User talk:Nationalparks/Archive 1

Welcome, from Journalist
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Since others have mistook me for a program or bot of some kind, Ill just like to start putting it out there that Im 100% real :)  Journalist  C./ Holla @ me!

Staples High School
I just wanted to say thanks for fixing my mistake and moving the school template from the artcle itself to the talk page of Staples High School. -- Rmrfstar 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Categories
Hi- There is no need to make a section called Categories above the Categories on each page. I see you have done this for the MIT Presidents. Please remove them. Thanks! Nationalparks 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The reasons I like to do this are: 1) If you use categories a lot as I do, it gives you quick access to them from the Table of Contents. 2) You are less likely to conflict with someone editing the content of a page if you are just maintaining categories. 3) It is less content to edit so if the server fails when saving a page (which it does occasionally), there is less risk to the contents of the article. --Prmacn 22:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

MIT
I just created this.evrik 21:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Npgallery
I agree that this is suspicious, I'm just not sure whether it qualifies as spam. I looked at at the website, found no provenance given, a lot of links to commercial sites and no links to actual national park pages. It looks likes a device to sell sporting goods to me (from the links at the bottom). I wanted to see what happened if you register, but didn't want more spam! :) Anyway, at the very least the reversions and false accusations by npgallery are rather troubling. Pschemp | Talk 07:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * User Pschemp needs to refrain from libel and defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npgallery (talk • contribs)
 * What User:Npgallery has said at Talk:Bryce_Canyon_National_Park could be considered libel and defamation (see No_personal_attacks). Nationalparks 07:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Npgallery 20:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A question is niether libel nor defamation. Pschemp | Talk 07:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You made a statement. You libeled and defamed. Npgallery 20:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Spam
This should help.Pschemp | Talk 08:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And finally, Thanks for the help with this issue. Its always nice to see wikipedians unite. :)  Pschemp | Talk 08:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes!
Its nice to see that we are a conspiracy, even though we had never met before last night :) Pschemp | Talk 22:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Affiliated areas
I do not have my reference handy, but I don't think you are correct about the "affiliated area" status of the national memorials you edited on the list. I know that at least the African American Civil War Memorial and the Cape Henry Memorial are owned by the National Park Service. The problem, I think, lies in a question of status as a unit of the National Park System -- which I admit can be very confusing. Neither of those two memorials is considered a "unit". Rather, the Civil War Memorial is managed by Ford's Theatre NHS. Cape Henry is part of Colonial NHP. Properly, though, only privately-owned (or state/locally owned), but federally designated, national memorials are "affiliated" (such as Benjamin Franklin NMem). It might take a couple of days, but I'll try to enter decent stubs on some of these memorials that are still "red links". &mdash; Eoghanacht  talk 14:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would believe that they are managed by "official" units, but they themselves are definitely not counted in the 388 official NPS units. References: 1, 2, and my own travels. Nationalparks 17:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, they are not part of the official 388 units. However:
 * In an Act of August 18, 1870, the National Park System was defined in law as "Any area of land and water now or hereafter administered by the Sectretary of the Interior through the National Park Service for park, monument, historic, parkway, recreational or other purposes." The same law specifically excludes "miscellaneaous areas administered in connection therewith," that is, those properties that are neither federally owned nor directly administered by the National Park Service but which utilize NPS assistance. (The National Parks: Index 2001–2003. Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, p. 97 under the Affiliated Areas chapter.)

Thus, Cape Henry Memorial, while not a "unit," is still a part of the National Park System, and has its own webpage stating it is part of Colonial NHP. Yet the Inupiat Heritage Center, because it is not owned by the NPS, is listed as an affiliated area on its website. . Frankly, I agree that the way the NPS organizes it's minor designated areas (call them sub-units, or whatever) is very confusing, and makes listing them difficult. It also does not help that some areas are called "national memorials" while others (like the Lincoln Memorial) are just "memorials" -- but that's Congress for you. &mdash; Eoghanacht  talk 16:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you said. I just think in the list it should be clear which are the 388 and which are sub-units or affiliated. Nationalparks 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, I finally got around to writing/improving short articles for the following sites: African American Civil War Memorial, Cape Henry Memorial, David Berger National Memorial, George Mason Memorial, and John Ericsson National Memorial. Enjoy! &mdash;  Eoghanacht  talk 19:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Spiderman
Thanks, man, looking at the picture of the bridge, it seemed so much larger in the movie, but yeah, the structure appears more similar than the Vera. So many bridges in new york eh? Tyciol 18:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, no problem. Nationalparks 18:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
I'd just like to thank you for your support and posting of evidence in this case. It has been closed (for now) so I hope that's the end of it. psch e  mp  |  talk  05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Since national parks are my thing, I'll keep a watch on those articles! Nationalparks 07:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

