User talk:Mxn/2021

Orphaned non-free image File:CreaTV San Jose logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:CreaTV San Jose logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 San Jose shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KQED.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm DGG. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Second Harvest of Silicon Valley, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

 DGG ( talk ) 10:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Second Harvest of Silicon Valley


The article Second Harvest of Silicon Valley has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "local interest only"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

CommentsInLocalTime.js conflicts with TimestampDiffs.js
Your excellent CommentsInLocalTime conflicts with 's also excellent TimestampDiffs. Is there a way to reconcile them (perhaps using simple span titles instead of abbr/explain)? Cheers. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 03:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The conflict actually stems from the  attribute (the tooltip) having a different format than the original timestamp format that TimestampDiffs expects. Fortunately, CommentsInLocalTime already provides a machine-readable version of the timestamp, so I suggested a quick fix in TimestampDiffs, which apparently already has a special case for the original CommentsInLocalTime. Thanks for letting me know about the conflict and about TimestampDiffs in general. – Minh Nguyễn  &#x1f4ac; 05:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thank you! — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 05:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for suggesting the change to, . Is there a way to make your script show x time ago in place of the timestamp instead of in the tooltip? To me it's only showing for timestamps in the last 24h. And in the tooltip can I have just one date format instead of three? Or did I set it up wrong? Thanks again. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 03:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This customization guide shows the default configuration. It sets a relative date format for timestamps within the past, but you can specify the same function for the past   or   as well. The   array can include as many or as few format strings or functions as you want. This rewrite of the user script doesn't support any of the options from the original user script. – Minh Nguyễn  &#x1f4ac; 04:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks. A world of difference! — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 10:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * After waiting 3 weeks for Evad37 to adopt your suggestion, I installed your fork instead, . Works like a charm, thank you! There's just a wrinkle left somewhere between that and your CommentsInLocalTime: the tooltip shows something like Diff (/* section */ edit summary) ahead of the date. Is that on purpose? If it is, Might I suggest removing the Diff (/* section */) bit and leaving just the edit summary (that's actually a neat feature!). — Guarapiranga ☎ 11:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That "Diff" line has always been provided by TimestampDiffs: compare before and after. I think the intention behind "Diff" is to indicate that the link points to a diff. The "section" comes from the edit summary itself. That syntax can appear anywhere in an edit summary, so it may be confusing to elide it. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 19:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikibooks tiếng Việt
Xin chào bạn Nguyễn Xuân Minh, nhờ bạn làm việc với Phabricator, kêu họ cài đặt extension TabberNeue cho Wikibooks tiếng Việt. Theo dõi thảo luận trên Wikibooks tại trang này. Theo dõi thảo luận trên Phabricator tại trang này. Xin cảm ơn! Đức Anh (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Paper Townships Redux
Hello, again! Thanks for looking even further into this issue for me paper townships and reworking some of the wording and adding new/updated information. Now that we've kind of worked out when Millcreek became defunct (it's complicated), my question is about the other townships Cincy annexed into (i.e. Columbia, Anderson, Delhi, Green, etc.) - which I imagine much like in the case of Millcreek - whether and when the city withdrew from them to create whatever Cincy's current paper township is? Because whereas Millcreek eventually became defunct, which is sort of a withdrawl in itself, all of these townships still exists in part. Any info you can find of when Cincinnati's paper township was created and what it was called?

And actually, back to the differentiation between a 'proper' paper township and a defunct township. Say a township or the remnant of a township incorporated in full as a city/village thus rendering the township defunct. Now, say that new city/village annexes into adjoining townships. Since the township within the city/village no longer exists - and certainly not as a created paper township - how does that work? Does the city/village have to create a paper township to be able to stay withdrawn from the surrounding townships?

BTW, thought you might like to see these. I wish these were full maps, though. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * As Cincinnati Township was carved out into various townships large and small, Cincinnati annexed within Cincinnati Township until 1834 when it became coextensive with the township and withdrew. From that point, Cincinnati Township has been Cincinnati's first and only paper township, the vehicle by which the city has continued to annex into other townships without creating dual taxation situations. Since 1953, if not earlier, would've put any annexation within Cincinnati Township – just not automatically. So to recap, Cincinnati Township started out covering a significant portion of the state, gradually shrinking through the erection of various townships, until its nadir with the erection of Millcreek Township in 1809. Then after 1834, Cincinnati pushed the nominal Cincinnati Township's boundaries further and further out, eventually swallowing what was left of Storrs, Spencer, and Millcreek townships.
