalog.loc.gov/ - Nunh-huh 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It will be a considerable help. —ExplorerCDT 21:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I hope they're useful, though of course, sometimes they're not :(. -Nunh-huh 21:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Ivies

Looks pretty ridiculous to me. I'll run it by User:Dpbsmith, who's the closest there is to a guru on higher ed topics on Wikipedia. JDoorj a m Talk 02:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the heads up on the Afd for New Ivies. Cornell Rockey 19:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self, RE: Rutgers

When unprotected, update to 2005 endowment number, $496,292,000 [2]

RfC

Hello ExplorerCDT. This user conduct RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/D C McJonathan did not meet the threshold for 2 users certifying an attempt to resolve the dispute in 48 hours, and has been deleted. Thanks. -- Samir धर्म 00:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.T. Horsfield

Mr. Thieme: Received your message--I will look at the Paulins Kill page. I was going to add a link to the Theodore Frelinghuysen page. By the way, I am not Nan's husband, but in fact I am her nephew! She is married to my father's brother (my father passed away almost four years ago, by the way). My mother and I were in the area just this past June. Thanks for your message! A.T. Horsfield 07:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Bloustein Vandalism

Glad too see most instances of this person's vandalism are being reverted almost immediately, but I think some people are encouraging this individual by saying this person is "clever" or "funny" (and you are not the only one). This vandal is on a tear and although the IP address traces back to Griffith University in Australia (and thus likely a shared termninal or server), the peculiar style of vandalism seems unique to an individual; one that apparently thrives on doing this sort of thing several times a day and getting favorable commentary in response.Rblaster 03:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of shitty vandalism, his I actually liked. Sure, it's not nice to egg him on with compliments, but heck...it's not every day you see vandalism that makes you laugh. —ExplorerCDT 03:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Guyanakoolaid

You wrote me: Being new around here, you might want to consider that you aren't too familiar with the policies and guidelines, conventions, etc. to be passing judgment on articles at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. First off, whoever tallies the votes later probably will not take your vote seriously or give it much weight in considering the keep or delete simply because of your novice status. —ExplorerCDT 11:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, hi! And thanks for the welcome. I am indeed somewhat new, recently challenging deletion for the first article I wrote (and won), and became much more knowledgable about things, although admittedly not as knowledgable as you. Regardless, I will ignore your rude dismissal and continue to contribute as I see fit, judging articles in the future as I have done til now: strictly according to WP guidelines. If you see where I may have judged an article incorrectly, please let me know. Otherwise, the way I've read things, newbies are normally ENCOURAGED to get involved, even in AfD discussions. How else will they become something other than a newbie?Guyanakoolaid 09:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and agree, however. You'll need a bit more experience in editing before some AFD counters will count your votes (far more than contributing to only two articles before jumping into the AFD waters). Forgive me if it may have been rude, but your insertion into the AFD in question, smacked of being ignorant of several policies and guidelines and the applications thereof. —ExplorerCDT 16:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers University

I'll take a look in a coupla days, ok? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, thanks. —ExplorerCDT 21:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a lot of good work there! Keep it up! Rolando (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

guess who is back

New Ivies Cornell Rockey 15:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

univ. article structures

I like the Cornell article's structure better than the Rutgers one. The main thing I think I would change about the Cornell article is moving the "history" section up to right after the introduction. --jacobolus (t) 20:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grease Trucks

You haven't personally contributed to the Grease Trucks article, but considering your contributions to the main Rutgers University article I thought you might be interested in this. The page was already deleted on March 4, 2006 for lack of notability:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grease Trucks

It seems that soon after the deletion, on March 10th, this page was recreated (usually this is ground for speedy deletion). I have put a merge tag on the top of the article and think that this should be trimmed and put into a small part of the main Rutgers article. It alone is not notable enough to warrant an article. I'd merge it myself but I haven't been that big of a contributor to the main article so I think someone else might want to do it. Either way, if it isn't merged within a reasonable amount of time I'll be forced to put this up for afd again and considering that it is recreated material and does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability critera it will most likely not succeed.--Jersey Devil 01:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Len Tower again

