This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bkonrad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

If you deleted the references to the U.S. cities of the same name. I think you should reconsider. Irish emigrants probably settled in these places and it is good to know that they exist. Michael O' Carroll 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to. Can you provide some links or some other context? older ≠ wiser 19:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're referring to this edit. I removed that partial list because that is the purpose of disambiguation pages, such as Kilkenny (disambiguation), which is linked at the top of the Kilkenny page. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 19:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored your lighthouse images to Commons. —Angr 18:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You probably want -when you are able to login- to enable mail notification of changes on your commons talk page. Platonides 22:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, not being able to log in is an as yet insurmountable initial hurdle. older ≠ wiser 23:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've been using Martinp23's NPWatcher and noticed the problem last night, but didn't have time to follow up. I'll get him on the fix! --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 23:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

@ http://www.leelanaupost.com/ Check it out.

Formatting discussion at Talk:John Harvey Kellogg#Formating. —SlamDiego 05:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey I was wondering why you merged the Dublin article with Norman township. It was under the Michigan wikiproject for things to be done/created and it fits criteria for being unique/of interest because of James Earl Jones being from there....Strunke 07:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I dislike short, stubby articles that are unlikely to be expanded. I generally merge such stubby content about places into the next higher sub-division, which in Michigan is usually a township. If you have more detailed, and verifiably sourced, information with which to expand the Dublin, Michigan article, then by all means do so. BTW, being the birthplace of someone moderately famous is not necessarily a reason to have a standalone article about a place if that is the sum of what makes it notable. older ≠ wiser 23:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just frustrating for someone to just merge the article after you took the work to make it. Stubby or not and whether you like it or not. It was on the list for creation and should be left alone. It is not going to be an elaborate article because it's only small town without any real history available on the internet. Strunke 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the frustration. It is however common practice to merge stubby content, not merely a peculiarity of mine. As you acknowledge, there is very little prospect that this would ever amount to anything more than a stub. Simply because something is on a list somewhere or other does not mean much of anything as far was what happens to it after it is created. There is a sizable contingent of veteran editors here who will merge such stubby content into articles that provide more context. Besides, it is not like the content is gone. And a link to Dublin, Michigan will still take a reader to that information, so I'm not sure what the objection is. older ≠ wiser 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than removing this template, I think we should improve it. We could use the talk page to hash out ideas for how this could work. I don't see how it is misleading at all.--futurebird 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The template implies a clearly defined hierarchy, while the precise relations of the hierarchy is nowhere very clearly established. Some of the steps of the hierarchy ended in "to be determined" or some such vagary. In all, the template is, as my edit summary indicated unusual, rather inscrutable and somewhat misleading. older ≠ wiser 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

help

Hi, i need your help

One of your admin, Doc glasgow , is threatening me and blocking my account. We have a dispute in the definition on living person.

Please contact me for more information.

Thanks

I don't got time to fight with people like you. If you don't like what I do, please leave a comment on my Talk Page. Asher Heimermann 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Who's fighting? You made a cut and paste move and I reverted you. We can talk anytime you like. older ≠ wiser 20:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

However, I feel you are making unconstructive edits. And I belive that is considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Asher Heimermann 20:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves, let alone, cut and paste moves, are also unconstructive edits. older ≠ wiser 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please! Asher Heimermann 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Oh please" what? Are you saying that either undiscussed or cut and paste moves are acceptable? older ≠ wiser 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I just don't have time for people like you. Feel free to contact me at [email protected] Asher Heimermann 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, with an attitude like that, why should I bother? older ≠ wiser 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if you could help me. You would know me user:knowpedia. I have contributed to wikipedia for about 6 months. I enjoy making edits and creating new articles. I recently ran into a group of wikipedians who had it out for me. I AFD a controversial article. From that, a campaign against me began. All involved began reporting that I used vandal proof once (my first time using it), in a manner that disruptive to wikipedia.

