User talk:Nsaum75/Archives/2009/September

“Neutral”
You seem to be under the impression, that something like “neutrality” physically exists. Which is understandable, with the reality distortion bubble that Wikipedia users live is. But fact is: It's by definition a non-existing concept.

Think about what would be needed for something like that to exist: An absolute truth. Now while this is a nice concept, physics prove that really it does not exist. Time, space and everything is by definition relative. Which means that every point of view is by definition relative to something. So there is no absolute thing. Not even truth. Ok, basic physics laws can most likely be said to be common for all of us, in our known universe. (Remember: Theories are just theories.) Unfortunately, we aren't that far yet in many areas. But can you deduct the statements of the topic of a random Wikipedia article from the basic laws of quantum mechanics? I don't think so. Nobody can really do that for any meaningfully complex topic.

But we help ourselves out, with “paradigms”, “axioms”, and when on a low level of education and/or a high level of being gullible, also with “dogmas”. Which of course are not the same for every human being in the world. (Why are some people traditionally happy and other sad when someone dies? Why is white the color of sadness and death for some? Is the tomato a fruit? Etc.)

So what do we consider “neutral”. Well… the things that fit with our reality. Our world view. Our paradigms/axioms/dogmas to be exact. The good thing with intelligent people is: They can change their paradigms when there is lower-level proof that those are definitely wrong. The bad thing is, that we really can't prove some things (yet), and have to live with tolerating different realities. And I don't even mean crap that's not possible to put into any real logic, like “intelligent design”. I mean normal things where to intelligent and experienced physicists can't decide who is right in their field of expertise.

I have yet to see something that would prove my statements wrong or them not fitting into a logic. But of course it seems, that it does not fit with your paradigms. And that is a basic failure of Wikipedia. Its concept is to blame. Big time. Because it is built on that very wrong foundation of absolute truth everywhere. A nice concept in theory, but not existing in reality, as now is perfectly clear. :)

So the question is: Are you going to… A) …prove me wrong trough deducing things from the highest paradigms that we both agree upon? B) …show clearly, that I have unacceptable errors in my logic (like self-contradiction), that are independent from and paradigms? C) …ignore it all and just scream louder, because you’re just being dogmatic and intolerant, even when you know you have no proof for your view at all and fear it could completely fall apart when you would have to accept the above statements?

I think you're an intelligent and reasonable being, and therefore will try A or B, when it's worth the effort, or just stop when it's not. And I hope you will not fall for C (the choice of “religious” people / cowards).

I, on the other hand, will now exit this discussion, so it really does not matter to me. But maybe it can help you think about yourself and behind the curtains of learned paradigms like “neutrality”, when talking about things that you obviously have no idea of (but are far from the only one). ;)

Wikipedia has failed and will die anyway…

— 88.77.140.123 (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is succeeding. I do not consider the above commentary to be correct. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Galveston Bay area
If there are reliable sources that talk about the Galveston Bay area as a distinct region, it could be a candidate for keeping its own article. Otherwise it should be merged into Greater Houston. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not sure your latest additions to the Galveston Bay Article help to improve it as a stand alone article. You seem to be taking information from the Texas wikipedia article. If this article is going to stand alone, it needs to include RS information that specifically mentions the Galveston Bay Area. --Nsaum75 (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest though I'm not sure that these comments are accurate or fair. So I'm not sure what to say. I tried to get some feedback from WhisperToMe to explain what you guys are really getting at and none was forthcoming.
 * I suppose the best thing is for you and WhisperToMe to propose a merge and see what consensus emerges.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I hope it goes without saying that you guys should feel free to edit as you like. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I started a discussion on merging the articles just to expedite. Please enter your thoughts there and we can see what folks have to say.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC) ! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Galveston Bay Area
''Keep and Improve - Article contains some unique relevant information, that is properly sourced in third party RS. However an effort should be made to improve the focus of the article and avoid extensive duplication of information already covered and/or presented in Greater Houston. As it stands right now, a Merge tag might be more appropriate than a AFD tag. --Nsaum75 (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)''
 * Naum75, thanks. Can you elaborate more on "Improve" and "Merge" in the talk page? --Mcorazao (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and removed some prose, potential WP:OR and unsourced/duplicated statements; although additional work is needed. Thanks for your continued help to improve and expand this article. Cheers! --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! Since you grouped a lot of edits under a couple of check-ins it was unclear what the specific reasons for individual edits were. A couple of items you deleted and were unsourced I put back, in abbreviated/clarified form, with sources. I hope that satisfies what you were looking for. If not feel free to delete or alter.
 * BTW, the Geography section seems to have been a little bit of a target for criticism. Do you think it is better to do away with the section or do away with specific sub-sections? I personally think the section has some merit, especially in discussing the little details that distinguish the Bay Area from other parts of Greater Houston. But obviously, other than the Bay Area being on the coast, most of those details are subtle ones and one could argue that they are not significant enough to bear mentioning.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Regional Municipalities, the edit you made was not consistent with the cited reference. It is highly debatable, though, what the right way to do this is. What are your thoughts? I have been tending to center a lot of things around the BAHEP and their definitions while not going so far as to say they exclusively own the definition of the region. Hence the way I wrote that and other sections. But I'm not sure that I'm necessarily handling this in the right way. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At the risk of being too bold I'm going to take a stab at trying a different version of the "Definition" seciton. Please feel free to take apart if you don't like it.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks.. I'll check it out... When I'm at work, I don't have time to respond properly to my talk-page queries, hence the delay in replying/acknowledging to your previous messages. L'Chaim! --Nsaum75 (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock assessment
Agree with your assessment of the sockpuppet. I am almost sure that the just-created Imranazir and Blackpeacock are other puppets. Also plausible are Zareenkhan, 117.96.141.69 and various other IPs. Let me know if you need help with this one. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Chime in whenever you want. I just opened a case at SPI, feel free to add the the new ones to the case.  --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Added a couple to the list. There may well be more. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding early Texas City
Regarding the edits on the statement
 * The young town of Texas City began to establish itself as a major port and shipping center for cotton and other products.

