User talk:Id4abel/1

Engineer Cantonment
Thanks for your recent GA review of Engineer Cantonment. I've done a few GARs myself, and know that they can represent a pretty serious committment of time and effort. I appreciate your willingness to undertake the task, and I hope that you found the article interesting enough to make up for the work that you put into it. — Ammodramus (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. Thank you for doing such great work on the article that I was hard pressed to find anything to point out. Abel (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Cutervo National Park
Thank you for your review on the Cutervo National Park article. You did a great job, and I promise to keep improving my English skills to make future reviews a lot easier ;). I've just read the page on Good articles, but it seems that the Cutervo National Park article is not listed yet. Is there something I need to fix to get it on the list? Frank R 1981 (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to help.Thank you for all your hard work on the article. Your English is fine, I perfectly understood what you were getting at in the article. I was under the impression that the good article listings happen automatically because they get added by bots. So maybe after a couple days it will show up. What listing are you looking at? I will be happy to add the article to that listing if it is something I am supposed to do manually. Please paste a link to that page.Abel (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Added Cutervo National Park to Good_articles/Geography_and_places. Is that where you were looking for it? Abel (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again, I found it under the Geography section. I guess it takes some time for the bot to list it. However, I've noticed that the green 'good article' logo is missing from the article page. How can I add it? Frank R 1981 (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why that did not happen so I just added it. Abel (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Mason Day
Abel, the info you provide is based on "Mason Day Fun Facts". Clearly WP:NOTTRIVIA. It is easy to come up with nice Facebook-type photos of students having fun. (Some photos are better/more fun than others.) But these photos are not distinctive. I have no connection to Mason, other than liking George as a founding father. If you have a connection, then please consider the WP:BOOSTER aspects of your edits. Also, look at WP:College_and_university_article_advice. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I added no such thing. Someone else added the sections and not well written text. I added historical photos to the otherwise sad section, you know, because adding to things is supposed to be the point to all this.Abel (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The 2012 image was added to the Commons by you. How can you authenticate that it was created by a GMU source? (And we don't simply add info/images to articles for the sake of adding them.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So photographs of students participating in the same university sponsored activities at the university those students currently attend, one from 50 years before and one from 50 years later, cannot possible show anyone anything. Clearly the article would be best if all the images were just buildings and white men, at a school that cannot stop talking about how diverse it is.Abel (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides the concerns I expressed above, how can we authenticate it was a Mason Day image? But even if it was a Mason Day image, so what? You're not suggesting that Mason Day in the 60's was simply volleyball whereas they simply stand around and kiss roasted pigs in the 10's? There is nothing to compare -- students had fun "then" and they have fun "now". These images do absolutely nothing to inform the reader. – S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The images show people students celebrating Mason Day 50 years before and 50 years later. Will a hand full of people find that interesting? I did. Will anyone pay it serious thought? I doubt it. Who cares. Are the images better than the garbage text alone? By far.Could someone learn something? Sure. Apparently that is not enough and the article should go back to just buildings and white men.Abel (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Readers look to the whole article for information. A well laid out article cuts out the trivia and clutter. The images that are not distinctive to GMU contribute to the clutter. Please face it, your insistence on the two Mason Day images adds to the clutter. You are off the mark when you say "just buildings". The article has statues, a bus, a GMC decal, benches, etc. Finally, what's this about "just white men"? Various images have women (white and Asian) and black men, AND the list of notable GMU alums and faculty includes men and women of all races.  – S. Rich (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not have included the traditions section at all. Yes universities have traditions and some people find those traditions super important, but I am not convinced that the traditions merit more than a side note. The text looks like a copy and paste from an old Mason website or brochure. Since someone did add that section and I could not think of a way to improve the poorly written text, but I was able to find images that made the section slightly less awful I added those images. If something added is blatantly not true or some form of vandalism, sure, delete away. If something is true but is of lesser quality and makes the article long without adding much, sure, delete away. Deleting images that improve on garbage text? Many people seem to think that by running around and deleting nearly everything that they think they can justify that they are helping. If those purity police are removing vandalism then yes they are. Beyond vandalism, removing images directly related to the text, when the text is clearly not good, is by no stretch an improvement. The article goes from poor text plus interesting pictures to poor text alone. Not at all an improvement. Find a way to improve the text so that the images are no longer needed to keep the section from being a complete waste of space? Better, but I could not come up with anything that would make that happen so I did what little I could to improve what was there. Does not fix the underlying issue that the text is not good, but at least makes the section slightly less pathetic until someone with a better idea comes along. Abel (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Scouting is always capitalized in this sense in English, per Scouting WPMOS
I really appreciate your contributions to the Scouting articles! However, please do not decapitalize Scout and variants thereof when you find it-Scouting is always capitalized in this sense in English, per Scouting WPMOS. Like Rotary the club versus tools and so on.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is grammatically incorrect and violates the Wikipedia:Manual of Style by contradicting “Names of particular institutions are proper names and require capitals, but generic words for institutions (university, college, hospital, high school) do not. For example: the founding of the University of Delhi or the history of Stanford University but when the university was founded.”Abel (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/MOS#Capitalization hate to fight you on this but you're in the wrong-there is nothing "generic" about it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a project page and not the manual of style. Abel (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The project page rule was not followed by the person who just edited that very rule seconds before, yet people want to believe that this rule, that the person who just wrote it cannot follow, is evenly enforced by hundreds of group members. Everyone involved knows for a fact that the rule is really whatever whim that enforcer thinks is correct at that moment and will change their minds whenever they like. Bringing up that this rule exists in this sad state elicited a barely improved rule, but mostly attacks against the person saying that the rule needs work. Congratulations. Every article complaining about Wikipedia not having enough women was just proven correct by the behavior displayed. Abel (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/592/1/ Abel (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