 * Cincinnati Township's expansion beyond its 1809 limits is incredibly obscure. It only matters to the board of county comissioners when implementing annexations. It doesn't even matter for the purpose of defining property boundaries, which continued to use the Millcreek name even in places that had been annexed. Contemporary newspaper accounts either describe an adjacent township as having shrunken or Cincinnati as having grown, but the only explicit mentions of paper townships are in relation to villages that had withdrawn. As far as the media is concerned, a township only exists if there are elections for trustees to levy taxes.
 * The only reason a city would need multiple paper townships would be that it already exists in multiple counties at the time of withdrawal. After all, a township can never exist in multiple counties under any circumstance. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 11:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As if we needed another example, Storrs Township, Hamilton County, Ohio, turned out to have national political ramifications when the county commissioners failed to dispose of it correctly. Thanks for digging into this topic with me – otherwise, Storrs would've remained an inaccurate redirect, conflated with an unrelated township. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 02:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, now I am again confused. lol What is the 1802 date? I've seen this saying it was "incorporated" as a town, and then other sources implying that this was the organization of a township and Cincy simply existed as a settlement within it until it's incorporation as a city in 1819. Secondly, and this gets back to my previous question, should I be thinking of a defunct township and a paper township as two distinctly different things? Like, when an incorporate municipality(ies) annexes ((though, without simultaneously withdrawing from said township)) so much that the surrounding township becomes defunct, does that mean the cities have "withdrawn" from it? Is it just always the case that the large city always has a paper township and is thus widthrawn from surrounding townships with every annexation is makes? I think my confusion is stemming from the two different concepts of "paper township," here. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The term "paper township" doesn't have any legal basis. It merely refers to a township that only exists on paper without a real government (see also "paper street"). The law doesn't formally classify paper townships according to the reason they no longer exist; it's entirely concerned with the current status of township boundaries and township governments. The term "withdrawal" also can't be found in the law. It isn't a separate process, just a legal maneuver for a city to dispose of its surrounding township. The law just says that the township government ceases to exist, and it happens that no township government can be recreated as long as all the territory is incorporated. It might be useful to reorganize Paper township to acknowledge that multiple processes can lead to the same effect.
 * Towns are not to be confused with townships. The state constitutions of 1802 and 1851 classified municipalities as towns and cities (as Indiana does today). Cincinnati Township dates back to 1791. The Cincinnati of that era is sometimes called a village in modern historical accounts, but it was actually an unincorporated settlement within the township. Cincinnati was first incorporated as a town in 1802 and was chartered as a city in 1819 in order to obtain home rule.
 * The Storrs Township incident in 1890 demonstrates that discrepancies between the boundaries of cities and their paper townships can result in electoral headaches but don't result in a different system of government. The county commissioners would've eventually dealt with the discrepancy by explicitly abolishing the government-less Storrs Township and attaching its territory to Delhi Township. That didn't matter for long, because Cincinnati would annex that territory too just a few years later. Presumably they learned their lesson and had the county update the township boundaries at the same time. The commissioners are the ones who drive all these changes, passing ordinances that modify the boundaries of townships and municipalities and filing those changes with the Secretary of State. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 20:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

After my last message, I think I've gotten closer to understanding some things I had questions about, particularly after you pointed me to the Storrs Township example. It would seem that a township losing its government due to annexation of all its territory doesn't automatically "withdraw" the township into whichever cities it now occupies. So when the city annexed Storrs Twp - including Sedamsville and Price Hill, but excluding the already incorporated Riverside - (and then the city's paper township eventually eating up that territory 17 years later) the part of Storrs that was Riverside still existed in nominal form post 1887 and for a few years after. Riverside was "within" Storrs Twp even though their borders were contiguous because Riverside apparently never withdrew from Storrs Twp. So, yeah, I'm trying to figure out a better way in the article to describe the fact that a "paper township" can either be the result of a "withdrawn" and coextensive municipality, or that it can also refer to the different case of a township becoming completely incorporated by cities and villages (i.e. "defunct"). Because, those are two different kinds of entities/concepts; a city township can expand through annexation by its coextensive city, a defunct township can not. It already is differentiated in the article, but I'm trying to think of better wording for the section titles. So, now that I have all that worked out, I just have a general question about Cincinnati that doesn't really relate to the article. Do we have any old maps showing Cincinnati within Cincinnati Township upon its 1802 incorporation as a town and it's 1939 incorporation as a city, and the finally when did the city become coextensive with the township? Thanks for all of your help. This is fascinating to me and far more complicated than townships and annexations in Michigan. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've seen you've already rewritten the article. I'd say on the first point of the "Formation" section that perhaps we not use Cincinnati - or any other township that was abolished simply by annexation. This point of formation is simply about when a township government becomes defunct instead of the township losing its legal existence all together. It'd be best to use an example of a defunct township where one or more cities has not yet withdrawn from it. It appears there are 11 cities and 3 villages of that contain a township and full, but is dependent in another township, and then many more that are simply defunct from multiple cities eating up their territory that we could choose from. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Riverside was never contiguous with Storrs Township; half of it lie within Delhi Township. It was simply an oversight that a portion of Storrs Township remained within Riverside without a government.