The process wonkism to overturn the AfD decision of Len H. Tower Jr. has been successful, and the new discussion, along with my criticism of the process now being followed, can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard H. Tower Jr. (second nomination). Please note that previous votes/comments are not being taken into account. See you there. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulins Kill

ExplorerCDT: Looked at the Paulins Kill page and your additions are great--you added more information than what I had! However, I noticed something. You included a wonderful postcard of the Paulins Kill from 1905. On it, it says the location is Baleville, NJ. The postcard got the location wrong--the place is Balesville, NJ, with an "s". It could be that Baleville could be correct, and that it was renamed Balesville, but I doubt it. Find out what you can--I am sure it is Balesville and that the postcard got the name wrong. A.T. Horsfield 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balesville is an older usage, a variation based on the fact that the hamlet was named for both Bale brothers who settled...Peter and Henry. However, modern parlance and common usage is Baleville. —ExplorerCDT 15:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I have always known the place to be "Balesville" and nothing else. My aunt has lived in Sussex County all her life and called it "Balesville," in accordance with the older usage. I do not dispute what you say, just sharing what I know about it! --A.T. Horsfield 05:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Crazy Enough, If I remember, the Post Office approved the name "Baleville" in the 1870s (formerly the P.O. was "Pleasant Valley") and the Board of Geographic Names called it "Balesville", or vice versa. Both are still used, don't get me wrong, but more people (including Hampton Township's government) call it "Baleville." That's government for you.—ExplorerCDT 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless plug on the Shanghai uni

Doesn't it seem awkward that all the 500 unniversities in their rankings have a link on their page to that Chinese uni, while there is no link from Princeton to Oxford or Cambridge? I think that this is a kind of self promotion that goes on my nerves esp. snce I don't know how to stop it (how t start a debate on the entire issue of this ranking thing) and I have serious doubts about anything from PRC. I am 100% that they picked the criteria that will suit them and that they even don't follow those criteria.

Your contributions, such as the ol' navy officer are a grace for the Wikipedia crowd. They will always be more informative, if informative means what you think: tons of words and no selection criteria. I consider the other way around, hence I admit my mistake, which was wasting time for an ungrateful community. I will not do it again. Thanks for the enlightment. Keep up the good work!--Luci_Sandor 03:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When Oxford or Cambridge puts together a ranking system, then they'll be linked from University websites. It's not self-promotion. Tons of universities offer a ranking of their peers in certain subject areas, etc. The SJTU ranking is actually more informative and the criterion (Though heavily math/science oriented and neglecting a bit of the humanities) is rather comprehensive...much more so than the oft-cited, yet statistically-idiotic U.S. News & World Report Rankings which are nothing more than a marketing gimmick to sell magazines. —ExplorerCDT 21:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

we seem to have a lot in common, ran across you more than once on here, thought I would say hi!--Caligvla 08:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenia

Call for calm

I was ready to hand out an incivility warning to CDT until Night GYR overwrote the offending message. So I'll break things down as I see them:

Copyright violations are a serious matter. Two-year-old copyright violations that have been corrected are not so serious if the user hasn't repeated the problem in a while.
Blanking a comment from one's own user talk page isn't good Wikiquette, but it isn't necessarily a policy violation either. Editors have a good deal of freedom in user space.
Gross incivility toward another user isn't an appropriate use of that freedom, even if it's in one's own user space.
Blanking another editor's user space isn't such a good thing either, especially when it's overwritten with other material and not acknowledged in the edit summary.

