User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 14

__NOINDEX__

May 2006 to June 2006

Daniel Cook -> Daniel Pope Cook?
First of all, I apologize for breaking a redirect without consulting with you first. I just don't understand why since there is no entry for Daniel Cook you would redirect requests for that page to Daniel Pope Cook. I am a little biased as I have an ancestor by the name of [Daniel Cook]. Thanks for putting up with my error and for your understanding. On another front, I think it would be an excellent idea to create a site for Wiki style genealogy data (see my link above). Thoughts?


 * Well, that (January 2005) was eons ago in Wikipedia time. I think I assumed that Daniel Cook was a pretty common name that would sooner or later need disambiguating. The edit you made only blanked the page, so I restored the redirect. If you want to make that into a disambiguation page, I have no problem with that at all. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 21:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I don't suppose my [Daniel Cook] wiki would qualify as a standard Wikipedia entry - would it?  If not, then disambiguating would not make sense at this time.  I really didn't understand the process when I hastily removed that redirect.  Actually I was surprised I could even do it.  Thanks.  Cooknn 00:42, 2 May 2006 (EDT)

Arcadia Creek
I suppose you're right, but it really is a *lovely* creek, and an important part of the Portage/Arcadia watershed. The main post office, for one, is named after it... Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely opposed in principle. I mean, if there is enough to say of interest about it, then I've no problem with having an article on it. But I didn't see any really clear-cut basis for expanding it beyond a stub. One suggestion would be to create an article about the geography of the Kalamazoo-Portage article that could be a sort of multi-stub repository for stuff like the creek. older ≠ wiser 13:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I like that idea. The main Kalamazoo article really doesn't cover this in detail. I'll see what I can throw together. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Douglas, Michigan
I notice we don't have a map for Douglas. Is there anything wrong with reusing the one for Saugatuck? Mackensen (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh?
Putting statistics into "deathless prose" is often non trivial. Can you suggest a better way to cast the sentence, that doesn't start with a digit (to which some poeple (not including me) are deathly allergic)? All help gratefully recieved. Rich Farmbrough 18:29 5  May 2006 (UTC).

WikiProject US regions election
The page hosting the May 2006 election of WikiProject US regions is up now. You may now sign up as a candidate for coordinator or add new proposals concenring the workings and policies of the WikiProject. Voting begins on the 6th. -JCarriker 18:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This note is to remind you to please vote in the May 2006 election. There is a proposal for the the partial shading of states in the maps series and the annual election of a coordinator. Please vote by May 12th. Thanks. -JCarriker 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiLove


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Trunkline
I just started an article: Trunkline, and I was just wondering if you had any insight to put onto it. In particular, I was wondering if you had any ideas on the development and origins of the word with respect to motorized highways and its use in the English language, particularly for the same meaning in other areas. Is the term in more of an accent/dialect use or is it a fairly standard word? I grew up knowing the word as its meaning with respect to trunkline designations such as M-66 or I-94, but I've discovered that friends of mine in New England have never heard the term before. Would you mind responding on my talk page? Thanks. mdkarazim 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...
I didn't mean to Post Spam (2006 candidate info) but my mom is running for Probate Judge and Im trying to get on google.. I thought google probably crawls this site a lot searching for links lol... If u have any better Ideas for getting my Mom's Site seen please tell... Best Regards, Isaac :) ottoisaac@gmail.com

Why did you edit my addition to Jennifer Granholm?
Dear Sir,

I humbly request clarification as to why you chose to remove my addition to Jennifer Granholm's entry.

The shameful murder of Xianqing Cao is not sourced on "little more than a personal letter." Provided are five substantial sources to the subject of Xianqing Cao's murder by police. Overseas newspapers, intellectuals, the victim's organization and news articles referring to the incident are all provided:

Chinese newspaper World Journal article, published July 7th, 2001.

"A Shattered American Dream" by Wei Chiao & Wei-Jang Huang, Taiwanese institution Smart Creative Teachers publication.