You inadvertently made some incorrect assumptions based on a light understanding of the subject and a superficial reading of the reference.

Basically Texas City was built as a competing port to Galveston before the 1900 hurricane and before the oil boom. Texas City actually took over a lot of Galveston's traffic after the hurricane and, as a result, the port was quickly expanded immediately afterward. The products it was moving were not primarily oil (maybe not oil at all; I'm not sure). Oil would take a while to really come to dominate (it was fast but it didn't simply happen the year after Spindletop). At the turn of the century cotton was the big crop throughout Texas. It was Galveston's most important export and similarly was extremely important to Texas City (I don't know for certain whether it was the dominant product for Texas City like Galveston but it was certainly one of the major products).

The point was that oil and industrialization was not what made Texas City a major port. That came a little later.

Anyway, I'll put another reference that discusses more of these details.

Please be careful about making assumptions in your edits. If you do not feel the references sufficiently support the statements it is better to tag them and discuss than to make assumptions.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I based my change of the article upon the text specifically given in the citation you had listed; We must be careful to only include solid information specifically given in the cited material, not conclusions reached upon what a source says, even if we personally know it to be true; Unfortunately, this article contains a number of instances in which information presented is based upon conclusions made from information presented in the source (WP:OR). The information regarding Texas City's port activities immediately after the storm are not very clear in that specific source you cited (ie: no dates given).  May I suggest checking out the Texas City entry at the Handbook of Texas, which mentions, among other things, the establishment of the first oil refinery in 1908 and other development at the port. Furthermore, this article has been in a great amount of flux lately, it is impossible to bring each and every issue to the TALK page, especially minor issues such as this. However, I am glad you brought your concern to my attention. Cheers! --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

'':Nice addition with the Texas City Library info!! Glad you found it and added it! --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)''


 * Thanks.
 * I'm concerned that we seem to be getting into an unintentional edit war. I'm going to halt trying to edit for the moment but let me offer some thoughts.
 * "oil, cotton, figs and other products." - You are trying very hard to inject oil into all discussions of Texas City for reasons that I am unclear about (BTW, I added another reference that discusses cotton more explicitly). My point here was to emphasize the development in the area before the oil boom took over. You seem to be deliberately diluting that point and I am not sure why. Texas did have a vibrant economy before there was oil.
 * "The young town of Texas City" - I was intentionally trying to mention that Texas City was established around the turn of the century without having to go into too much detail (i.e. I'm trying to keep this history terse). Why remove this word?
 * Detail on years and names of refineries in each town - These details are interesting but I believe this is going too far. That is, if we start getting that detailed here then we need to add a lot of detail in many other areas for balance which makes the history too long for this article. The point of this section was simply to say that Texas City, Baytown, and Pasadena became the industrial centers of the Bay Area during the first half of the 20th century. The detail you have actually makes that single point less obvious.
 * "Texas City and Harrisburg " - The point here was to say that the petrochemical boom in the region started in these two cities and moved on to Baytown and then Pasadena. By removing Harrisburg you seem to be implying that all the petrochemical stuff started in the Bay Area alone which is not true (of course the whole point is diluted so it no longer implies anything very strongly).
 * I'm sorry to critique the edits in so much detail. Certainly I don't claim that my prose is the best and I welcome efforts to improve it. But I'm not sure how your edits are serving to make the history clearer. You seem to be focusing on details rather than the picture being conveyed.
 * Anyway, give some thought to this.
 * Thanks.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Cheers! --Nsaum75 (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 The source mentions oil (and oil-related businesses) in the same segment it mentions cotton, figs and other products, therefore I included it.
 * The first reference mentions these in the time period about two decades after the start of the oil boom. Obviously this is not the time period being discussed. --Mcorazao (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the phrase (below) from the first source which I was basing my edits off of. Its the only occurance of cotton in that article and it reads as if these industries arrived with the leadership of the new port president after 1921. But we did have sources saying oil refineries existed before that