They blocked me from editing on wikipedia. The reason stated was vandalism only account. Thats why I came to you. You have come across me in the past. Many of my edits also had been edited by you. I do not deny the vandalism; however it was to user pages who had been using there user pages as way to have some fun at my expense. I did not vandalise wikipedia articles. I would like to be able to use my user:knowpedia account and not create a new one. Please help if you can. Thanks --71.10.138.47 07:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that you don't like a particular succession box that's used in many U. S. Senator articles and have immediately reverted edits when that succession box appears in Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. While it's a very good idea to keep a close eye on articles to quickly remove vandalism and it's a debatable point whether that particular succession box is necessary, you might want to consider whether you are exercising undue ownership over those two articles. Do others share your opposition to the use of that succession box in those two articles? Thanks. Rickterp 19:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For a "verifiable source" on Delaware's inclusion in the list of former colonies in the Treaty of Paris, the primary sources would be the US Government's publication of old treaties, _Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America_ (Hunter Miller, ed.), published by the US Government Printing Office in 1931. This is the source cited by Yale's Avalon Project, but their etext is wrong in leaving out Delaware, which is between Pennsylvania and Maryland in the original document.

The Wikisource text (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Treaty), source unfortunately not noted, gets Delaware's inclusion correctly, as does EarlyAmerica.com, quoting an English newspaper from 1783

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/paris/

This article includes a jpg of the text, and it's not hard to find Delaware listed (article I, almost at the bottom of the column)

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/paris/1.jpg

This kind of thing presents a difficulty for Wikipedia sourcing, since so many sites have copied the Avalon Project's mistake (which they have not fixed despite being notified by at least two people I know of). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.241.227.35 (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've restored your edits to the article and have added a note with links to the facsimile you mention and to versions introduced in the Continental Congress. older ≠ wiser 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the John C Lodge thread. Tim Wohlford, Spring Arbor MI. [email protected] 29 Jan 07. Twohlford 02:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In your edit summary at {{Template:Infobox city you stated "Rv edits that add a redlinked category (that had been deleted long ago by CfD) to every article that uses this -- please find another way to do whatever it is that you're trying to do." You may take note that what I am trying to do is discussed at WP:CCT. If you wish to discuss these any issues I would sugest you bring this up ther. You will notice that because you removed the automated process of categorization withing this template that the the category UTC-5 is now nominated for deletion. Can you please give me a reason other than the frustrating rhitoric of "it been deleted long ago" (I assume you mean once in the past) per "whatever your sources are?" Can you please provide your sources. I can't seem to find anything in the special logs that says this article was ever deleted.(never mind I found that category nomination: Really, so almost two years ago. Oh boy... I still fail to see the reason) In anticipation of your friendly response and possible chance to WP:BOLD in not necessarilly reverting someone but actually talking to them to create something constructive, thank you in advance. --CyclePat 07:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding a redlinked category to articles that have no clear or easily understood reason is bad form. Sorry if I could not figure out what you were up to, but it really is up to you to do better PR before undertaking such high profile actions. BTW, I did manage to find CCT and comment there [1] about what I had done. I looked over the CCT pages and still could not really understand what you were about. older ≠ wiser 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you've met one of WP's nuisances. I am glad to see he's being polite; and I hope you do not need to reopen Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon; but I provide the link in case you need it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again,

After looking at my options, it appears I picked the wrong one for the licensing picture on the Alan Sanborn page... If it becomes an issue beyond being nitpicky (I doubt anyone is going to be upset the picture was used off a public government site, and as I know the Senator personally, he doesn't mind), please feel free to get it from the Senate site and upload it again, tagging it properly. I wasn't sure which one to use. Thanks. Adam 16:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Dammit, I was supposed to reply on *my* talk page. Sorry. I figured you wouldn't see it. Adam 16:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that having persons from a particular US state (Foo) in the 'People from Foo' might be sufficient for history and all other purposes, but maybe not. So similar to the 'People of Foo in the American Civil War' categories that I created, I am thinking of creating the following: 'People of F00 in the American Revolution' and 'People of colonial F00', both of which would be subcategories of both 'People from F00' and 'History of F00'. Any given person could be in both categories if they were prominent in both periods. Persons would be removed from the 'People from Foo' category itself unless they were also prominent after the Revolution (this is how it seems to be with the persons in 'People of Foo in the American Civil War' category. What do you think? Thanks Hmains 03:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well this is better than simply removing the people from the History of foo categories. But how finely will you divide the period categories? And does it make sense to always divide things into more and more granular sub-categories? I don't really see what the problem is with having articles about people in a History of foo category. In cases where there is a major event or clearly delineated era that would have well-populated subcategories, then that would make sense. But then there is also the problem that some pivotal figures are going to belong to dozens of these highly granularized categories. older ≠ wiser 13:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I know. That is why I am only thinking of 2: colonial and revolution. Hmains 19:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have no objections to your plans for those specific categories. I hope that if there are articles about people in a History of foo category that do not neatly fit in one or both of those two categories, that they would remain in the History of foo category. older ≠ wiser 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do my best. And of course, other editors do change things. Hmains 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused on how to do it so that I can help prevent vandalism. I tried doing it but it didn't restore the history of each page so I left that up to the experts. ViriiK 03:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone had moved the page and its edit history. It's not like reverting an edit. You have to move the page back to the original name (using the move function, not by cutting and pasting). But if you're not an admin, sometimes you may not be able to move a page back to its original location. If that's the case, then it's best to just alert an admin to the situation through WP:AN. older ≠ wiser 03:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, thought it was a typo. Just finished the 4th district yesterday. Jjmillerhistorian 14:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Census-designated place(CDP) and Unincorporated area (UA) are not the same.

