User talk:Ebyabe/Archive 2

Situation
I want to clarify my comments first by clearly stating that I think you are doing a great job of adding information to Wikipedia. I always encourage helpful contributions such as you have done. Okay, the situation is the scope of WikiProject Protected areas. Basically, protected areas are areas that are both recognized and maintained by a government entity. The Feds, states and possibly county and city levels are what the project covers. Areas listed as being on the National Register of Historic Places are not included by the scope of the project unless they are managed and maintained by a government entity. For areas in the state of Florida, I see you have created a large number of stub articles that are not government managed or maintained. There is a discussion here and here regarding this situation. So I propose a solution which I see you are quite capable of. Create a WikiProject National Register of Historic Places...and you can create your own infobox, detailing it to fit the parameters of the project, and request we can get 50 stub templates developed, one for each state. Some helpful tips on how to create a project can be found at WikiProject and at WikiProject Council/Guide I'm asking you to comment on the two "here" links provided and to help us figure out the best solution as the Protected areas project is mainly geared to government managed areas worldwide...I suppose this gives you an opportunity to be the creator of a project and that's pretty decent. Let me know your thoughts on this issue as I am going to start taking the stub template out of non government articles in a day or two.--MONGO 07:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, creater of my own project. The power!!! *lol*
 * That sounds like a good idea. I felt funny about the Park Service thing, but since they administer the National Register of Historic Places program, I thought it was appropriate. However, I've been visiting the actual sites to take pictures (yes, I'm planning to visit ALL the Florida NRHP sites; I'm crazy that way), and see that many are 'owned' by the state or county or city, or even privately. So I'm realizing that's not so apropos. Having them as their own project/category does seem better. And it would be nice to see them filled in more in the other states too.
 * Thanks for the info, and I'll look at the stuff you mentioned. Cheers, mate! --Ebyabe 12:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, i didn't know the NPS oversaw the lists...that is a twist. BUt I think there are sop many National Historical places that a project would be justified...but not mandatory...otherwise, we may have to break down the categories for protected areas in Florida and at some later point, most of the states.--MONGO 19:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow...you're pretty squared away......follow the links on the wikiproject development and get the National historic places project(or whatever you name it) commenced and I'll be glad to join. I then think you should go back to the stub category folks and ask to have stubs created. It is necessary to get them to "approve" this as I found out when I created a stub link outside of consensus when I developed the WikiProject Glaciers. If you need assitance, let me know on my talk page.--MONGO 05:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Followed your advice, created the project and proposed the stubs. Oh, and my "Projects" page is only what I'm working on. I archive all my done stuff, ya see.
 * You know, I cut my teeth on stubbing most of the Doctor Who Virgin and BBC novels. I have a feeling I'm gonna be looking back on those days with fondness. ;)  --Ebyabe 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't touch your mustache
I've never heard the term Donkey shins before, but after diligent research (on WebMD ;) I found it isn't contagious. A reply in kind might be: "Don't touch your mustache" (do itashimashite - the only phrase I've ever learned in Japanese): You're welcome! Let me know what I can do to help.

Do you mind if I add a line of text to the "NHP list" template to provide information for new people who tackle the work on these lists? P.S. A proposal was made a while ago to create an entire Portal for all this information. There certainly are enough articles (after all the DABs are located). The feedback was for a more international subject. There does seem to be numerous articles about Category:Cultural heritage which could include NHPs and other nations. — 00:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, you got it. Some other favorites I've come up with are "Our feet are the same" and "Grassy Ass". Pretend partial deafness can be fun sometimes. :) WebMD, huh? They must have archived some of my old e-mails from when I used to work for them. An odd form of immortality.
 * Do, please, add the text. I'm looking for help wherever I can get it. You know that saying, "Talent borrows, genius steals?" Well, that must make me a mega-genius. But I do always try crediting sources.
 * An NRHP portal? That might be a possibility. As for a more international one, why couldn't there be one of those, too? I mean, there's Portal:United States and portals for (some of) the individual states as well. It wouldn't be mutually exclusive, would it? --Ebyabe 13:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I hear you on the DABs. I swear, I think that's almost half the lists. That's why I think focusing on them first might be the way to go; getting rid of the most red links the quickest. Then the actual articles. Of course, it's also easier to create DAB pages and redirects than articles. My opinion, for what it's worth. :) -Ebyabe 13:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I forgot to look back here for the reply thread… The Project really did start to take off from the start, great! People have been chippen away at the dabs steadily since the list was started by User:Cburnett(?) over a year ago. Like your ideas about a Portal, which can be a good place for new articles from peer review, assessment & collaboration. I like the commented out sentences for "selected content" (on a portal) - generated from FA content, etc. "News" on a portal can feature the weekly updates from the NRHP, perhaps as red links to encourage editors. I get lost in writing articles, but will start doing the grinding DAB finding. I like to say grassy ass too - for all your hard work. See you in the history pages, as usual. Auf wiedersehen — User:Dogears (talk • contribs) 05:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