My original source: http://massbrutality.org/Incident3.html www.caofund.org http://www.society-online-center.com/issues/crime_and_justice/police_misconduct/police_brutality/index_2.html

A simple Google search would've unearthed all of these sources in seconds had you bothered to try. This man was innocent of his accused crimes, had every feature of his rights violated, and was murdered at the hands of the police. Ceding the point of the poor sourcing regarding Ms. Granholm's quoted response, this still warrants only the editing of that specific mention from the article. In addition, a simple contact to Jane Cao would surely surface a photocopy of Ms. Granholm's personal letter. Furthermore, Portage County records would also clearly indicate no formal reinvestigation occurred following Mr. Cao's autopsy, an autopsy with results fit for a CSI episode. The chronology of the events alone is enough to substantially warrant closer examination, which Ms. Granholm prevented.

This is a gravely serious topic that the world, or at least US citizens, should know about. I can't possibly expect this supplication to you to have any serious effect other than some sort of backlash, but I appeal to your greater sense of compassion and logic that I know is in you somewhere.

Stop allowing our police and our government to violate our Constitutional rights. When people make these mistakes they should be held accountable. Someone murdered Xianqing Cao that day and Jennifer Granholm prevented the world and his widow from finding out who.

Retract the edit. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Sincerely, ProtectPeace


 * The so-called sources you cite are not impartial references. They area all activist sites with an agenda to promote. While it might be worthwhile to create an article on the incident itself, it is not appropriate material for the Granholm article. older ≠ wiser 13:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ford
It probably would have been a good idea to look at the page history or the Talk page before changing this redirect. It has been tried many times before and led to repeated revert wars. I think there are valid points on both sides, and am trying not to get involved, but I'll guess it won't take more than an hour or two for someone to revert your change. --Russ Blau (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, actually I did look at the page history and the Talk page. I didn't see any compelling arguments for it to be a disambiguation page. Based on What links here alone, the page is correctly a primary topic dab. I don't plan on being inflexible about it though. But the decision should be based on a more broadly-based consensus than only a few editors. older ≠ wiser 15:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lack of civility
Your edit comment, "as discussed on VP (technical), using undefined is inexcusable laziness" at WikiProject Michigan certainly lacks a degree of civility. I find such rude behavior particularly inappropriate coming from an administrator. Rfrisbietalk 18:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're going on about. See . Didn't mean anything personal. It's just the template. older ≠ wiser 18:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The ad hominem comment, "inexcusable laziness," to a perfect stranger is what I'm going on about, not the resource consumption of a template. All I ask is that you consider how your words come off to others. If nothing personal was intended, you edit comment was three words too long. Rfrisbietalk 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies. You might want to develop a little bit thicker skin though. older ≠ wiser 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I haven't even seen the context but saying someone you don't personally know is demonstrating inexcusable laziness is pretty hostile. The person on the recieving end - in this case anyone who uses the template in question - is going to take it personally. Generally speaking in any communication, it's not the intended message that matters it's the receivers' perception that matters. 22:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the random wisdom. I apologized. I regret being a little too hasty with the edit summary. By the way, you should sign your posts with four tildes to get your user name. older ≠ wiser 00:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about adding another Bill Graham
Just didn't see it -- my Attention Deficit Disorder kicking in. KarenAnn 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A haiku of thanks

 * Thanks for your support
 * In my RfA, which passed!
 * Wise I'll try to be.

Having often worked with you on disambiguation pages, and having gained a high respect for you, I am really honored to have your support - thank you!

