User talk:GlennTSimmons

Entitle
I'm not going to revert your change or argue profusely, but I'd like to point out your edit summary on Bodie, California where you said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bodie,_California&curid=332055&diff=334409356&oldid=333913154 a book cannot be "entitled." It is physically impossible. Basic English. The books title is such and such. Thus, it is TITLED, not ENTITLED], is debatable. See wikt:entitle. Just wanted to leave a quick note. Killiondude (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We're all to blame probably you too now!
Dear GTS,

Thanks for the edits at 1860 Wiyot Massacre. I noticed your "shocked" edit summaries. Yes, there are a lot of things on Wikipedia that we should be shocked and ashamed of. But please remember that this is all volunteer work. And you, as one of the volunteers, might now be viewed as partially to blame for many other missing pieces, unfinished articles, etc. Maybe I'm saying this all wrong, but welcome to the pleasures and pains of being a Wikipedia editor.

A couple of hints - many people find out after a while that they don't want to use their real names here. The easiest way to change would be to just make a new account, and then EDIT EXCLUSIVELY WITH THAT ACCOUNT. Also British English and American English are equal here which may drive a former copy editor crazy. Good luck. Smallbones (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just shocked beyond belief at the inaccuracies. My late professor would consider the Wikipedia summary to have been racist. Although I do agree about the volunteer aspect of Wikipedia, I do not agree that it allows Wikipedia to be so sloppy as to publish historically inaccurate information. We are not talking about minor errors. It may not seem like much to a person from afar, but to someone who grew up in Humboldt County, and who studied genocide in college as a minor, I just have no patience for such excuses.

That Wikipedia is a volunteer effort means that the volunteers must redouble their efforts to be accurate and that page editors must critically assess the information provided. This was not done. I can tell you that some of the Native Americans I know in Humboldt County were repulsed by the misinformation and saw it as just another chapter in a long book of grievances they have against those who continue to perpetuate myths.

Thank you for your consideration.GlennTSimmons (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cliff House, San Francisco
everyone is welcomed to particapate and contribute to wikipedia articles. if you feel the article is incorrect, you, also may contribute and provide references substantiating your edits. cheers. --emerson7 19:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC) That may be true. I don't have the time to do the rewrite. I suggest the person who made the errors correct them, or Wikipedia should pull the page or mark it as disputed historically. It is so historically inaccurate that it makes a parody of what Wikipedia stands for.

Bixby (Creek) Bridge
Do you have a reference, please? - Denimadept (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have photos of many bridge signs, which are historical bridge signs from the state. Some bridges over creeks on Highway 1 do have "Creek" in them, but Bixby does not.

Here is the link of my photo regarding Bixby. If my edit is not agreed upon, I'll change the text back to Bixby Creek, although I believe that to be a factual error.

Also, it is not a matter of "Bixby Creek Bridge" is too large for the sign. There are creeks with longer names or similar, like Rocky Creek Bridge, and the full bridge name is used on the sign.

Thank you for your consideration.

Here is the link:

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/47578829.jpgGlennTSimmons (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've done more research. The California website, a search link of which I put on the Talk page, seems to refer to it both ways, but mostly including "Creek".  I've seen it only as BCB in what published references I recall, which I won't be able to double-check until I get home, specifically the Jackson book.  For now, I've modified the page to include both names.  I also note that Bixby Bridge already redirects to the existing article, so I presume this issue has come up before.  I'm not happy, as this is all circumstantial.  The sign is circumstantial, but the previous researchers, such as Jackson, are less so, I think.  Donald C. Jackson is not a trivial guy, what with his history on the subject of bridges, including both his book and his time with HAER.  Hm, looks like Google Books already has this online, so I don't need to get home first. - Denimadept (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)