 * If all of a township's territory becomes incorporated by multiple cities, the township government doesn't automatically get abolished. (Storrs should've been an example of that, but no one noticed.) But after a township government is abolished due to becoming coextensive with a city, the township government can't be restored until some of the territory becomes unincorporated again. (That happened in the 1950s when Van Buren Township incorporated as Kettering, but Moraine Township broke away from Kettering.) In short, the rules for abolition and formation of a township government favor abolition.
 * I think Cincinnati Township is a decent example of a township that became defunct due to encroachment by a city within. After all, that is one of the ways a paper township can form. I'm open to replacing it with another example, if we can find one. From my research so far, it sounds like Dayton subsumed Dayton Township in the same way, but I'd have to look into it further. I haven't come across a map of Cincinnati before 1834 that shows townships, unfortunately. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 18:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That does change my understanding of things, then. I thought a being annexed and covered by multiple cities was the same as being contained within a single city. In that case, Cincinnati does, indeed, make sense as an example to use for defunct township governments.
 * So, can you find record of when either the town or city withdrew from Cincinnati Township. It would seem if you say that Cincy Township was an example of a paper township created through being covered by a single city/town/village that it would have had to have happened after it had subsumed the township. But that seems to go against the assumption I'm working under that a defunct township can't be merged with annexed land in another township, in this case places like Storrs or Millcreek. Is this an incorrect assumption? Like, if Cincy hadn't withdrawn from Cincy Township before it had expanded into the others, how could Cincy Township be the paper township, in this case? Would multiple ones have had to have been created outside of Cincy Twp, too?
 * As for Riverside, I guess you're saying that because the part of Riverside within Storrs hadn't formally withdrawn that that portion of Riverside should have had both a city and a township government, but had only had the former before it was corrected with a withdrawal? --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The 1834 city charter abolished elections in Cincinnati Township, thereby turning it into a paper township. There was no need to petition the county commissioners to withdraw, per se, because no township boundary had to change to invoke the provision in state law about the city and township becoming coextensive. "Withdrawal" would've meant creating a paper township coextensive with Cincinnati Township, which would've been even more redundant.
 * If Cincinnati had expanded into Spencer or Millcreek township before annexing the rest of Cincinnati Township, it would've ended up like Riverside before 1870 – a municipality partially overlapping multiple functioning townships. There are plenty of examples of that today, such as Monroe, which partially overlaps three townships, each of them with a functioning government. Cincinnati could at that point have withdrawn from all the townships at once to form a single paper township. Hamilton long ago broke away from three townships in that manner, but things got complicated from there, after the Hamilton Township boundary got out of sync with Hamilton's numerous annexations over the years, leading to a state Supreme Court battle over tax money.
 * I wonder if your assumption of "a defunct township can't be merged with annexed land in another township" comes from this line in Paper township:
 * Under 1953 case law, a paper township may not be considered an adjoining township for the purpose of dissolving a township.
