User talk:Gpyoung/Archive1

St. John
Nice job on the St. John page! Welcome to Wikipedia. -- Gruepig 15:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

St. John historical pictures
While working on the rum article I came across a number of pictures related to St. John's. The archive is available at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsahtml/fsaPlaces46.html. These pictures are almost entirely taken in December 1941 for the U.S. government, and are thus freely available. You might wish to take a look through them to see if there are any appropriate for the Saint John, United States Virgin Islands you have been working on. --Allen3 talk June 28, 2005 13:23 (UTC)

Chicago Articles
I'd be up for writing some Chicago articles, are there any specific articles you had in mind? Also, it's nice to see that somebody's using my picture. =) -- BMIComp  (talk) 9 July 2005 05:24 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm trying to work on the Chicago article right now.. you're right, it needs quite a bit of work. Also, I was also thinking about going downtown soon and taking pictures... while I'm down there I could also take pictures for any articles that need them.  Is there any in particular that you think need them?  Another thing... I personally don't like the skyline photo at the top of the article ... I could probably talk my uncle into licensing one of his, as he takes those sort of pictures [professionally].  -- BMIComp  (talk) 9 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)

Do we want to make this soliciation message into a template? User_talk:Kelly_Martin -- BMIComp (talk)

Re: WikiProject Chicago
''Hi, I just noticed that you joined WikiProject Chicago and would like to welcome you aboard. Please see the projects talk page for any current issues and projects. Also, I saw your post on my talk page, and yes that is a good idea. I have created a template at Template:ChicagoWikiProject-Invite based on the invite message BMIComp sent to you. Feel free to revise it if you wish. Thanks, 15:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)''
 * Actually, that wasn't my post. And you shouldn't transclude your signature. Kelly Martin 15:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops, that was actually me that left that message, with a link to her talk page. =). But yeah, I asked if anybody was from chicago in the IRC channel #wikipedia on the freenode network (irc.freenode.net), and mentioned the project on there.  Kelly was one of the people who said she was.  I'd also recommend just browsing through the history of the chicago and related articles and finding people who have made significant edits. -- BMIComp  (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your work in your sandbox. Try using ChicagoInfoBox2 instead of ChicagoInfoBox. Let me know what you think of it (I removed the aerial photo and made the map smaller) Hehe, also, don't feel obliged to upload all of those chicago photos... personally I thought some of them were pretty mediocre. Anyway, keep up the good work. -- BMIComp (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I added a little bit to the chicago fire section, but I wasn't sure how large that section should be. I think what I added helps put the fire in perspective though.

I really like the new article, very nice work.

-- BMIComp (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Cayman-Stub
Hi - we at WikiProject Stub sorting have just discovered your recent creation, Cayman-Stub. Despite being mentioned on nearly every stub-related page in wikipedia, you may not be aware that there is a standard procedure for creating stub types, which includes proposal at WP:WSS/C, followed by a debating period. This allows for the category to be checked for potential size (unlike standard categories, stub categories really need a minimum of 60-100 articles to be viable), naming (so that we can be sure that a category couldn't be mistaked for one on crocodiles, for example), and whether it fits into the already complicated stub hierarchy. I've listed the new category and template at WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria, and I've changed the name of the template to fit in with our standard naming conventions (it now has a small s on "stub"). Renaming the category (to Cayman Islands stubs) will take more effort. Please, if you intend to create any more stub types, get them checked out first to save everyone some hassle! Oh, and please also note the comment I've made regarding geo-stubs at Category:Cayman stubs. Grutness...  wha?  11:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Vacation
Are you on vacation? -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, I actually was on "vacation". I forgot to post anything saying that, sorry-lol. I also thought that I would have internet access where I was. --Gpyoung talk 00:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. Well, welcome back.  Hope you had a good vacation.  I've been working on a few articles, although, they are still pretty raw.  Feel free to add anything to them as you see fit. P.S. Are you on #Wikipedia IRC?-- BMIComp  (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, to be honest I have never been on the #Wikipedia nor do I really understand what is it (but I assume its a board of some sort). Please excuse my nievity on this subject and, if you can send me some information on how I can join.