NRHP
Thanks for the invite. I signed up. Rklawton 18:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. Welcome to the insanity. But in a good way. :)  --Ebyabe 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you noticed, but I already invited WikiProject Oregon ;) Katr67 20:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, I didn't notice. Apologies. I got so carried away, I was just adding the invite to every state's WikiProject, willy-nilly, without checking first. Thank you muchly for doing so. Now everyone's invited of whom I can think. Heck, I even threw one WikiProject Military history's way. The more the merrier, I always say... ;)  --Ebyabe 20:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

you've earned it.
What an incredible achievement that you so quickly and excellently created the WikiProject National Register of Historic Places...so the least I can do is award you this... Bravo! Katr67 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm, I'm overwhelmed. I'd like to thank the Academy, and Mom and Dad, without whom I wouldn't have been possible, and God, without whom they wouldn't have been possible, and...
 * Sorry, that was my Tony/Emmy/Grammy/Oscar speech. ;)
 * But thank you, really and truly. --Ebyabe 11:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Contributions
Gracias. I go for quality I guess, mostly. Anyway, thanks for those other edits on the disambig page, I will ensure I check the links from now on, I just forget a lot.A mcmurray 19:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Registered Historic Places in Oregon
Thanks for doing that lovely new TOC! I was dreading it... Katr67 22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. It was no prob, didn't even take me five minutes. Did 'em for most of the rest of the states, too. On to the next project!  :)  --Ebyabe 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for all your hard work. I'm going to split off some counties from the main article like you suggested. (That way I can avoid actually writing any new ones.) ;) Katr67 00:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You can always do stubs, like I did. That's how I knocked out most of . I go for the quantity. But with at least some quality. Nighty-o!  ;)  --Ebyabe 00:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, others put up those template too, you. —Dogears 02:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whaddup, dawg? :) I know you done been doin' stuff, man, don't get all whack on me, bro'! Ok, enough of me trying to be JT; I art a white boy, I doth say, prithee! :) Anyway, no denigration of your accomplishments intended. You actually did do a lot of the TOCs. Mind you, I did some of the fun ones, like Indiana and Michigan. I think, between us, we TOC'ed the whole dang assortment of NRHP lists. Hurray, us!!! ;) -Ebyabe 01:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

NRHP lists (hope I got the 4LA right this time)
Thanks for the comments (which I only just noticed -- pesky unusable watchlist...). Did you have a preference on the category name for the "geographical" one? "... geography stubs", or "District stubs", or anything else? Alai 22:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Florida historic district stubs" for the districts, or something like that, should work fine. "Florida historic places stubs" for the rest? Whatever needed to differentiate from the . So "Florida historic blah-de-blah stubs" is what I'm saying, if that works. --Ebyabe 00:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Left you a note, Alai, check your watchlist or User_talk:Alai/NHPL-nondistrict :)  --Ebyabe 17:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to United States Numbered Highways
Please see Redirect. Thank you. --NE2 16:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ryan-as-valmont.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ryan-as-valmont.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as or , you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ryan-as-valmont.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ryan-as-valmont.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Yamla 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Military forts vs fur trade forts
Pls note my edits to Talk:Fort Nisqually and Talk:Fort Hall; I haven't yet found out if you've placed the military history tag/template on other fur trade forts, but please be advised to read the article before putting the military history template on them; SOME such as Fort Vancouver did become US military installations after the Oregon Treaty, but other than being palisaded for self-defence (protection of company stock) they were not military in any usual sense. Fort Langley's cannon, for instance, were used once or twice to repel hostile natives, but no military were housed on the premises until 1858; likewise everywhere else (there were no military in BC until 1858). South of the line I'm not sure whether Umpqua and other HBC forts there became militarized after annexation by the US; just read the article each time to save future template deletions from being necessary.Skookum1 04:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I figured all forts were military by default, but I stand corrected. Which is what's neat about Wikipedia, you learn something new all the time. :) Anyhoo, checked the ones I did, and only could find one other that seemed to be only a fur outpost (Fort Ross, California), and un-Military-Projected it. --Ebyabe 04:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Registered Historic Places in Florida
Just wanted to say excellent work on your articles about Registered Historic Places in Florida. I'm glad to see that there's a WikiProject dedicated to them - I half-thought of suggesting on myself (and then I remembered that I don't have the time for it.)