African Burial Ground National Monument
You changed the date for African Burial Ground National Monument on List of areas in the National Park System of the United States just a few minutes ago. It was declared a national ladmark in 1993, but was declared a national monument last month. Cburnett 01:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Since this is a page for the National Park System, the date should be that of when it became a unit of the NPS. Nationalparks 01:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's called a "national monument" and under a list of national monuments and the date should reflect such. Put it under a national historic landmark list and use 1993 if you wish.  Or if it's on a list of national park assets then also use 1993.  But it's neither so it should be 2006.  It's all about the context. Cburnett 02:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and that's why I changed the date you had entered from the 1993 date to the 2006 date. Nationalparks 03:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lake Charles
Ya' know, I was just about to move it to the 'La. Geo.' stub category, but you beat me to the chase. Looked up again, and it was there already.lol thnks--J. Daily 07:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem! Nationalparks 07:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

NPS Stub
I actually had stopt placing stubs on my new NPS related articles, mostly because I tend to doubt if anyone really looks through stub categories for personal to-do projects. However, if I notice existing stub articles that need work, maybe I will use it to tag them for future reference. I plan to add your new stub category within the Protected Areas categorization, somehow. &mdash; Eoghanacht  talk 13:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleting
I would like it if you would stop asking to delete pages I have created on the grounds that you are a nerd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins1990 (talk • contribs)
 * They are non-notable as per Deletion policy. Please refrain from personal attacks.  Nationalparks 00:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Truman
Thanks for your comments. I'm new to talk so I hope I'm putting this in the right place. One thing I see is that you put Clay County back into the categories. Both houses om National Historic Site are south of the Missouri River in Jackson County, Missouri. The only Truman structure of interest in Clay County is the Elms Hotel in Excelsior Springs. Thanks again for the encouragement. Americasroof 03:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about the county. It's removed now.  I hadn't realized that it was incorrect in the Wallace House article before it was merged, so I just copied it over after the articles were merged.  This is the right place for talk.  Nationalparks 03:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

ic3yme
mhmmm :] I rather wouldn't I'm just sharing the info.&don't really feel like learing all of Wikipedia's html setup "serves no purpose to me at the moment lol" mabye someday when I get around to it*. I'll look into it when I get bored or something sometime. Thanks for editing and whatnot, Nationalparks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ic3yme (talk • contribs)
 * This was based on the following message left at User talk:Ic3yme: Welcome to Wikipedia! I see you've been adding some articles about fish.  That's great!  I'd recommend taking a look at Manual of Style as you become more involved.  Using the tips from that page will prevent all of your articles from being tagged as "articles needing cleanup." Nationalparks 19:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC).
 * Nationalparks 19:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

from owaldo
This is just a setup. Hit me with "nonsense" and "vandalism" so that is you best shot? What nonsense in computer wallpaper? What Nonsense? I add information on symmetry and you call it nonsense? What a bunch of false assertions! You cannot do better than to me a vandal? 0waldo 02:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reposting an article that was deleted according to Wikipedia policy is listed under Criteria for speedy deletion. I did not remove the information on symmetry, I only removed the link to the page that had been deleted that you readded. Nationalparks 02:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