 * Dissolving a township (or a municipality, for that matter) is an action taken by the county commissioners, without voter approval, to abolish the government and attach its territory to an adjacent township. Typically this is done for fiscal reasons. But township territory can always be annexed to a municipality if the voters of the municipality and annexed territory both approve. What this case law means is that, once Millcreek Township consisted of just an enclave completely surrounded by Cincinnati (that is, the nominal Cincinnati Township), the county commissioners couldn't have resolved the quandary by simply dissolving it and attaching the cemetery to Cincinnati/Cincinnati Township, because the law would've required the commissioners to ask the voters first. Problem is, there was no eligible voter to ask. In fact, I'm fairly certain that the 1953 case relates to Millcreek Township, though I haven't been able to dig it up. I'm still trying to find out how the Wesleyan Cemetery situation was resolved, but I know for a fact that it's part of Cincinnati today and not a rump Millcreek Township.
 * So the only paper township associated with the City of Cincinnati is the same Cincinnati Township that it was originally established within. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 22:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, this all makes sense. The "dissolving" quote in the article on Monroe had me confused. I guess I was also confused that Cincinnati City would have only origignally annexed into the remainder of Cincinnati Township when that annexation took place. Anyway, you say the 1834 charter abolished Cincy Twp as a governmental entity; is that kind of procedure required when a city/village covers a township? --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since annexation requires the consent of those being annexed, I suppose it would've been easier for Cincinnati to first annex neighborhoods that already identified with Cincinnati by virtue of being in the same township.
 * The 1834 vote on the new charter took place for a variety of reasons. In the 19th century, Cincinnati's city charter spelled out the municipal corporation limits as well as the boundaries of the city's electoral wards, so I think the charter had to be reapproved every time some new territory was annexed. Greve says "The election of constables for Cincinnati township, in the county of Hamilton, was abandoned as the township and city were coextensive and the selection of these officers and justices of the peace was left to be provided for by the City Council." I take that to mean that the township's offices would've been abolished anyways, as long as voters approved the annexation, but perhaps similar city offices were made nonelective at the same time.
 * A variety of aspects of municipal law have likely changed between the 1830s and today. Back then, cities could get the General Assembly to pass special laws making all sorts of exceptions. One such exception allowed Cincinnati to streamline the annexation of several villages without separate city and village elections. A new state constitution in 1851 reined in the hodgepodge of city laws, superseding the city charter in favor of general municipal law at the state level. Cincinnati finally regained home rule in 1917 through a new charter, not the charter of 1834. So I don't have clarity on the specifics, even if the basic principles regarding paper townships seem to have remained largely the same. Minh Nguyễn  &#x1f4ac; 06:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was simply asking whether a has to actively and formally abolish a township government once it covers a whole township, or if it just becomes a paper township automatically? I really imagine it's the latter. Anyway, one last small question and a descrepency I see in the articles for Storrs Township and Cincinnati Township. The Cincinnati Township article states that it became a paper township on March 1 of 1834, but then mentions in the next sentence that Storrs Township was created from an unincorporated western section of the township. The Storrs Township article mentions Cincinnati Township becoming defunct in 1835 and Storrs being created from a western portion of Cincinnati Township. Knowing that Mt. Adams was the last unincorporated part to be annexed, is what's being implied here that the portion of Cincy Twp west of Mill Creek was uninhabited? Because otherwise Cincy Twp having become a paper township wouldn't make sense if part of it still existed after the annexation of Mt. Adams. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that discrepancy in contemporary newspaper accounts. There's even a bigger discrepancy in that supposedly the township and city continued to swap uninhabited land for a couple years after that. The only explanation I can think of is that elections were abolished, but current officeholders were allowed to serve out their terms. That's definitely what happened when Elmwood Place and St. Bernard withdrew from Millcreek Township: the trustees were allowed to serve out their terms, even though they resided in the villages that withdrew. In that sense, the township lasted a little while longer, because legally speaking, a board of trustees is the township government, in the same way that a board of county commissioners is the county government. (By contrast, a municipal corporation is more than the city council.) At least, that's my best understanding given that I'm not a lawyer. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 05:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this was an issue of officeholding, though. Seems to be pretty explicitly said that Storrs was created from the western part of Cincinnati, which seems to at least imply that there was other territory of the township after the Mt. Adams annexation? It really only seems to leave a few options: 1.) Storrs was created/set off prior to the Mt. Adams annexation and withdrawal 2.) The Mt. Adams annexation and withdrawal was the last of populated tracts - which would abolish the government - in the township leaving western Cincy township in rump form until it was set off to create Storrs in the following year. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We're getting into minutiae that may not be possible to answer definitively based on the scraps of contemporary news accounts available. (I only have access to online newspaper archives dating back to 1841.) I based the wording of those articles largely on this article from 1958 and this book from 1979. These sources are so far out that, for example, they doesn't distinguish between the date on which the charter was approved and the date it took effect. If Cincinnati Township were a nonfunctioning "rump" township during most of 1834, that would be speculation, so I can't put it in the relevant articles. The western part of the township clearly was populated in 1834. For example, Ethan Stone had his estate there since 1810; his wife lent her name to Storrs Township. So if Cincinnati Township was a rump township, that would've been another oversight. But again, see Lincoln Park (Cincinnati) for references to Cincinnati Township trustees owning land in 1837. I don't know how to square that, except to say that the charter abolished elections without kicking out officeholders who might've been elected in the very same election. (That still happens today: in 2019, Amelia was abolished and got a new mayor in the same election. She didn't have much to do though.)