Keep up the good work! --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And thank you back. :) Though it's actually a whole national thing, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, not just the ones down here. Started b/c I done did so many of the Florida ones, doncha know. Do feel free to join our little house, in the middle of our street, there's not any minimum how much to do requirements or anything. I think it's kinda cool that this project overlaps with so many other ones.  :) --Ebyabe 21:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe one of these days, once I get settled, I'll look in and brush up some of the Virginia-related ones; right now I don't have nearly the sort of time I'd like to work on a project like that. I have a few pictures of the "Peter Francisco House" on my camera, too - although technically it's called Locust Grove.


 * Right now, I've been working on writing articles on a handful of American lighthouses, starting in Virginia and working my way out. There's a WikiProject for those, too, if you know anyone who's interested.  Incidentally, if the question comes up, we've been using the term "light" (i.e. "Jones Point Light" vs. "Jones Point Lighthouse" or "Jones Point Light Station") for lighthouse articles, and I've been moving the ones I've come across.  I do note a fair number of lighthouses on the National Register. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 08:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected area infobox
Hello. I was wondering if you could explain why you have replaced the Protected Area Infobox with the NHRP infobox in a number of U.S. National Park System Articles? Myself along with some other users are nearing completion on a project to standardize all NPS articles with the Protected Area infobox and it is rather frustrating to see some of the infoboxes removed and replaced with a different one. Thank you. --Nebular110 23:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I'm working on WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. There's overlap between it and a lot of other projects, especially Protected Areas. In fact, I used the Protected Areas infobox as a template for ours (after using it to death for the Registered Historic Places in Florida).
 * I was testing changes in our infobox. Only did a few changes: New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park (which you reverted), Wilson's Creek National Battlefield (which I reverted), and the following three I've not changed back yet: De Soto National Memorial, Fort Matanzas National Monument, and Castillo de San Marcos (all Florida ones). Wait to hear from you regarding them.
 * Umm, so to avoid this in the future, can we arrange some basic-ish guidelines? Like our project shouldn't use our infoboxes for National Parks, but what else? Monuments, landmarks, etc.
 * I tend to get carried away when I get involved in a project, and fortunately restrained myself this time with these new changes. I hope we can work together in future, as I think we can help each other out a bit, doncha know.
 * Cheers! --Ebyabe 01:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks for the response. As far as guidelines, nearly all of my work as well as the discussions that have taken place at WikiProject Protected areas and various talk pages have concentrated mostly on the use of the infobox in articles reagarding National Park Service units, a list of which can be found at List of areas in the National Park System of the United States. I would prefer to see the protected area infobox retained in all of these articles especially now that nearly all of them (only about 20 to go!) have one. Beyond that, I would think either would be appropriate as the two are very similar. If a few NPS articles have the NHRP infobox, that's not really a big deal. My only request would be that the Image:US_Locator_Blank.svg occupy the image spot in the infobox so as to create a standard look among the articles. Let me know what you think. I agree with the helping out bit, the two projects do overlap considerably and sadly there seem to be relatively few Wikipedians working on these kind of articles. Definitely let me know if I can ever be of help. The amount of time I spend on Wikipedia varies greatly from week to week but I enjoy doing what I can to help the project. --Nebular110 04:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, that covers what I thought. I'll unmake the NRHP sub-banners, so they don't get used by anyone else. Glad you caught me early, as I tend to take the Be Bold philosophy to extremes sometimes (sometimes?!) Oh, and had a thought, and I don't know why no one's thought of it. Couldn't the syntax in the protected area infobox be changed so that it defaults to show the Locator Map? I think I'm going to try it on the NRHP infobox, to see if it'll work like I think. Anything to reduce needless typing, huh? :)
 * I think that's a great idea for the NHRP infobox (assuming you want to use the map) but that hasn't been done with the protected area infobox because that template is used for protected areas across the globe and not just in the U.S. As much as I would be in favor of that (I know I get sick of typing US_Locator_Blank.svg realy quick!), other users insert locator maps for other countries just as frequently. --Nebular110 16:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's another suggestion I just thought of: What about using the NHRP infobox for specific sites within NPS units? For example, Staple Bend Tunnel is a landmark within Allegheny Portage Railroad National Historic Site. I just noticed that you changed the infobox in Staple Bend Tunnel back to the protected area infobox however I'm thinking that the other one might be more appropriate for specific structures due to the Built/Founded: & added to NRHP: fields. We could have the protected area infobox (with the locator map and basic data on the park) on the main page for a site and then we could use the NHRP infobox on any subpages. A picture of the historic place would probably be more appropriate in the NHRP infobox as there is really no need for another locator map. What do you think? Questions? Comments? Concerns? --Nebular110 16:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okee-dokie. Firstly, I forgot about protected areas being global, so you's right, that wouldn't work. You do copy and paste, not type, doncha? And btw, are you MS Excel literate? I use it for a lot of the repetitive stuff, so I don't have to type as much. It's how I stubbed almost the entire List of Registered Historic Places in Florida and List of Florida state parks. I can send you some of the workbooks I use, if you think they'll help.
 * Second, I can't get the farkakte map-thing to work the way I want. I'll do more with it later sometime, when I've got a clearer head.
 * Third, whilst I'm thinking of it, we over here at WP:NRHP consensed to use pictures in place of the map, when available. With the NRHP, we figure it's more "what it is" than "where it's at." Some didn't want to use the map at all, but I pointed out how few pictures there are of NRHP places, especially the less known. So better the map than nothing at all, in those situations. Some folks are even using state maps, with the dot showing where in the state a listing is, which I admit has a certain appeal. I've made it my own personal mission to get pictures of all the ones in Florida. Which at least gets me away from the computer and out into the big wide world occassionally. ;)
 * Fourth, I do like your last suggestion; there are definitely situations it could work well. Even if a specific building mightn't be on the NRHP, per se, the infobox could still be used. If it finds use outside the project, that's fine by me. I'd have to do a bit of adjusting (so the sub-banner wouldn't show in those cases, since it appears by default now), but that's no big. --Ebyabe 18:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm not very good with Excel. Power Point-yes, Excel-no. Thanks for the offer though. I cut and paste the infobox itself but image field is the only one that's usually the same so I just type it. The US Locator map has changed file types several times recently too.
 * I very much like the way images look in the infobox as well but like you mentioned, so many articles are without pictures (or without good ones) at this point that we decided to go with just the map for the time being to keep things uniform. I have also been told that a proposal last year to use images instead resulted in some pretty nasty debates over which image best represented a certain National Park. Someone also tried using both a map and an image once but decided this made the article look too cluttered especially in the stub articles with very little text. --Nebular110 19:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits
I see that all your edits are marked minor, apparently by default. Please edit your preferences so that this is not the case. In the "editing" part, there is a line - "Mark all edits minor by default". Just uncheck it, and then reserve marking your edits as minor when they really are minor. -- Fyslee 19:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. --Ebyabe 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
I see you've started a disambiguation page at Christ Episcopal Church - but a couple of points. First, the aim of a disambiguation page is to allow the reader to find the correct article from among similarly-named ones; but nearly all the items on this page have no links at all - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style for the rules. They ought to be removed unless/until the articles exist.

