User talk:DoxTxob/Archive 1

TN template
Hey, what is the error that the ??? causes in the class argument? I've not seen a problem thus far. Cheers. -- Huntster  T • @ • C 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm trying out new code on mine as well. (Btw, I hope I can convince you not to impliment the auto-collapse thing...I truly hate it...) --  Huntster  T • @ • C 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * okay, after examining the code a bit closer, I've found it would be highly impractical to enable support for "???", and even the guy I've been working with from Mediawiki can't figure out a simple way to impliment it. I'll be fixing all the article to which this was added.  Oi. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 22:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, already taken care of. Just had to go to the fake template page that was indicated (Template:???-Class importance, I believe), and click on the "What links here". --  Huntster  T • @ • C 18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar award
Thank you, my first Wikipedia award. I appreciate it. doxTxob 02:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedies
I really appreciate your joining in the continuing struggle to keep inappropriate content out of wikipedia. But it would be particularly helpful  if you could do it according to the usual conventions,   since thats what admins look for in deciding to actually complete the deletion. When nominating for speedy, try to use one of the limited number or reasons, as listed at WP:CSD, using the appropriate template. A speedy should be obvious. If more of an explanation is needed, the best way is to use WP:PROD a method which automatically leads to deletion in 5 days if the page is not fixed. ( speedy leads to deletion in an hour or two if we can keep up with things) Even so, keep your comment brief and in few words, such as "non-notable Air Force captain", and, as you have been doing, explain on the article talk page. & for both prods and speedies, remember also to notify the user, using the template that appears on the speedy notice or the prod notice. I usually don't bother if they are just ip addresses.

For the specific articles you've tagged today, probably db-nn would have done for some of them.DGG 00:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Carol Chumney
IF you look at the text youll find around 50 webites with the same info and the same format, much of this was taken from the wiki however i will re unikyfy this article, also, please check the hidden text in herman morris, its a train wreck done by his pr firm and incredibly biased

i took the picture and uploaded(and sent via email) to the campaign where it was put into flickr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankun (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, the Herman Morris, Jr. article had some bias in it which I have removed from the article today. I have removed the copyright violation tag from the image you have uploaded. doxTxob \ talk 22:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Carol Chumney2
i did a reformat the info is still same but its biographical info(it needs to be in there) just a different format —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankun (talk • contribs)


 * Looks much better to me! doxTxob \ talk 22:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta!
Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the well wishes, and sorry to hear you can't come. Who knows, maybe things will look better down the road and you may be able to attend after all. It is a year off yet. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mastodon Skeleton
Hi DoxTxob. I just noticed that you have recently added an image of a mastodon skeleton, "Image:Masthodon angustidens.jpg", in a number of locations. Please be aware that Mastodon angustidens is a rather odd European species, with four tusks, and is not closely related to the North American mastodon, Mammut americanum. In fact, it looks quite different. For that reason, at least some of the placements are inappropriate. If it would help, I'd be willing to see if I can find an out-of-copyright American mastodon skeleton image. Tim Ross 09:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just checked to see if my trusty old 11th ed. Encyclopaedia Britannica had a good skeletal picture. They do have a picture, but it's a European Mastodon turicensis (really Zygolophodon turicensis) with a Mammut americanum skull. Mastodon angustidens, by the way, is, I think, now called Gomphotherium angustidens. There is one mastodon image available, "Lubbocklakelandmark1.jpg", although that may not be what you are looking for. Tim Ross 10:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I keep hoping to make contact with you, DoxTxob, as I do not wish to start changing/deleting all the instances of the gomphothere skeleton that are now scattered about as "mastodon". Here are some worthy substitutes I have located.


 * Peale's "working sketch" can be easily modified to make a very good replacement of the gophothere skeleton, and I will be happy to do so if you would like. Tim Ross 21:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's good to hear from you, DoxTxob. In truth, I was an invertebrate paleontologist many years ago. This only give me rather limited expertise, I fear, in terms of old vertebrates, so you don't need to take my opinions with too much respect.



About your questions. Yes, I believe all of those images are Mammut sp. That means they're some species of mastodon, mostly, or even entirely M. americanum, the American Mastodon. Peale's version is definitely Mammut americanum. I, too, like both of those restorations, "Mastodon_color.jpg" and "BlankMastodon.jpg". The first one is, I think, the better image of the beast, but, as you note, has no visible hair. The second one certainly has hair, although it could pass for mink rather than elephant, but is otherwise too much like an Indian elephant. I would pick "Mastodon_color.jpg" as the best for most uses.