Remember, editing an encyclopedia isn't a matter of life and death. Respectfully, Durova 15:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biography header

Could you refrain from removing existing headers and replacing them with "biography" until there is a ruling on the issue? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I see no need for a ruling (at least I haven't been pointed to a discussion showing there will be a ruling), and I'm consolidating terribly "chaptered" articles (under the "be bold" policy). You're basically asking me to stop editing "your" articles since you dispute my treatment of articles you've edited (implying "ownership" another policy no-no).—ExplorerCDT 14:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulins Kill Peer Review

I ran the script and put in the article's talk page. It is not perfect and will sometimes be goofy (I saw it said no images were present). I just read it more carefully and like what is there, but it will need more references if it is to become featured. Zambezi and Larrys Creek are the two featured river / stream articles. Larrys Creek is a similar size to Paulins Kill and may give you some ideas (I am principal author of it, in the interest of full disclosure). Take care, Ruhrfisch 02:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you were the principal author. In fact, your work on Larrys Creek inspired me to try to bring Paulinskill up to that level. —ExplorerCDT 17:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I was trying not to toot my own horn, but I thought if you didn't know the article it might be a useful one to look at. Ruhrfisch 02:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I answered the " & n b s p ; " question elsewhere, but it is a nonbreaking space, not just a space. I get most of my maps from the Census webpage (factfinder.census.gov) and modify accordingly. Take care, Ruhrfisch 02:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for letting me know, i didn't know the difference. Regarding the map, I might do that if i can find the time to reload photoshop into my computer. Thanks again! —ExplorerCDT 04:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you nominate it, I would put a notice on the Wikiproject Rivers and New Jersey talk pages so people with an interest can weigh in. One thing I was surprised by was how much work it was. It took me much longer than I expected just to nominate it (I didn't want to make some dumb mistake in the process so I double checked everything) and then any comments / requests for changes feel like they have to be answered right away. For example, I had maybe a dozen footnotes in my lead paragraphs and had to take them all out and move them down into the body of the article. I also had to add a section on pollution mostly from scratch and expand the name section. My thought was I wanted to fix problems as quickly as possible to get support votes early so it set a precendent. Even then at the end I had a request for a (sub) article on the covered bridge (which I still have to write). If you are interested, it is all here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Larrys Creek. It is hard to tell what objections people may have. Some of the wikilinks are repeated, but that is OK once per new section. I tried to mention other possible objections in the peer review. One reason to look at FACs now is to get some idea of what current active reviewers are looking for - some people weigh in on almost all the FACs. Hope this helps. Ruhrfisch 05:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has an excellent chance of becoming a FA, but am sure there will be things that need to be changed in the process. While it is OK to nominate an article for FA while it is still in peer review if the peer review is essentially done (all concerns raised have been addressed, as is the case here), I think it is considered bad form to be considered for both GA and FA at the same time (and if you get FA, they remove GA anyway - happened to Larrys Creek). If you are eager to get into FAC, I would remove your nom from the GA list (explain why) and submit it to FAC. If you want to wait a little, I will take one last look at the article and my previous comments and let you know here what I think they may raise objections to (I can do this within the next 12-16 hours). This will be my guess only (obviously). Once it is in FAC, it will probably take about 2 weeks (maybe less) for a decision. Look at the Signpost for the recent featured articles and see how long it took them and the changes that were made to them. Ruhrfisch 12:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I'll wait until you get a chance to take another deep look at the article, then I'll take your advice of withdrawing GA and aiming for FA. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reread it and looked at the refs much more closely, as well as the pictures and their refs. I view these as possible problems - more things to be aware of than "must be changed" (except as noted). Some items I have mentioned before are still concerns: lack of refs (esp. in flora and fauna) and the list-y nature of flora and fauna. New items: There are 6 or so red links in the article. I already mentioned using "ref name=" but looking at the refs I see several that are identical refs, so they may object to that. I also see one book cited that is not yet published and seems to be by you, which raises possible issues of both verifiability and no original research. I think the problem goes away once the book is published. Also be consistent on refs and books - as one example, some books say NO ISBN, others do not have ISBNs but do not say this. Some web refs have access dates, others do not. As long as you are consistent I think it is OK. Finally, two of the images may have source problems. The first image should be easily fixed: just give the source of the federal image (URL). The second is the Schaefer (sp?) house photo - unless it says on the website that the photo is freely available or has whatever free license, it may not be accepted. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 04:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your book. I think if you put the email on the image page that would likely be OK. As I said, I am not sure this would be a problem, but FAC usually gets some pretty close scrutiny. I am not sure how to make it less list-y, except perhaps to add more descriptive text, but then I am not sure what to add that is not just padding. It may be someone will say they should made into a separate list article with a summary left in the PK article. I would not do this now, just be as prepared as possible. If someone raises the list complaint, ask them what to do ;-). One minor point - are you sure a killdeer is a bird of prey? Ruhrfisch 17:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe to grubs. The killdeer thing is a joke between me and another wikipedian. He hasn't had the chance to see it yet. —ExplorerCDT 17:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, probably want to change it after he sees it. Did not obviously find the Princeton joke. Ruhrfisch 03:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you read / know the Lenape language? From the article it seems like you might or else have very good references. If you do read it, I have a question for you. Ruhrfisch 03:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have two questions, both for stream names in north-central Pennsylvania. The first is for two streams White Deer Creek and White Deer Hole Creek (the latter is my next attempt at FA). According to [3] the names are "Woap'-achtu-hanne" (white deer stream = WDC) and "Woap-achtu-woalhen" (white deer digs a hole = WDHC). Basically I wondered if there were other possible meanings / translations, especially of White Deer Hole Creek? It is such an odd name and "white deer digs a hole" doesn't make much sense, so I wondered if it made any more sense in Lenape? I want to add it and a bunch of other things to WDHC. Right now there is an old settler's tale in the article, but since the Lenape name is older, it seems more likely to me the English is a translation. The second question is for Lycoming Creek. Lycoming is a corruption of the Lenape name, but I am not sure what that was. Meginness says it is "Legani Hanne" [4] and the state legislature named part of US Route 15 in Lycoming County along the creek the "Legani Hanne Trail" [5]. So what does Legani mean (I know Hanne is stream)? Some say it means 'sandy' or 'gravelly' (sp?), others 'beautiful'. I tend to believe the former. Thanks for any help with this, Ruhrfisch 03:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. I just assumed Rutgers was a prominent enough figure to have a dorm and a university named for him. I am not able to attend the Wiki meetup in NYC, but thanks for the invitation. Ruhrfisch 03:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know you think the Princeton thing is a joke, but some would see it as vandalism. If I find or know of an error in Wikipedia I correct it. Sorry to ruin the joke, but I hope you understand my reasons. Ruhrfisch 03:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let me know when Paulins Kill is FAC and I will weigh in (with full disclosure that I have edited it some as part of the Peer Review porcess). Keep up the good work and take care, Ruhrfisch 12:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry on the Lenape things - more something I was curious about and will include eventually. GA review takes a while, just more requests than reviewers. One other idea I had is do you have any idea of the population of the PK watershed / valley? Even if you just said the total population of the townships / towns, that would give an upper limit. As I said somewhere else before, I have also enjoyed the process and got some ideas for stream articles I am working on. I'm sure I'll ask for your comments / input on those when I get that far. Take care, Ruhrfisch 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umlauts and category indexing