Thanks, --Gpyoung talk 00:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. #Wikipedia is an IRC (chat) channel for discussing Wikipedia and the like.  It's on the freenode network (irc.freenode.net).  The channel/roomame is #Wikipedia.  If you'd like to get join it and need help, let me know. -- BMIComp  (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer
Sorry I'm posting this on your profile page, but I don't know how else to respond. I'm flattered by your offer, but there's a lot going on in my life right now, and even under the best of circumstances I'd be limited in the amount of time I could devote to such a project. Wikis tend to be time consuming by their very nature, so that might rule me out.

Also - and I'm sorry I've had to say this - I've gotten the impression that as a person of color, I'm not considered to be as equal by many of the Wikipedians as some of the other editors. Over on one article, I even had somebody go as far as to demand that I accept an arrangement where he and his friends could personally attack me and revert anything I wrote anywhere to their heart's content, but I'd be expected to be friendly and polite with them no matter rude they got and I wouldn't revert anything they wrote if I knew what was good for me.

I've seen that kind of redneck double standard in action before, and I know exactly where it's going. I'm not saying that most Wikipedians think like that, but the ones who do have networked and those of us who are getting targeted are on our own. That's not a friendly thing to say, but it's reality. You seem cool, and I'm sorry to have to drop all of this unpleasantness on your doorstep, but after such a kind offer, just walking away without saying a word would have seemed even ruder. Good luck with the project, and that I mean sincerely. - the noneditor. 65.182.172.72


 * I'm a little confused as to how they they knew your race, unless you're referring to the GNAA, who are a group of people whose mission it is to vandalize wikipedia. I'm sorry to hear you've had a bad experience.  There's always a few jerks in every crowd, and unfortunately, here on Wikipedia sometimes the jerks tend to stand out. =/.  -- BMIComp  (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Spoken
I did a spoken version of the Chicago article. Not really great quality, I stumble all over the place, but I figure it's better than nothing. I think have a spoken version might help with the Featured articleness. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Chicago picture vote
I don't see the difference between Bmicomp copying other people's votes to the new section that he added and my copying of one person's vote. It is the same thing. He copied signed votes, I copied a signed vote. HollyAm originally posted there because Picture #4 was not added with the rest of the pictures yet. Also the text "it has my vote" IMHO should count as a vote, otherwise I don't know what qualifies.

Also, please see the conversation on my talk page User_talk:Shoffman11 regarding the ending date of the vote and the page's appearance on WP:RfC. I understand why you want to speed up the vote, but by allowing as many people to vote now for the image they like, we will have less people disliking the image when we try to get Chicago on WP:FAC. And I'd like to see where you have recently (in the last 2 days, the time since Bmicomp changed it) discussed changing the ending date of the vote. You say to discuss it first and we have earlier today on my talk page, but you changed it again without discussing it (that I can see). Shoffman11 22:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded mean here, I've replied nicely to your post on my talk page. Thank you, Shoffman11 23:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: History Of Illinois
Except for two sentences, it's just a copy of the "History" section of Illinois. I changed my mind about sending it to deletion, but thought I'd talk to you. Why should this be its own article? Chatoyant 20:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, then. They're doing something similar with New York. Regards. Chatoyant 20:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Major change to Template:Illinois
As a rule do not make major edits like that which are reflected on many many pages without first going to discussion. You're erasing a very LARGE amount of work and information added by others. The consensus has been to leave it as it is, and this sort of template exists for the other states as well. Agriculture 23:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In regards to your comment about the Illinois Template, I looked and did not see any discussion about the template. The reason I changed it was because it was unnecessarly large and honestly looks fairly ugly on pages, especially small ones. This is not only my opinion, but was brought up on the peer review that I started for the Chicago article. As I am in the process of nominating Chicago as a featured article, I am not comfortable putting this template in the article, nor are amny of the other Chicago editors; if a compromise cannot be reached, the consensus between the members of WikiProject Chicago is to exclude the template. I do not see why the individule counties should be listed when there is a page listing the counties. If you say there is discussion supporting this, I would like to see it as I was unable to find any. Regardless of this, I still intend to add the History, Government, Economy and People and Culture links as I believe that these articles should be advertised. They were not in existence before today, so naturally any pre-formed consensus were not apply to them. Please advise on how you would like to address this.