As promised, I've now uploaded a cleaned up version of Rembrandt Peale's mastodon skeleton: "SimplifiedPealeMastodon.jpg". It can probably be best titled "American Mastodon skelton", or something of the sort. Let me know if you want me to make the image replacements, or if you would rather do it. Tim Ross 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mastodon related articles and images
 Wilson, Arkansas Cohoes, New York Sequim, Washington Stewiacke, Nova Scotia History of Wisconsin Diamond Valley Lake</li> <li>1801 in archaeology</li> <li>Megistotherium</li> <li>Wakulla Springs</li> <li>Museum and Arts Center, Sequim, Washington</li> <li>New York State Museum</li> <li>8th millennium BC in North American history</li> <li>Big Eddy Site</li> <li>Museum of the Earth</li> <li>Valley of the mastodons</li> <li>Reverie, Tennessee</li> <li>East Bend, Kentucky</li> <li>List of Michigan state symbols</li> <li>List of North American megafauna</li> <li>Hiscock Site</li> <li>List of Central and South American megafauna</li> <li>Mastodon State Historic Site</li> <li>Nodena Site</li> <li>Hampson Museum State Park</li> <li>Dr. James K. Hampson</li> <li>Island 35 Mastodon</li> </ul>

Tennessee Mileage Measurements
I've been getting detailed mileage measurements off of TDOT's website. They have each "region" on an Excel spreadsheet that lists each county within that region and a list of all state routes within that county (both signed and unsigned). I don't remember what the link was to access the Pavement condition website off the top of my head but I can get you a direct link to Region 3 (Nashville) and Region 4 (Jackson) spreadsheets. Hover over the links to get the actual address.

TDOT Region 3 Pavement Condition Data

TDOT Region 4 Pavement Condition Data

Bear in mind, they track mileage down to the 100th's of a mile, and also include alot of other data with regards to the actual road surface. If I can find the link that provides data on all four region's I will post here. This is the only "online" source that I can find that gives detailed measurements. Pepper6181 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tennessee State Route 19
Per your request I've been doing a little bit of peer review on SR 19. Below would be an example intersection list for this route--mileage is guesstimated on new junctions...notice 42.8 - there's so much info in the box that it bleeds over into the Notes section. I've got this problem on Tennessee State Route 3.


 * Thank you so much! I have replaced the table in the article with your version, it looks much less cluttered. doxTxob \ talk 08:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

TN routes WikiProject?

 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Subprojects. —Scott5114↗ 08:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Tennessee banner image
I created the image and placed it on the page. I hope it meets your expectations. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓  14:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad I could be of assistance! -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk  ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓  19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving Tennessee Project Discussions
Hey doxTxob, I was just thinking about some of the archiving with the Tennessee Project talk page. Would it be helpful to have a little box marking a section for needing archiving? I figured since you're the one that's been doing it likely not many will just up and archive it if they feel that it is finished and needs to be moved. Just an idea for something to help clean up old discussions from the talk page. I made a template User:Dan9186/Sandbox/reqarchive-talk to suggest and see what you thought. -- Dan9186<sup style="font-size:9px;">(T • E • C) December 12, 2007 23:47 (UTC)

I like the idea! I move that to the TN project talk for discussion. doxTxob \ talk 21:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

History of Memphis article
Hey, just a heads up, if you're gonna cut down an article by duplicating it in the way you described in this article, other editors prefer that you do it in your userspace so we don't have a hacked up page in the article space. When your done you can copy and paste or move it to articlespace.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 00:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns. However, there is nothing hacked up here at all. The sections that I remove and start the new article with are fine already and can be used as they are. Just needs an intro. doxTxob \ talk 01:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TN importance rating
Hey Dox, I noticed you were rating a number of TN articles, but why did you rate them all (at least the ones I noticed) as "low"? If it was just to get a rating on them, that's not a good idea...if no rating is present, at least someone can come around to give a proper one...now no one will really know. TBI, TWRA, UT, etc, should at least be Mid, if not High or Top. TBI...top, TWRA...mid, University of Tennessee system...high. Just curious as to your reasoning. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Huntster, I did not rate them all low, just most of them. As a matter of fact, I assigned an importance rating to all TN tagged articles that did not have one. And you are right in one point, I indeed had the idea to get them all rated to get a basis. I rated them in comparison to each other, that's why I did the whole bunch in a day. Remember how difficult it was to find proper formulations for the importance ratings, how to define them? I used the importance rating definitions (WikiProject_Tennessee/Assessment) as a basis for my rating. It was some 800+ articles that were rated. If you take any 800 random articles and rate them you will end up with 90% stubs and 90% low rated articles, probably more. There will always be some sort of disagreement. Maybe I underrated a few of the articles and overrated others and on again other articles, we might just have different opinion about.


