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.

since you mentioned it, you are correct in thinking they don't work

Excerpt:

2) Rex071404, Bkonrad and others who have committed petty offenses are admonished to consult Wikipedia:Wikiquette and to conform their edits to that standard.

Passed 6 to 0

3) Rex071404 is banned for 4 months from editing Wikipedia articles which concern United States politics.

Passed 6 to 0

4.1) Rex071404 is banned from reverting any article for six months.

Passed 5 to 0 with 1 abstain

5) In view of his demonstrated deficiencies in engaging in and interpreting the results of research Rex071404 is required to cite a relevant authority, either by footnote or by comment embedded in the text, which supports every [disputed] edit he makes.

Passed 5 to 1

For principles, findings of fact, and enforcement see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404#Final decision. --mav 05:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reverting was irresponsible. It is a valid, credible source. That it is not only about Hamilton is not the only important thing. I reallize I should ahve checked the talk page before adding it again, but again, removal was unneccessary. See the talk page and discuss there please. - Taxman 17:41, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that it was a "valid, credible source". You are entitled to your opinion about whether my action was irresponsible. I will continue to monitor the talk page. older≠wiser 17:44, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. New London and Wrightstown are centered in counties other than Outagamie County, Wisconsin. It seems rather pointless to include cities/villages/towns in more than one county list when the individual place articles can mention that sort of information. I do understand some of the peculiarities of dealing with Wisconsin's named places after having done many of its locale article dot-maps. If you feel they should be reverted, by all means do so. Since New London is a "partial" locale, it also should be marked as such if readded to the list (like Wrightstown was). Bumm13 21:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See my answer on my talk page. I have an unresolved problem and maybe the rest suits your concerns. -- Ram-Man 02:18, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hi there! I've made some comments on the Talk:Pocahontas page about a family tree I've found online which shows Robert Bolling, Jr. to be the son of Jane Rolf, rather than of his father's second wife, and Bush to be a Pocahontas descendant through her. I'm aware that no genealogy is infallable, but this is by far the most comprehensive one I've ever seen. David Cannon 14:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your question about my edit to the City article: No, I hadn't actually researched the law when I made that change. I dimly remembered a newspaper article in either the S.F. Chronicle or S.J. Mercury News, though I can't remember the cite off the top of my head.

I just looked up the relevant statutes and it looks like you are right. The only current distinction in California law is between general law cities, chartered cities, and unincorporated cities and towns. But a city can choose to change its name to a "town" and vice versa.

Judging from the casenotes in West's Annotated California Codes, it looks like there used to be a formal distinction between several different "classes" of California cities under the Classification Act of 1883, based on population size; this may be where newspaper journalists got the general idea of a difference between "cities" and "towns," and I probably derived that idea from reading various newspaper articles when I was a child. However, it also it appears that such classes disappeared at some point between 1943 and 1988 when the California Legislature made extensive revisions to California municipal law.

If I had more time I would go track down the specific date, but I'm a bit too busy right now. Feel free to revert my edits.

Hi there! No, I don't think you and I have been involved in any disagreements at any time:-) Perhaps my choice of words, "for once," was not the best, but I was referring to the rather heated discussions I've been involved in with Lir (to whom I was responding), sometimes on his side and sometimes not. Sorry I didn't make that a little clearer (though I'm sure he knows what I was referring to:-) David Cannon 00:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. What you say makes sense; feel free to change it back. (I was actually working on the Webster disambig page, and updated the Webster, Wisconsin page as a side effect.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:35, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or even {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 50 most and you've done a lot of work with cities and counties. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing), you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}} -- Ram-Man 16:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

In regards to your post at Talk:American Southeast: Actually, the weather channel has used a definition that includes those states for years see this map and many other weather services have adopted the destinction. Aside from meterological maps; in my personal experience as a Texan, the description of Texas as part of the Southeast is usually envoked by native Texas Southerns who want to keep the state included with the rest of the South or by inhabitants of the larger metropolitan areas who want to distance themselves from the stereotypes that Texas is backwards by asociating Dallas and especially Houston with Eastern cities like New York and Boston. The first usage ties into the use of Southeast as a synonym of the South and I think its understandable that some people would not want feel like they were excluded from the rest of thier home region. The second use, in my personal opinion, seems less redemable geographically and more like some trick a chamber of commerce might use. I've heard the use of the Gulf of Mexico as an extension of the Atlantic coastline as a justification for including the Gulf States as part of the Eastern Seboard before, maybe that ties into part of the reasoning, I don't feel that I can speak authorotatively on anythign but the first use. I hope this answers your questions feel free to post of my talk page, please forgive me if it does nto I have spent the majority of the past two days of a train from Chicago. -JCarriker 05:40, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I recently started the article for Jackson Community College, but am not sure which categories should be placed onto the article. So far, I have only put Category:Jackson County, Michigan but am not sure which education or statewide categories should be placed onto it. Any advice? Mdkarazim 18:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For now I added it to Category:Universities and colleges in Michigan. If it ever gets to a point where that category is so over-populated as to be confusing, the community colleges can be moved into a subcategory. older≠wiser 20:21, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with your recent change to Template:United States state capitals; see Template talk:United States state capitals, please (and respond there please, if you respond). —msh210 22:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I really like your explanation of how consoldiated government is in Nashville; I had been wanting to put something like that in there but didn't know how to say it so succinctly. How did you happen to know so much about it? Are you a former Nashville resident or just a tremendously astute student of local government? Feel free to hit my talk page. Rlquall 18:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see you removed my cut and pastings. History is History... why waste time re-writing the choice of words if I can take it from the Public City website??? Lets see if you try to remove the pictures I want to upload. I'm from Montebello, whats your connection to the city? User:Lebite