On categorisation
Hello. You recently added a ton of categories to National Capital Area Council in this edit. In general it's important not to WP:OVERCATegorise, and specifically categories should only apply to the main subject of the article, not elements within it. It confuses the category system if the same article is categorised within multiple years of establishment for instance. There's also no need to categorise in both a parent category and its daughter, just go to the lowest element of the hierarchy that you can - categorising in eg means that it is already counted as being part of  by descent. Another thing is that per WP:REDNOT you shouldn't add non-existent red-linked categories unless you intend to create them, they shouldn't be left as red links.Le Deluge (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have had bad experiences with categories and so normally just avoid them wholesale. I created an article with only one super obvious category that seemed like it was not disputable in any way, then was slapped on it. I went looking through similar articles and compiled a list of all the categories that could be applied. Noticing that National Capital Area Council could also earn a  I added categories to that as well. I will now go back to avoiding categories like the plague. But again, thank you for your guidance. Abel (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't feel discouraged - categories are important, it's just a question of finding the Goldilocks balance between too few/vague and too many/precise. You'll notice that most articles have between 2-4, you can usually find more than one and some biography ones rack up a dozen, but for the kind of thing you're doing 2-4 is a good target. And you should try to push as far down a hierarchy as possible - World Scouting might not be too useful, but Scouting in Ohio is rather more precise. It may help to think in terms of a novel - you might expect to read "Down the road came a policeman in his late 20's with blond hair and a prosthetic leg". Merely "Down the road came a man" is a "super obvious category" - but it's not very useful. On the other hand you don't really want to read "Down the road came a Grade II With Commendation traffic cop aged 28 years, 3 months and 2 days, with hair the shade of Pantone 123C and an Acme Model 187X prosthetic leg. He was alone, but at home he had a daughter aged 2 years 11 months and 5 days." Too much detail is confusing just as too little detail is not very helpful, it's all about getting that balance. It might help if you read WP:Categorization as well as WP:OVERCAT.Le Deluge (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sounds like 1. only use the most specific, 2. only use existing categories, and 3. aim for a handful, is a guideline that will work for most articles and make most everyone happy. Thank you again, that sounds like very valuable advice that I will be able to use over and over. Abel (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's about it, at least whilst you get the hang of it. Cloning from other articles is a pretty good place to start, although before doing that I'd just have a little explore of the categories just to see what the lie of the land is and that they've been categorised appropriately. In particular I guess with something like scouting you'll find that most countries don't go below national level but the US will generally have categories at the state level. Except you'll often find that only say 30 of the states have categories - you shouldn't be afraid to add other ones to help complete the set.Le Deluge (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

George Mason University – quotation in reference
You undid my edits on this page, and stated that "people used to to write like that." Perhaps they did, but the person who wrote this in 1952 didn't. The original source is at http://web.archive.org/web/20170220225740/http://digilib.gmu.edu/jspui/bitstream/handle/1920/2698/Mann_53_1_1_v.pdf. See page 2 of the pdf. I've re-inserted my edits. Ira Ira Leviton (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction. Abel (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Sports in Washington DC
It should say 13 NOT 12 Cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8352:DBC0:BD75:876E:33BA:870B (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then change the 12 to a 13 and provide a citation. Since I have never changed anything involving Sports in Washington, D.C. I fail to see why I would care. Abel (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Fairfax County
Hi, I suggest you review our article on Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. It's potentially misleading to suggest a direct correlation between the "ethnicity" reported by Census respondents and particular countries of ancestral origin. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed some text from a bulleted list into a sortable table. Not my wording. Do not care. Call it whatever you like. Abel (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Winchester, Virginia
I'm not sure what the sock puppetry issue may be with User:She called me boo, but the last edits to this article were correct. So I reverted those. If there's an error, please let me know. MartinezMD (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppets of Motivação is quite clear. Abel (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing his sockpuppeting was my point, simply that the edits in this particular case were correct. I've seen mixes of correct and vandalistic edits from editors like him. MartinezMD (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They made the same changes to a multitude of pages under many accounts. If you like what they are doing take up their cause and keep making those changes. Abel (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Alexandria, Virginia
I noticed in your edit summaries at Alexandria, Virginia, that you are basing your edits on WP:CITSTRUCT. For US cities, please use WP:USCITIES. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Alexandria, Virginia into History of Alexandria, Virginia. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, did not know that such a thing existed. Abel (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Aung La N Sang
MMA fighters represent their place of birth for their fights. You should do some research online first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.66.175.113 (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. “Fighting out of” comes before “by way of” when fighters are introduced. Abel (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Procedural policy

 * WP:PGBOLD " editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards."--Moxy (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)