 * The importance rating is a mysterious topic. I found that out when I started the assessment page for the TN project with your help. I compared a lot of different ones. You know what the core thing is they disagree about? The importance rating! Some treat it as the importance of an article for the project, very few use priority instead of importance. Again others (like the TN project) make it dependedent on the casual reader, and what he or she might have previous knowledge about or might be most interested in. The FAQ of the assessment page also encourages every member of the TN project to add or change ratings. If you find a rating you disagree with, please change it! That is how Wikipedia balances out, in my opinion. doxTxob \ talk 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not trying to complain loudly or anything, I was just curious as to what was going on. Mostly I thought that the rating of some, such as those above, didn't make particular sense, given that I'd consider them of importance to more than just a local town crowd.  Eh, we'll figure something out.  Perhaps we can organise a "rating day", and divide up articles between willing participants for a thorough count based on agreed upon standards. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PS - On the same general subject, perhaps you could stop by to explain the high and medium priorities you assigned at Talk:Battle of Athens. --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Huntster -- the absence of a priority value is more informative than the presence of a meaningless value that is there only because it was arbitrarily assigned to every unrated article. (I've seen your reply to Huntster. I agree with your view that the ratings are pretty arbitrary to begin with, but that doesn't justify assigning them arbitrarily. What was wrong with leaving articles unprioritized?) --Orlady (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you say that my rating is arbitrary you should know the definition: "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle". That only tells me that you have not understood my reply to Huntster (which I have added above). If you don't like the rating, change it!
 * Well, I got the impression that you applied the general rule "Rate low" in order to run an automated rating process. Any process that assigns the same value to all members of a set is arbitrary. (However, I see that you did give a few higher ratings.) --Orlady (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Battle of Athens - Orlady, check the article history before you complain! Let me cite you: perhaps you could stop by to explain the high and medium priorities you assigned at Talk:Battle of Athens. Orlady, check the history and you will find that the ratings were applied by someone else. If you do not agree it does not necessarily mean it is wrong, maybe you are wrong. doxTxob \ talk 02:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, DoxTxob! I spent some time looking at diffs, trying to figure out who had added those wikiprojects and assigned ratings. I was feeling cross-eyed by the time I found the right diff. Apparently I was too cross-eyed, as I mistakenly thought that your name was associated with it (frankly, I was surprised, as I didn't regard you as someone who would do something like that). Thanks for not being the person who added those ratings! --Orlady (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two things I would like to add to this:

1 - You are right in one point, if I rate some article for quality or importance I rather rate them too low than too high, that makes sure that editors of articles which are completely underrated will complain about it. (That seems to work well, so far ...)

2 - I never change information on Wikipedia in an arbitrary fashion. My edits are not determined by chance, whim, or impulse, the are instead determined by necessity, reason or principle.

Take care, doxTxob \ talk 04:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

List of counties in Tennessee
Why did you withdraw the FL nomination. It's a great list, and deserves FL with a little work to the lead. Quite frankly, the list itself is better than some of the existing FL counties lists. Geraldk (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the list is worth it and I also think that in comparison to other lists it does quite well. I withdrew the nomination for personal reasons. My intention when nominating the list was to add one more approved good list to the repertoire of lists regarding TN as covered by the TN project. Unfortunately, one person who even took part in helping the list to get where it is now, did not support the nomination, cowardly hiding her comment on the talk page of the list rather than openly argue. Maybe someone wants to nominate the list herself to add another star on her userpage for something she only partially helped with. I did not see the purpose of arguing for the list status in the nomination discussion if there is not even support from members of the project. Thanks for asking, doxTxob \ talk 05:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work on Laura Bullion
Thank you! I apprecite it. doxTxob \ talk 04:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mississippi River
Please see my comments on the talk page of the article. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Your suggestions are a good pointer in the right direction. doxTxob \ talk 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)