Reply at User talk:Lebite#Copyrighted materials.

From Lebite: Okay.. you want to play super policeman, fine. Don't erase my next revision. I've summarized the Montebello website history section, maybe a few sentences are from the original, so its not worth erasing.

So, your connection to the city of Montebello is irrelevant? You just like watching the updates to its wikipage?

And yes, I'm very new to this. Haven't totally figured out pictures, and these talk pages. Thanks for the helpful hints.

Lebite 14:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just so you know I replied on Jengods page. From Lebite (The Plageriser) : Thanks for "wikifying" what I have added. I know Bkonrad just loves to completely erase things that he considers to be below his standards. I just hope he can relax enough to accept history I inserted. I don't think the mayor of my city is going to get mad that I used the structure of history report from the city's website to create one for Wikipedia. And yes, I am lazy... because I am not unemployed. But if someone feels the need to erase because of little bits.. why not fix it up instead of destroying what some people actually care about. I'm also sorry we have gotton off on the wrong foot.

Lebite 16:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lebite, making condescending remarks is not a good strategy for gaining respect. I really am glad to see you making contributions to Wikipedia. But please try to observe the guidelines here. Despite what you may think, I do not take any great pleasure in removing that material. But it is quite plainly plagiarized without even any attempt at attribution. older≠wiser 16:07, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

BKonrad, How about this. Its not much to fix up, I tried and seemed to have failed in making you happy. So why not take a red pen and fix it up yourself. It isnt much to fix up.Lebite 16:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure how strongly you feel about verbatim copying of copyrighted material, but most of the history section is taken verbatim from the city web site, with a few very minor alterations. I was about to remove it again, but noticed that you had started to wikify it. I'm of the opinion that it needs much more extensive rewriting to avoid plagiarism/copyvio, but I wasn't sure if you were interested in taking it up. (I know, I know, I could have done it myself by now--but there's a principle around here somewhere, I think). older≠wiser 15:36, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

From Lebite (The Plageriser) : Thanks for "wikifying" what I have added. I know Bkonrad just loves to completely erase things that he considers to be below his standards. I just hope he can relax enough to accept history I inserted. I don't think the mayor of my city is going to get mad that I used the structure of history report from the city's website to create one for Wikipedia. And yes, I am lazy... because I am not unemployed. But if someone feels the need to erase.. why not fix it up instead of destroying what some people actually care about. Lebite 15:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lebite, making condescending remarks is not a good strategy for gaining respect. I really am glad to see you making contributions to Wikipedia. But please try to observe the guidelines here. Despite what you may think, I do not take any great pleasure in removing that material. But it is quite plainly plagiarized without even any attempt at attribution. older≠wiser 16:06, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

D'oh! Sorry B, didn't realize that was the copyvio in question. I am dumb. I'll take the hit and do the removal. Lebite, you gotta say it in your own words. Them's the rules! :) jengod 18:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

The OH state's department of development had a great deal of aggravation reconciing census numbers. Their conclusion was the 6 of the 6,000+ people on the CDP lived in Springfield Twp. I don't know hw much area is involved, or how it would look on the map. See [1] for a PDF report on the entiire county with CDPs reconciled. Thanks, 19:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I saw you had reverted the removal of offensive information about the society. If you have a look at the mission statement setup by our founding spiritual master, you will notice that no where in there does it say we "plan to get involved in all sorts of demoniac abuse". Those who did those terrible acts have been banished from the society. The society was setup to build a community of devotees who can practice and help others in Krishna/GOD Consciousness. ISKCON is only represented by those who follow and uphold these values. Those who don't, cannot and shouldn't dare call themselves ISKCON.

Like many spiritual movements this movement has also had issues with insincere demoniac personalities. As humans we make mistakes. The mistake I'd like to point is that what we think another is really not how they may really behave. Despite lovingly involving those people they turned out to be demoniac and in order to protect the movement they were banished.

We want others to know what we really are about. If someone is sincerely interested in spirituality they will understand our true nature and mission. In this terrible age of quarrel and hypocrisy don't let people become confused by mixed messages. Let people know what we really are about. Let them make their own mind. If we were to air all our history none of us will be able to look at each other in the face.