After you reverted my edits to Erich Mühsam [6], I noticed that you've made this mistake before[7]. According to WP:CAT, accents (including umlauts) should be removed from names when sorting articles in categories. Furthermore, a consensus has been reached [8] for sorting "ü" as "u" and not "ue"; this has the advantages of being intuitive for people with little knowledge of German, and of being consistent with the practices followed by encyclopaedias in both English and German. Please do not continue to restore umlauts to category sort keys. It is not "an ignorant mispelling" [sic]; I am fully aware of umlauts and will insist on including them where they belong. The text after the pipe symbol after "[[Category:…" is never seen, and only serves to put the article in the correct place in a category listing. Yes, "Muhsam" would be a misspelling, but sorting "Mühsam" after "My" would be just as bad. --Stemonitis 15:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this consensus as it is perpetuating something completely incorrect. This is not the habit of credible German encyclopedias, and is wholly inconsistent with the recent Rechtschreibreform (with which I also disagree). Perpetuating this error adds an aura of wounded credibility to Wikipedia. If it were a proper transliteration (ü to ue), I'd have no objection. I'd bet the 77% of Germans consider the Rechtschreibreform not to be sensible would consider your intentionally incorrect orthography and a rather shadily-arranged consensus on massacring the umlaut (three or four people is not sufficiently overwhelming to be called a consensus) to be likewise.—ExplorerCDT 16:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I said "blatant mispelling". If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly. Then again, you seem to have too hard a habit for incorrectness. To defend the use of "mispelling" minus the second "s" was only to fit the entire summary in, as I reached the character threshold. In all reality, I should have just used the ß. —ExplorerCDT 16:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply at my talk page. It's best to keep all the discussion in one place. --Stemonitis 16:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meetup