• CDP are a construct of the Census Bureau, part of USA National goverment. Similar to Post Office "City" they don't match the municipal or UA that is offical to the State. Read the Census-designated placearticle as it does indicated that the area of a CDP does not neccessarily match those of the UA.
• UA/local places are a construct of local uses and State designation.

Read the history of Swartz Creek, Michigan formerly Miller Settlement and how names of the local and Post office can differ. One part of Swartz Creek, Otterburn is still designated as a location (see above link). The Swartz Creek P.O. does deliver into Clayton, Gaines, Flint and Mundy Townships.

CDP and UA are general speaking apples and oranges just sharing the same name. So in regards to your "repair intro" edits of Argentine, Michigan, Beecher, Michigan and Lake Fenton, Michigan are not repairing anything and just confusing the two. In some respects, CDP and the UA articles should be seperate articles but there has been procedure to include Michigan unincorporated communities with in the Township as there isn't much to say about them. With the CDPs and UAs sharing names, they seem to be sharing an article in a similar manner to the non-CDP UAs in the Township's articles. For example the Beecher, Michigan CDP if you read the Beecher article, Genesee Township, Michigan and Mount Morris Township, Michigan indicate that the CDP goes into Genesee Township while the Beecher UA is sole within Mt. Morris Township. While my edits may not be the greatest way to go, these don't muck the articles up. I am open to other ways to change the article but the way those article were is not correct. Spshu 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs. For most purposes that are of any interest to most people who are not specialists in demographics or urban planning, a CDP is often synonymous with an unincorporated community. In some cases, there may be some significant discrepancy between the CDP and the common local understanding of the community with the same name. In such cases the article should attempt to clarify the distinction. But unless actually is such a significant discrepancy as to cause confusion, I don't see what your point is. older ≠ wiser 00:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bkonrad. A little puzzled by your comments and actions in reversing the various David Stuart moves and dabs.

I can see that your apparent concern is that most of the existing links to David Stuart intend the politician- however, when I did the move of the dab pg David Stuart was at that time just a redirect to David Stuart (disambiguation) (and not a redirect to David Stuart (politician)). As the only other links to David Stuart (disambiguation) were in the hatnotes and there was no 'main' article at David Stuart itself, it made evident sense for the disambig to appear at the page where the ambiguous links actually pointed to, and not a redirect to a dab page.

I did set about fixing the links in the hatnotes, but as for example I was not 100% sure that the Col. David Stuart mentioned at Battle of Shiloh was one and the same as the politician, I hadn't progressed any further without doing some more looking up (possible ambiguous links intending the Mayanist have been fixed up previously by myself and others even before that article had been created, which is why there are none such which point to the dab page now).

I probably should have perservered, or examined the edit histories in more detail to ascertain that someone (you it seems) had previously changed the David Stuart redirect to point at the politician's article, but then another editor had since changed it to point to the (disambiguation) page. Then again, perhaps for the same amount of effort it took to set everything back the way it was, the handful of remaining ambiguous links could have been resolved.