 * In 1921 the Texas City Railway Terminal Company took over operation of the port with Hugh B. Moore as president. Under his leadership various industries were brought into the city, including the Texas City Sugar Refinery, passenger bus service, tank farms for five oil companies, the Knox Process Corporation (a gasoline-cracking refinery), and the Stone Oil Company. The port also had two cotton compresses, a fig-preserving plant, a grain elevator, and various warehouse businesses.


 * The Texas City Library source, which you added after my edits, now specifically states of an earlier competition for cotton. Like I said, while we all know cotton came through earlier, it has to be properly sourced from somewhere. Since the source we had previously mentioned of cotton presses in the post-1921 developments, we couldn't state that there was cotton competition earlier.


 * 2 I struck "young" as unnecessary prose.
 * Well, but you didn't answer my question. --Mcorazao (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I struck the word as unnecessary prose. Its not important to the section, IMHO.


 * 3 The only mention of Harrisburg in the two sources you listed for the port section (Baytown & Pasadena Handbook articles) was the "Harrisburg Common School District". Those sources did not mention Harrisburg in any relation to port business or development.
 * We're not talking about the port business. In any event, if the concern was that this was not sufficiently sourced the appropriate thing was to mark it for citation, not to remove information. But you are right that the sources do not sufficiently address Harrisburg. --Mcorazao (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When writing an article, details are important. Generalizations and conclusions made from information presented in sources is WP:OR. Cheers! --Nsaum75 (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You can create OR by quoting details just as easily as you can by summarizing or generalizing. Summarizing information is not OR, I assure you. But obviously you must make sure that your summaries are consistent with prevailing scholarship on the subject (which is why we have references).
 * Anyway, as I say, please feel free to rewrite if you think there is a better way to write it. But if you are serious about doing this then please do the research. I have actually done a lot more reading than just the references I cite. I often have to go back and try to find the right sources after I write to prove what I am saying. Remember the goal is to educate, not just to technically comply with Wikipedia's standards. In other words, focus first on how what should be conveyed (and what should not) and how it should be conveyed, and then get the references to back it up. I've seen articles written the other way around and they end up being just a jumble of facts that are at best confusing, and at worst misleading.
 * And again, I truly do appreciate your interest and your help. It's good to be challenged. It makes me think harder. --Mcorazao (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't object to information being removed if
 * You know for a fact that it is false (which is different from it just not being backed up by the given sources). Or,
 * You genuinely feel that it is not really helpful to understanding the ideas (e.g. too much detail).
 * But if the only issue is that the references do not back it up then you should mark it as requiring further citations. Removing edits on this basis is tantamount to calling someone a liar (granted if they don't come up with references in a timely manner then, yes, it should be removed).
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if my edits came across this way to you; they were not intended that way. If you are referencing the cotton sentence that I deleted, I did so because it appeared in the original source as a post-1921 event, and therefore out of chronological order with the oil industry information stated below it; since it was only mentioned in passing (with the rest of the section based on mainly oil/gas related industries etc) I didn't felt adding it in was unnecessary. However, that has now been remedied with the new texas-city library source.


 * This conversation should probably be moved and continued on the Talk Page of the Galveston Bay Area, since its primarily about the article and so that other editors can chime in.