I hope you understand what I am trying to do. I am merely making available information about our society. I am interested in reaching the genuine spiritualist. If they are interested they may check us out. If not so be it. We don't force the philosophy on others. Those that seek it will find it.

thanks, Mat 10 Dec 2004

Well, the so-called "offensive information" was really a rather mild expression of the situation compared to some of the virulent criticisms around. You say that "who did those terrible acts have been banished from the society". This may or may not be true, I don't know. I do know that many corrupt individuals held positions of power and honor within the society for many years, even as many within the society were aware of their abuses. Rather than openly reprimand them and admit that there were problems with how the new gurus were chosen and operated, every attempt was made to keep the problems quiet. Only when situations could no longer be kept quiet were individuals publicly sanctioned. I know there are many sincere individuals in the society, but there have been deep problems with it as well and an encyclopedia article should report such difficulties in a fair manner. older≠wiser 22:19, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Salve, Bkonrad!
I nominated myself for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking2 and would appreciate your vote. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:40, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

• Salve, Bkonrad!
  I wanted to drop you a line to thank you for your support in my successful RFA candidacy. It was very gratifying to see the kind remarks posted by yourself and others in the debate. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:29, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Greetings! I'm working on disentangling and standardizing fish articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes), and one of the things I'm doing is disambiguating things like situations where the same common name is used for species, genus, and family. The standard which has evolved is that the FishBase common name—as close as we get to an "official" common name for fish species—should be the article name for the species. Normally this name is not the same as the generic common name (e.g., there is no species called simply "black bass", so Black bass is used for the Micropterus species), but when it is some disentangling is necessary. Grayling will be an article on T. thymallus, while Thymallus describes the genus. When there is no unambiguous common name for a genus, the taxonomy pages here use the systematic generic name. For an example of a taxon I've gotten pretty well sorted out, see the Centrarchidae.

Grayling will not remain a stub, of course. If it turns out that there is not enough material to make specific articles I will fold everything into the generic Thymallus article under Grayling; see Crappie for an example of this, where the two Pomoxis species are combined into one article. All of Wikipedia's ichthyology is very much a work in progress, so please bear with me...

If you want to discuss further, can I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes, so I don't miss your comments here? —Tkinias 20:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

N.p. I should have tagged the relevant pages {{inuse}} to avoid confusion... —Tkinias 02:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The talk pages or other sources indicate you have in the past participated in discussions regarding whether to put a Native American name translation in the introductory sentence of articles on Arizona cities. We are currently having a vote on this issue at Talk:Tucson, Arizona#VOTE HERE. Please come by and weigh in. Thanks. --Gary D 00:49, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. I know you're a Michigan resident and being from Mount Pleasant myself, I wondered what you thought about the general organization scheme over at Lower Peninsula of Michigan and similar pages. I've never heard the expression "thumb country" before, and I don't think anyone would consider Midland or Flint being in the Thumb. For that matter, Jackson certainly isn't part of Mid-michigan (which ought to be Central Michigan, and be farther north than that). What do you think? Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I've only lived in Michigan for about a year and a half now, so I'm still not entirely familiar with a lot of local usage (aside from what I can research). I haven't looked at that page much (or in quite a while now), but I think you are right though about the page needing some work. I can't say that I've heard the exact phrase "thumb country" before, but the "thumb" of Michigan is certainly familiar enough. It is a bit of a stretch to put Flint in the thumb though. I would consider Jackson to be more southeast MI, or at least south central. I'm in a bit of a scramble to get out of here for the holidays, but if you want to take a stab at rearranging it, I'd be happy to take a look when I get a chance. older≠wiser 22:51, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've gone and done so. Have a good holiday! Mackensen (talk) 00:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Rsduhamel

Hello, I noticed your comments on Rambot's talk page and saw a few of your edits to the CDP articles. A couple of suggestions, which you may or may not find helpful and which you are free to ignore or to modify to suit your own tastes. 1) Instead of linking unincorporated community, you can link to unincorporated community, which is a little more specific than either of the other two. 2) When you move the phrase "census-designated place", you might want to put (CDP) after it as the abbreviation is used throughout the census data (I thought that Rambot was putting the abbreviation in, but I just noticed that it is not). For some other ideas about phrasing, look at Argentine, Michigan, or just about any of the CDPs in Michigan (I think I've edited many if not most of these articles). Best. older≠wiser 21:33, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I didn't know the article on unincorporated community existed. I agree that putting "(CDP)" after census designated place is a good idea too. Rambot didn't do this and I was simply following its precedent. I also like what you did to the Argentine, Michigan article.

Do you think this matter could have something to do with the confusion of the population count in Parkfield, California? I (and others) tried to clarify this but found references ranging from 18 to 900. Could this be because the "hamlet" of Parkfield has a population of 37 but the census designated place has a population of 900? Rsduhamel 08:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)