-- Nataly a 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sanborn clan
Hi Bkonrad, thanks for the additions you put on the Alan Sanborn page. Imagine my surprise when I made the page only to find it updated the next day! I added a lot of new stuff to the Kenneth Sanborn entry, gleaned from actually talking to him. I'm not sure how to denote that on the page, though, if citation is even necessary. (As you can see from my profile, I'm pretty well connected to these guys in particular.) The mods have pretty much ignored that page from what I can tell, so I guess it's fine how it is. I put up all the relevant information I had, but if you think somebody someday might like to know more, let me know and I can ask him. I think it's admirable to strive toward chronicling Michigan history the way you are. Keep up the good work. Warteen 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Islands that are not communities
Can you help me find a project or discussion that supports that islands, as geographical entities, should be as simple as possible and be disambiguated with parentheses instead of a comma. This came up in a project, and I searched under naming conventions, but I couldn't find anything definitive. Thanks! -- Usgnus 22:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments and the two links you gave me. Thank you! -- Usgnus 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Aurora
Hi Bkonrad. I just noticed that you reverted my cleanup of this disambiguation page, saying that redlinks were necessary. We can agree to disagree on that (MoS:DP says include them only with care), but I'm quite annoyed, to be honest, that you didn't just re-insert the redlinks if you felt they should be included. By reverting wholesale you also got rid of my work to improve the organisation of the page and to make the writing style encyclopaedic, and re-introduced style errors. I put quite a bit of time into that edit and it's really frustrating that you've unnecessarily got rid of all that I did. If you feel like going back to my version, re-adding the redlinks as you wish, and incorporating whatever else has changed, that would be really helpful. Thanks. Worldtraveller 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I didn't see much in the way of organisational changes or writing style changes. You added heading levels, which IMO, was pretty cosmetic and a couple of minor wording changes. On the whole, I felt it would be an extraordinary amount of effort to go back through an old version and copy the links over into a new version. It seemed more expedient to simply revert. If you could point out some specific change that you made, I'd be happy to re-incorporate it, but I don't really any that have not already been long since re-edited by others. --OK, well maybe not long since--I see that the page I looked at was edited just a short while ago. Even so, I still don't see any changes in the diff that show such precious prose rendition as to require special care. older ≠ wiser 22:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No style changes? I can't help wondering how hard you looked before reverting, then.  The very first sentence in my version was
 * Aurora is the Latin word for 'dawn,' personified as the goddess of the dawn. Its main use is in the astronomical term aurora, the northern or southern lights.
 * You reverted it to
 * Aurora is the Latin word for 'dawn,' personified as the goddess of the dawn. You are probably looking for Aurora (phenomenon), the northern or southern lights.
 * The differences really are not trivial It might have been easier to revert, but I really don't think it was a very constructive thing to do.  Worldtraveller 23:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I guess we'll have to disagree. Aside from removing all the redlinks, the remaining differences (perhaps with the exception of the one-liner change to the intro) looked pretty cosmetic to me. However, directly addressing the changes to the intro-- you piped the links, which is discourage on disambiguation pages--now that I see it, that was probably the reason I did not reincorporate that change. With a closer look, I see that my revsion also had a piped link (which your text above doesn't show. But your version doesn't have any link to the mythological sense in the intro. older ≠ wiser 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You must not have read my intro properly. There was a link to the mythological sense - you removed it.  Worldtraveller 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, no--your version did not have a link to the mythological sense.
 * You really think You are probably looking for... is an appropriately encyclopaedic tone? And don't you think that re-introducing MOS contraventions is a bit silly?  I'm really mystified by your attitude here.  Worldtraveller 23:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by re-introducing MOS contraventions being a bit silly. No, I don't think MOS conventions are silly. I agree that "You are probably looking for..." is probably not the best phrasing. But if that is the extent of what you are carping about, I am equally mystified by your attitude here. You made an edit which would have required an lot of work to manually restore. Personally, I rather dislike having the extended multi-level hierarchy of headings--I think that is overkill. The extra heading levels have since been restored, but that is a minor matter AFAIC.
 * I see that you have just went back and removed all the redlinks and and restored your preferred intro (which is IMO inferior to what was there). older ≠ wiser 23:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't think MOS conventions are silly, why have you now reverted twice to restore contraventions to them? You don't want headings to conform to the MOS, you think Aurora Ballesteros, Honduran doctor and soccer player is worth mentioning and you think external links are appropriate in disambiguation pages, and you're prepared to edit-war for all that - well, I've got better things to do than get into ridiculous arguments.  I'm sure someone else will come and clean it up eventually.  Worldtraveller 23:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to remove a redlink to some obsure soccer player, I really don't care. But why are you also removing all of the place name links? I don't feel terribly strongly about including the external links either, but personally, I think it is more helpful to the reader than a bare redlink or nothing at all. It is primarily your wholesale gutting of the places redlinks that I object to. older ≠ wiser 23:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand that reverting to re-introduce poor style is really silly. You should have restored the redlinks if you felt that needed doing.  Completely reverting all my changes was out of order and detrimental to the page.  Maybe I'm thinking of someone else but I'm sure I've had some fruitful interaction with you at some point in the past so I am surprised and extremely annoyed now by your wilful ignorance of the MOS, misuse of reverting, and complete lack of any attempt to discuss and develop a consensus.  Worldtraveller 08:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand that removing dozens of links is a poor excuse and I am still unable to see exactly why you are accusing me of wilful ignorance of the MOS. Sorry but I just don't see it. Yes, I do have a few minor disagreements with certain points in the MOSDAB, but as the page CLEARLY says "For every style suggestion above, there's some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason". Now, you had ONE good point that "You are probably looking for..." was a poor choice. But that is one line. You didn't think an entry was needed for an obscure soccer player--fine, get rid of it. But what on earth are you harping on about wilful ignorance of the MOS? older ≠ wiser