--Gpyoung talk 01:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is your responsibility to start such a discussion as the current Illinois template is based on the consensus of the community and the result of quite a bit of work. To be quite frank Wikipedia does not care if you personally are not comfortable with an article bearing this template, or if you do not like the template.  It is concerned with what the consensus as a whole has created.  There is currently a standard to list counties and other such areas on state Templates, as evidence I present the following (apologies for the length but I think it makes the point very clear).


 * Template:Alabama
 * Template:Alaska
 * Template:Arizona
 * Template:Arkansas
 * Template:California
 * Template:Colorado
 * Template:Connecticut
 * Template:Delaware
 * Template:Florida
 * Template:Georgia
 * Template:Hawaii
 * Template:Idaho
 * Template:Indiana
 * Template:Iowa
 * Template:Kansas
 * Template:Kentucky
 * Template:Louisiana
 * Template:Maine
 * Template:Maryland
 * Template:Massachusetts
 * Template:Michigan
 * Template:Minnesota
 * Template:Mississippi
 * Template:Missouri
 * Template:Montana
 * Template:Nebraska
 * Template:Nevada
 * Template:New Hampshire
 * Template:New Jersey
 * Template:New Mexico
 * Template:New York
 * Template:North Carolina
 * Template:North Dakota
 * Template:Ohio
 * Template:Oklahoma
 * Template:Oregon
 * Template:Pennsylvania
 * Template:Rhode Island
 * Template:South Carolina
 * Template:South Dakota
 * Template:Tennessee
 * Template:Texas
 * Template:Utah
 * Template:Vermont
 * Template:Virginia
 * Template:Washington
 * Template:West Virginia
 * Template:Wisconsin
 * Template:Wyoming
 * As such, I suggest you think about what it means that every single state in the union follows this pattern. Adding links to the history and other sections should be in the body of the Illinois article as such "Please see the article Illinois (history) for more information as is done in other states. Agriculture 01:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, there was discussion about these template. This occured on the peer review I mentioned before as well as on numerous talk pages. A template or format being prevelent in other acticles does not mean that it is set in stone. Im sorry, I would think that since there was no discussion to the contrary, and since Wikipedia is all about making bold changes, my change is no different then any of the other ones made on the template, it was an attempt at an improvment. I can hardly believe that you had the unmidigated gall to post the comments you did in the edit summary, calling that vandalism shows that your attitude is against ANY changes. Your comment is extememly offensive and boarders on a personal attack. I do not want this to become an edit war, but you do not seem to have a constructive attitude. If you continue to revert my work, I do intent to start a new discussion, or rather move the discussion that took place before and supported this change to the templates talk page. If you would like to present your opinion, please do but please stop attacking me. Gpyoung talk 02:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * A discussion on some peer review unlisted and thus undiscussed by the editors of the main article in question does not accurately reflect the opinions of all concerned parties. You are correct a template or formate being prevalent does not mean it is set in stone, but when such is the rule with no exceptions it should be discussed before such a broad sweeping change is made to all pages which use the template.  Many articles in fact rely on the Illinois template as it is.
 * Wikipedia is about making bold changes, but not ones which damage existing work. Perhaps the changes you wish to suggest have some merit, perhaps not.  But the correct way to go about doing this is not by just deciding to change it, but to fully discuss the issue.
 * As for my having "unmidigated (sic) gall" to post that what you did was vandalism, it wasn't gall I assure you, but given that you essentially blanked the template without discussing it on the talk page at all, I assumed it was vandalism as you were an unknown editor coming out of the blue and destroying the work of others. I cannot divine your true intent, which is why I postfixed the vandalism comment with my opinion on what you should do if you were seriously attempting a positive edit.  I didn't know you, but I did know you blanked the template.  I worked with what info I had.  The comment was neither offensive or a personal attack.  I suggest you cool off a bit and approach the situation from my shoes and look at how truly destructive your edit was, especially after the discussion which had occured prior to your blanking which over the years has shaped the Illinois template.
 * I don't wish this to be an edit war either, however I suggest you revisit your opinion that I don't seem to have a "constructive attitude". Read the discussion of the template page, you will find there have been several discussions there between myself and other editors.  I have not attacked you at all yet, simply given you evidence that your edit was inappropriate.  Your only defense has been "I think it should be different".  My evidence has been "Wikipedia seems to disagree".  I whole heartedly support a discussion on the talk page including all users on the subject if you wish, but I will revert any destructive edits which you make to the template before such a discussion takes place in the name of preserving the template for the many, MANY articles which utilize it.  Any constructive edits which you make (i.e. which add information to the template and do not remove from it) I will discuss on the talk page before changing myself.  I think this is a perfectly reasonable compromise and await your opinion. Agriculture 02:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My evidence has certainly not been that I "like it that way" and yours has not been "wikipedia likes it that way". You have shown me nothing but that you want to "keep it the way it was". You have shown no discussion to show that "Wikipedia" likes it at all. Im sorry if you consider it destructive, but once again that is your opinion and I do not believe many people see reformatting as destructive, and if you do I think you have to reevaluate. Please look into what vandalism actually is before you accuse someone. Juse beuase you disagree with me, doesnt make it vandalsim, that is what offends me. Im sorry that this has been uglier then was intended, I do not wish this to continue, and I have started an actual discussion on the talk page with all intents of civility, I hope you will follow suit.