 * The actual text of the 1834 city charter makes several references to the township, for everything from defining the city boundary to racially segregating the public schools. But it makes clear that township elections are abolished and township taxes are paid into the city treasury rather than the county treasury. As the newspaper accounts indicate, officials considered that to be tantamount to abolishing the township or at least treating it as an agency of the city. Back then, it's possible that state administrative law or case law wasn't so clear on the specific mechanisms of township abolition, probably just that it would happen.
 * There are many things that were done back in those days that would be done with more precision today. To pick one at random, consider how informally College Corner School came to serve students in two states. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 07:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And back to this issue, what happens to a township government whose territory has been entirely annexed (but not withdrawn) by multiple cities? Does it simply continue existing as if nothing has happened or does it become defunct, too? I want to be crystal clear about this scenario. I'm just curious if you think it is worth a mention on the article to explain this scenario if it is relevant to the subject matter. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I'd assume the township would continue to exist. Maybe that has happened before, but at least in southwestern Ohio, it's pretty unlikely that such a situation would last long. Inevitably you'd hear calls to abolish the township government as a waste of taxpayer money. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 05:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Just writing back to let you know that I emailed the Ohio Township Association, and they said that once a township's territory is fully incorporated; its township government ceases to exist. And more important, that there is no difference between whether one city incorporates the entire territory, or whether multiple cities have incorporated within it.--Criticalthinker (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, that's helpful. The main thing it clarifies for us is that Storrs Township losing its government, after its partial annexation by Cincinnati, was not an oversight. But it sounds like they didn't opine on the existence of the township on paper, admittedly an obscure detail that normally doesn't come up. Did OTA happen to cite any law, case, or legal opinion that we could also cite in Paper township? The passages it currently cites aren't particularly clear on this point. Unfortunately we can't cite a private e-mail. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 04:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikivoyage
Về mặt kĩ thuật thì bạn có biết cách sửa lỗi "" ở đây không? Tôi có nhờ P.T.Đ giúp, nhưng không thấy hồi âm. Flyplanevn27 (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Cám ơn bạn đã báo cáo lỗi; xem voy:vi:Thảo luận Bản mẫu:Geo. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 23:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there!