Anyway I don't suppose it matters all that much at the moment if the remaining links to David Stuart intend the politician. I've run out of time do rearrange things for today, but unless someone else does I will later on move the disambig sense back, and fix the remaining dablinks. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 06:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who did the page move, and I'm a bit miffed by your "couldn't be bothered" comment. There's really no need to be nasty. I simply forgot the step of following up all the many links. When I did, I was completely surprised by the huge number that linked to such a tiny stub. Something's weird here. I'm going to assume they all relate to the politician, since the dates seem to match, but I'll have to leave it to those who are familiar with the career of that particular David Stuart to repair any incorrect references. I'll take care of the Mayanist. Cbdorsett 14:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be "nasty". I admit I can be a little terse in edit summaries. A few minutes of investigation would have made clear that, yes, all those links for "such a tiny stub" are indeed for the subject of that article. Since the links have been cleaned up, I've moved David Stuart back to David Stuart (disambiguation). The remaining links to David Stuart (disambiguation) are either on talk pages or are deliberate links to the disambiguation page and as such are OK (makes it easier for people who subsequently check What links here for David Stuart to distinguish between deliberate links and accidental links. older ≠ wiser 14:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem Bkonrad, next time I'll also be more painstaking in reviewing the history and finishing up the task. Thanks for completing those remaining changes. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ur shearin' da 2nd round
Was sagely sound

Namaste in agape
Walking my talk in beauty B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I was in the middle of updating the US County Template. It is fine now. /Timneu22 16:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jackson County, Michigan still looks a little funky -- empty brackets for Seat. older ≠ wiser 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:TRIV? That explains much better than I can what should be done with trivia sections. CovenantD 21:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at it, and I don't entirely agree with it. It's a reasonable guideline, but that's about it. I fail to see the point of tagging articles that have a modest amount of generally relevant "trivia" with a honking ugly tag. older ≠ wiser 21:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, and {{toomuchtrivia}} is just the name of the template; the wording itself now more accurately reflects the guideline and makes no mention of "too much" (which I agree is too subjective). CovenantD

I'm writing to suggest that the "naturalized citizen" cat be restored to the article on James McMillan. I'd do so myself, but as a user new to editing I'm not sure how and I've noticed that you removed it once and I wanted to avoid stepping on anyone's toes.

McMillan was born in Canada to parents of Scottish birth. I'm not sure if they were naturalized Canadian citizens or still Scottish citizens, but they were not American citizens and therefor McMillan could not have been born a US citizen. Since he later became a US Senator, he must have become a naturalized citizen at some point, though I admittedly have no idea when.

I hope that this is helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sdonlin (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, if you have a source for the information, please add it to the article. older ≠ wiser 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and help. <KF> 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In the past you have revert the page template:Infobox city. You destroyed the category:UTC-5. Recently you done the same and have removed an important part from this template. You have diminished the quality of wikipedia by removing valid information from the category category:Cities in the UTC timezone. Your last edit destroyed the category:Cities in the UTC-5 timezone. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to template:Infobox city. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. [2]

Your calling my edit vandalism is ridiculous. Your edits break the template. I am restoring the template to a non-broken condition. If you call that vandalism, then I suggest we take this to WP:AN to get some other opinions. older ≠ wiser 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been reported to WP:AIV for further action. --CyclePat 03:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a lack of good-faith here to improve the encyclopedia. You have on one hand voted to delete a category for which is ironically effected by this template. Your lacks of arms lenghts underminds wikipedia and violates WP:VAN. I have reverted you vandalism for a second time. Please leave this template intact until you/we resolve the category deletion. Thank you! --CyclePat 03:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, um -- are you calling up down? or saying that black is white? It is incumbent on YOU to not break the template. Sorry, but I think you may be the one needing to take an arm's length from this topic. older ≠ wiser 03:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am very defensive to the rules of wikipedia and last time I was at Cfd I feel like I was taken by the way it went. I did not do everything possible to defend the category from being changed prior to deletion. Currently, the delete nomination is truly not fair. I remembered having seen your name in the previous category deletion. Apparently, between the both of us we where able to resolved the display issues. I appologize if I insulted you by my lack of clearness in defining our past interactions. I still, however, feel that the specific problem with the categorisation and the Cfd is there and is influencing the CfD in a negative fashion. Could you please give a reference to your exact concerns so we may attempt to correct the problem. Thank you! --CyclePat 05:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)