Well, you can go to http://wikipedia.meetup.com/ and click on "Start a Meetup Group". The NYC one is defunct, so you can start it anew. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that we've been criss-crossing

at places such as Lee Lawrie and Bertram Goodhue so thought i'd pose this question to you. In the Goodhue article i found the following sentence.

In 1915, Goodhue re-interpreted a masterful Spanish Gothic style for the signature buildings on the toylike avenue, El Prado, in Balboa Park for the 1915 Panama-California Exposition, for which he was the lead designer.

What do you think of it? Especially the Spanish Gothic part - though toylike is not great either (opinion).? Carptrash 23:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the style sucks. "Masterful" might be POV. "Toylike" isn't a word. Perhaps coquettish or whimsical or flummery would be a better adjective.—ExplorerCDT 23:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I started changing things around, then got called for dinner, [talk about "Masterful" ] but check it out. Carptrash 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banciu

With pleasure. Dahn 13:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming NYC Meetup

You wanted to know when the next meetup was being organized in New York City. Plan for Saturday, 9 December 2006. While you're at it. Come help us decide on a restaurant. See: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Spread the word. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 22:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost There

The Armenia debate is comming close to a compromise, since you commented before, though you would want to check out this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Walton_monarchist89#Straw_poll-Armenia --Caligvla 15:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Bold text[reply]

New Brunswick transportation

Seriously, what's the problem with calling Amtrak service there "infrequent"? If I was editing the Princeton train station articles, I'd call Amtrak service there infrequent too. Consider that almost every non-Acela train stops at Metropark, vs. 10 or less trains a day at either NB or Princeton. In this context, Amtrak service is clearly infrequent. Unlike Metropark, you can't just normally show up at NB expecting the next Amtrak to come within the next hour. Consider also the context of that paragraph, which contrasts Amtrak with NJT service. There's clearly a far higher number of NJT trains that stop at NB than Amtrak. Wl219 21:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Infrequent" is a tumbleweed town along the Union Pacific that sees a train once a month, if that. Princeton and New Brunswick have daily Amtrak service, that is not "infrequent" by any comparison, connotation, denotation, etc. If you don't believe me, read the definition: here. Amtrak service to NB or Pton is not by any stretch of the imagination "infrequent" considering it happens every day, several times a day. —ExplorerCDT 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 180: / Line 180: @@
 ****I know you think the Princeton thing is a joke, but some would see it as vandalism. If I find or know of an error in Wikipedia I correct it. Sorry to ruin the joke, but I hope you understand my reasons. [[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] 03:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 *****Let me know when Paulins Kill is FAC and I will weigh in (with full disclosure that I have edited it some as part of the Peer Review porcess). Keep up the good work and take care, [[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] 12:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
+:No hurry on the Lenape things - more something I was curious about and will include eventually. GA review takes a while, just more requests than reviewers. One other idea I had is do you have any idea of the population of the PK watershed / valley? Even if you just said the total population of the townships / towns, that would give an upper limit. As I said somewhere else before, I have also enjoyed the process and got some ideas for stream articles I am working on. I'm sure I'll ask for your comments / input on those when I get that far. Take care, [[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 == Umlauts and category indexing ==