ic3yme
Don't know if you choose the wrong copyright thing on an image will it get deleted, I guestimated most of them think I'm getting the hang of that; thanks again =) for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ic3yme (talk • contribs)
 * No problem! Your images are good for Wikipedia and it would be a shame for them to be deleted because they weren't tagged properly.  Nationalparks 04:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This was based on a message I left at User Talk:Ic3yme: When you upload an image, you should choose a tag from the drop down list they give you. If not, they will probably be deleted in a week or so.  At this point, I recommend adding tags from Image_copyright_tags (like  ) to the images you've already put up, so they don't get removed.  And in the future, you should choose an option from the drop down list on the image upload page. Thanks and let me know if you have questions about this! Nationalparks 03:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sacred clown
It sppears your favorite set of vandals have been messing around with Sacred clown as well. I would try and revert it, but the truth is I wouldn't know a sacred clown if it shook my hand and said hi. In other words, I have no idea what to even think of reverting to. I figured I would leave that in your capable hands. --Bachrach44 20:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the subject either, I just happened to notice 3 users (User talk:67.86.180.171, User talk:Johnlekay, and User talk:ElizabethMckenzie) adding references to their magazine. The IP address belongs to one of those two people.  Sacred clown doesn't seem to have any self-promo, which is why this set of users were warned and briefly banned in the first place, so I'm not too worried about that article.  I'm just worried about the emails (I got a second email) that I have received. Both emails make it seem like Wikipedia is "my" site, and that I am responsible for removing the warnings from the IP's user talk page. Nationalparks 20:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For others reading this, I'd refer you to Village_pump_(assistance). Nationalparks 20:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed no one has reverted this yet. I know nothing about the topic, but given the history, it seems likely that these edits are also in bad faith. I'm not going to revert either, but the article is in really poor shape right now (though earlier versions weren't much better). Let's just hope someone who has a clue about the topic also has it watchlisted. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * At least there's no self-promo in that article. The article does need to be cleaned up, though.  I'll tag it right now. Nationalparks 04:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth McKenzie
Dear Scott, Your instructions did not work. We attempted to delete the entries from the talk page and they popped right back. How do we delete them permanently. Thanks, Elizabeth 67.86.180.171 18:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, WP:VAND says "users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing". That is why others (not me) have replaced the warnings. I'd like to refer you to Village_pump_(assistance), where you can weigh in on the matter.  Or you can talk to the users that have put the warnings back on their talk pages.  Nationalparks 20:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, all of those edits will still be in the edit history (just like every edit made on Wikipedia), unless an admin permanently deletes the edit history. Nationalparks 00:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your (Nationalparks) message to me (Nagle), I'd recommend that if there are any complaints, the complainant be referred to the "Unintended consequences" box in WP:VAIN,which explains how attempts to promote something on Wikipedia can, and usually does, backfire. Thanks.  --John Nagle 05:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the gender mix-up!
I usually assume the masculine when I'm not sure of a person's gender, but for some reason I've lately been refering to every user as "she." Strange ... my apologies. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, don't worry! Nationalparks 04:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

List of United States national parks by state
I love the map - we should be able to use that several places. (One problem - the Virgin Islands aren't in Wisconsin!) Rmhermen 18:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm afraid that I can't take credit for the map. I'm pretty sure that User:Donarreiskoffer created it.  I just added it to some appropriate articles.  (And I've now removed the wacky dot from Wisconsin from all the articles.) Nationalparks 18:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

NPS stubs
Hi, I do understand that my changing the NPS stubs makes your work more difficult. I apologize for any inconvenience. However, given the discussion from the protected areas proposal (see here) it appears that the NPS stub may soon be deleted. I'll stop removing the NPS stubs for now, but I will add protected areas stubs for those articles to ensure that we don't lose the stub. Let me know if this works for you. ClarkBHM 00:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup. Thanks!  And for my sake, I certainly hope NPS-stub isn't deleted.  If they would prefer a better name, that's fine with me. Nationalparks 02:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Curecanti pictures
Thanks for adding those great pics to Curecanti National Recreation Area as well as the pictures of the dams and reservoirs. I could have sworn I had some of my own photos that I was going to upload but I couldn't find them so I was glad to see someone else had some good ones.-Nebular110 16:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem! Nationalparks 16:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Redir and Article creation
Please create articles before you create the redirect to them. People might stumble (Special:Random article) onto the redirect and be frustrated at it being broken. GRBerry 17:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice! I'll be sure to do this in the future.  By the way, the article in question, Wilkerson Pass, has now been created (about 5 minutes after I made the redirect). But I understand why it's a bad idea to create the redirect first.  Nationalparks 17:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, Special pages says: "redirects to a random page from the main namespace which is not a redirect". Nationalparks 03:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Nationalparks! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve
You say that Craters of the Moon is the newest preserve. My source (The National Parks Index 2001-2003) says that Craters of the Moon was established on May 2, 1924 (this is also what the infobox says) while Tallgrass Prairie was established on November 12, 1996. Could you clarify this? Is my source wrong or am I missing something here? Thanks--Nebular110 04:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right about the establishment of Craters of the Moon National Monument in 1924 and the establishment of TGP in 1996. But, George W. Bush signed the law (P.L. 107-213) establishing Craters of the Moon National Preserve on August 21, 2002 .  (Even though both Craters units have similar names, they are actually 2 separate units of the 390 parks.)  I guess that this should be properly reflected in the Craters article, especially since the Preserve doesn't have its own article.  Nationalparks 15:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand now. Thanks for clearing that up. --Nebular110 16:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I have added the date for the Preserve to the Craters article. Nationalparks 16:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)