Miami and Erie Canal
Thanks for clarifying this article. The way it read before made it sound like it connected to the Miami River for transport along the river down to the Ohio. Peyna 01:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
Your edit removed a bunch of recent conversation, and so I have reverted it. --SPUI (T - C) 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, I beat you to it. older ≠ wiser 22:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What probably happened is that you hit edit on a diff. That used to make you edit the current page, but it was recently changed to have you edit the old revision. --SPUI (T - C) 22:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well now, that's not very intuitive. I never would have expected it to do that. older ≠ wiser 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

3rr warning
Please take care over 3rr at Neighborhoods and projects in Detroit, Michigan William M. Connolley 19:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CDPs
Hi There~ I've been messing with articles about cities/communities/CDPs in Oregon and have been wrestling with the "unincorporated community" versus "CDP" argument. I'd just like to thank you for this phrase I found in your edit of Warm Springs, Oregon: "For statistical purposes, the United States Census Bureau has defined Warm Springs as a census-designated place. The census definition of the area may not precisely correspond to local understanding of the area with the same name." I'm going to start using this where appropriate--it's perfect. Again, thanks! Katr67 03:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've used lots of variations on that--this version is pretty succinct. I may add it to a personal list of boilerplate text so I don't have to invent a new variation each time I come across such a situation. older ≠ wiser 12:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Do I have a case?
I don't know why I'm coming to you, except that you seem to know the rules better than most. I'm trying to save the page Sideshow (Michigan State University) on the grounds that the show is broadcast online as well as locally. It's up for deletion discussion. If you've got time, let me know (here or on my talk page). Seems like I may be fighting an uphill battle to save a page about a show I care about. Adam 12:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop, please
Thanks but no thanks. I do not appreciate you deleting what I type word by word from my own personal files.

Thanks for your assistance regarding Categories and Sub-Categories
Thank you for the answer you gave to my questions (User_talk:CrazyElk).

CrazyElk 19:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

List of registered etc...
Ah, I did wonder, and left a note for the originator. I'll apply for approval to fix. Thanks for the note. Rich Farmbrough 13:25 28 June 2006 (GMT).

NPR mediation
Hi. User:MSTCrow has requested a mediation at Talk:National Public Radio. It would be very helpful if you could participate. Cheers! David L Rattigan 14:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Toledo War FAC2
Do you think the Toledo War article is ready for a second shot at FAC? I've gone through and made a lot of copyediting changes, including rewriting some portions for better flow and content. It's been nearly a month now since it failed FAC#1, and I wasn't sure whether another peer review was appropriate or not. If FAC is the appropriate option, I figure I'll wait another week or two to actually put it on the FAC page again, so as to not abuse the process. I have also done some research and found some interesting facts which I will be merging into the article into the near future. Please let me know what you think, and thanks for your help! Hotstreets