--Gpyoung talk 03:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My evidence has been 49 examples of prior art indicating that a large majority of Wikipedians have established a standard for templates of the 50 states. This is not a case of my opinion, but of the majority opinion.  That much should be readily obvious.  As far as destructive, your edit most certainly was.  It removed information, it did not as you claim reformate.  As far as Vandalism, yes.  Blanking a page partially or wholely is listed under the definition of Vandalism.  I apologize if I offended you, after talking with you I see Vandalism was not your intent, and you seem to just be a Wikipedian with concerns about Illinois.  I am as well.  I agree this began uglier than it should have and suggest we work together on the talk page and various projects to push our mutual goal, making all articles on our great state better. Agriculture 03:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This was obviously not an incident of blanking, it was reformatting, content was not removed maliciously or for the sake of vandalism, it was removed for the purpose of changing the format for, in my opinion, the better. This is no different then any other major edit or change, except that you disagree with it, I understand your object and respect it, but dont call it vandalism. As for where to go from here, I think there is a possibillity of compromise. Is there any way we can put this behind us and and try to come up with a version that both includes the individule links and is more compact, and possibly includes the other article (government ect.)
 * I look forward to working with you on this if possible,

--Gpyoung talk 03:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It was unclear from your intial edit what the intent was. As I said, it appeared to be vandalism, but after you have explained your position I can see that was not the intent.  The difference is not my disagreement, but the deletion of well established content.  I agree there is a possibility of compromise, though you still have not told me why the current template is so offensive.  On of the goals of Wikipedia is to provide useful content, so far the template and it's generic format have proved useful for many, many users of all the states.  Perhaps there is a way to better format it, but until I understand what you don't like, it's hard to offer suggestions.  I agree, lets put the initial misunderstanding behind us and work towards something common with the rest of the community. Agriculture 03:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Illinois Template - Redux
The reason I did not like the template was because it was too large. I have been playing with the idea of condensing it while still leaving in the individule links, please see User:Gpyoung/Illinois for my work on this. I know its not much smaller, but it cuts down the wasted space, making it aat least a little smaller. Tell me what you think. --Gpyoung talk 03:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the sections aren't as clear, though I agree with and support the change to the banner, the banner was a lot of wasted space. Perhaps moving the section names just above the sections and centering would be a good thing? Agriculture 04:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As a note, I watch all talk pages I edit/discuss on, so we need only comment on one page. Agriculture 04:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Im not too good at formatting so I was wonering if you could do this for me. The font for the indiv. links is 80%, but is there a way to make the headings larger (say 100%)? --Gpyoung talk 04:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a shot tomorrow morning, after looking through the table formatting information I have. Agriculture 04:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)