Second, when naming articles on churches, the convention is to use commas when including locations to disambiguate the article name - that is, use 'Christ Episcopal Church, Aspen' rather than 'Christ Episcopal Church (Colorado)'. See Christ Church or St. Peter's Church for examples.

Specifically on Christ Episcopal Church, the disambiguating entries (where there is an article) could more usefully simply appear on Christ Church, especially as the church's (for example, Aspen's) own website often simply refers to itself as 'Christ Church' -- Disambiguator 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. --Ebyabe 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Category:Date of birth missing
Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Biographies of living persons, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, you appear to have used a bot to add the categories to a number of pages. In doing so, you omitted part of the categorization and messed up a fair number of pages.  When adding a category about a biography, the correct format is  .  Piping the category link causes the biography to be properly alphabetized on the Category page.  Please keep it in mind as you go forward.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk)


 * Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of the birthday guidelines for article about the less-than-famous. It does make sense, considering identity theft. I believe I've fixed the pipe links for the ones I did that others haven't already corrected. I guess I got rather carried away with AutoWikiBrowser, it's such a great tool. Sometimes I do go overboard on the whole Be bold policy. But as long as folks are nice about pointing out my goofs (as you've been), it's all good. I was going to go back and fix the pipe links later, but it is best to do them the first time. I've changed the Excel workbook I use to populate the names in the categories to do that. --Ebyabe 13:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)