Hi ,

I hope you are doing well! I noticed your work creating the SJCC and wanted to both thank you for the article’s creation and also introduce myself! You have done incredible work on articles relating to the Bay. I am a local to the Valley and saw you live in the Bay Area as well, so if I can ever help on articles relating to California and the Bay Area, you can count on me! I’m always happy to work with fine editors like yourself in expanding articles on topics relating to the region. Cheers and all the best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, @Cristiano Tomás! I'm always simultaneously amazed by how much others have written on Bay Area topics and how much more there's left to do. Looking forward to collaborating with you on future articles. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 05:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on Talk:Silicon Valley
Hi Mxn, hope all is well! I am reaching out because there is an important ongoing discussion at Talk:Silicon Valley concerning whether Silicon Valley is a region or simply a monicker for the local tech industry and whether it should be regarded as such both in its article and in references to it across Wikipedia. I invite you to join the discussion and present your thoughts on the matter, as more opinions are sorely needed to build any type of understanding or consensus. Whether you agree with my arguments or not, your opinion is valuable to the discussion. Best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Vietnam Sidebar
Anh Minh ơi, em vừa làm xong sidebar này cho WikiProject Vietnam nhưng thú thực là em không biết gì về code. Chẳng qua em lấy sidebar bên Video games rồi xào nấu lại thôi. Nếu anh có thời gian thì anh cứ customize nó nhé. &mdash; Băng Tỏa  17:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Băng Tỏa, cám ơn bạn đã xây dựng bản mẫu này. Nó đã được rồi; tôi thường không chú trọng nhiều về việc đặt kiểu đặc biệt cho bản mẫu chuyển hướng. Tôi giấu cái liên kết đến Naming conventions (Vietnamese): đây là một đề nghị cũ gây rất nhiều tranh luận và cuối cùng không được chấp nhận. Minh Nguyễn  &#x1f4ac; 04:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:WXIX-TV logo, 1996.png
Thank you for uploading File:WXIX-TV logo, 1996.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WXIX-TV logo, 1996.png
Thanks for uploading File:WXIX-TV logo, 1996.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

COI Assistance for Silicon Valley Community Foundation
Dear User:Mxn: I work with Silicon Valley Community Foundation and am therefore in a COI relationship. I understand I can not make improvements to the page myself, so I am looking for some volunteers to help/provide feedback on some page updates. I am writing to inquire if you might find it a good use of your time to help improve the page. I see that you have made edits to other Bay Area pages. I have some edits currently in my sandbox User:ChauSVCF/sandbox. I look forward to any feedback or assistance you might provide. Thank you, ChauSVCF (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @ChauSVCF: Thanks for taking the time to draft these changes according to the COI guidelines. I don't consider myself to be especially familiar with how organizations such as yours should be written about on Wikipedia, but I noticed that the proposed section about COVID-19 response is detailed enough that it would outweigh a few years' worth of other history in the article. Perhaps it would make sense to condense the proposed section for now or propose an expansion of the other sections?
 * Incidentally, we have a dedicated "COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area" article that could also benefit from some information about the role of nonprofit community organizations in pandemic response. The article needs a lot of updating and cleanup all around. Any help you could provide there would not only create a more appropriate space to discuss SVCF's involvement, but also help the community look back and understand what happened over the past couple years.
 * – Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 04:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi: User:Mxn: Thank you for your response to my request. I am definitely interested in contributing to the COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area article. Thank you for suggesting it. It sounds like you probably won’t contribute to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation article, but I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Best, ChauSVCF (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Amtrak California
Since Caltrans is a sub-agency of CSTA, shouldn't Amtrak California be in the more specific Caltrans category rather than the broader CalSTA category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi.1415926535 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Pi.1415926535: Yes, however, I soft-redirected Category:California Department of Transportation to Category:California State Transportation Agency shortly after creating the former, because I wasn't confident that we had enough articles to justify a more specific category (just three so far by my count). If you think it's OK, then I can change it back. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 05:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification - I totally missed the redirect. Given that Caltrans is a major public-facing agency while CalSTA is a comparatively obscure administrative agency†, I think it's worth it having its own category.


 * † I have worked in transportation planning in California for several years, and I wasn't familiar with CSTA until today. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Pi.1415926535: OK, I restored the category. Thanks for the perspective. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 06:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Emblem of Hamilton County, Ohio.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Emblem of Hamilton County, Ohio.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hỏi
Trong bản dịch gốc chứa thì trong bản dịch tiếng Việt để là  được không bạn? Flyplanevn27 (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nhân tiện, nếu có thời gian thì nhờ bạn qua trang này sửa lại các hàm liên quan đến GENDER và PLURAL, lưu ý là bạn cũng không cần hiệu đính lại nội dung bản dịch, vì tôi đã sửa lại rồi. Flyplanevn27 (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Flyplanevn27: Lỗi cho biết rằng cú pháp  hoặc   có hai tham số y chang nhau nên không cần tham số cuối cùng. Bản địa hóa tiếng Việt của MediaWiki chưa bao giờ xưng ai theo giới tính như "anh" hoặc "cô", nên chúng ta không bao giờ có lý do sử dụng   trong bản dịch. Tuy nhiên, nếu bản gốc có một tham số   nào mà bản dịch không có thì sẽ xuất hiện lỗi, nên chúng ta chèn một   vô nghĩa để thỏa mãn phần mềm. Minh Nguyễn  &#x1f4ac; 05:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)