Regarding Mrpontiac
Hello I can see you have dealt with that sock before now hes vandalising Mughal empire page with another sock account : Aamirshkh and hes being supported by admins!!! user Adjustshift keeps readding his POV while I keep trying to remove it now the biased admin has protected the article and reinserted the socks edits please could you revert the socks edits and restore the page to the state it was in before the vandal socks attacked cheers this is Mrpontiacs edit on the article he keeps removing images of monuments in Pakistan and replacing them with ones in India stating that "They are not as famous" clear anti pakistani pov here are all his socks which have edited the Mughal Empire article   and  please restore the article and remove the socks edits thankyou 86.156.211.56 (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you feel they are the same user, please add them to the SPI investigation. --Nsaum75 (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The anon IP editing on this thread, 86.156.211.56, is a banned user himself, Nangparbat. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 14:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And you edit on behalf of a banned user yourself Elockid hypocrasy alert 86.153.129.29 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am enforcing your permanent ban by reverting your edits and I am clearly not editing on anybody's behalf. I'm so sorry if I'm hijacking your page Nsaum. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 18:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

GBA article
Nsaum75, you need to provide details for discussion about your WP:SYNTH tag or else remove it.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC) juden nsaum is a trouble maker and tries to own articles, especialy food articles like zaatar and hummus. lots of people would agree that he is more of a hinderance that a help to wikipedia. you would do best removing the tag yourself because he wont be happy and stop pouting until he gets his way. expect more trouble from him when u do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Followthedonut (talk • contribs) the juden has yet to reply tsk tsk tsk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Followthedonut (talk • contribs) juden nsaum, are you busy celebrating das juden holiday by eating arab foods stolen by the zionist entity? arbeit macht frei!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Followthedonut (talk • contribs) juden, why hast you hijacked an article on a bay area? reply! reply! reply! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Followthedonut (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: Hijacked an article? Apparently Nsaum75 has not been able to edit the past few days otherwise I'm sure he would have responded. In my opinion, you do not deserve any type of response because of your rude, disrespectful and incivil tone. Chill out. Postoak (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC) are you juden?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Followthedonut (talk • contribs)

I have been in Jerusalem for ראש השנה, where I lacked internet access.


 * Followthedonut: Calling me "juden" and leaving comments quoting Nazi concentration camp propaganda (ie: arbeit macht frei) are not welcome, therefore I have struck out your comments. Please take your antisemitic drivel and find another sandbox to play in; preferably one where everyone enjoys Hummus & Za'atar, regardless of their race, nationality, gender or religion.


 * Mcorazao - I will review the synth tag. My main concerns were regarding the use of demographical information and population numbers for individual cities being combined and presented as numbers for the Bay Area (since the Bay Area is loosely defined, its hard to come up with an exact number).   From my quick scan of the article, as it now exists, it seems that a number of revisions have been made, which address a number of my concerns.  I would like to see more sourcing from the Houston Chronicle and similar sources (instead of relying heavily on sources like economic development orgs for specific sections etc), but to quote another well respected editor, "this is a work in progress"...at the end of the day, any differences in opinion we have, hopefully will be just water under the bridge :-)


 * Postoak - I will check out the Galveston, Texas article. I have not had the time I had hoped for to dedicate to its improvement the past few months.

Cheers & L'shanah tovah! --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You may find this of interest. Welcome back, and l'shanah tovah. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad he/she/it was blocked. No doubt that "it", or another like it, will return to continue the "crusade"... *sigh* --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm very sorry this happened. Wikipedia's open nature does have its drawbacks, sadly. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That it does. But we have to take the good with the bad..and hope the good prevails ;-) --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Updates to GBA
Nsaum75, I have added citations like crazy. The number of citations is at this point comparable to or more than a typical FA article -- I think. I culled many secondary sources (though I in many cases left in the primary sources as well since I felt they still provided good reference information). The number of primary sources used exclusively to back up statements now is perhaps half (depending on how you define "primary" in any given context). I think the sourcing in that regard is roughly comparable to the Houston article.

I really am not sure what more to do with the demographics to make it more "solid." I understand what you would like to see in general but I have not been able to identify sources to show what you want. Nevertheless, the BAHEP is a well enough and long enough established organization that I believe it can be considered a reasonably reliable source (as reliable as the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Greater Houston Partnership which the Houston article cites heavily) as long as it is not overused.

Anyway, have your referencing concerns that prompted the tag sitting on the top of the page been addressed?

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Regarding the breakout proposal for the Greater Houston article I don't sense any great support for the idea. I think if I try to apply WP:BOLD on that one hellfire will come down on me. Given all the battles on GBA and another article I was working with I am not motivated at the moment to open up another battlefront. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. I have been incorporating some material from GBA and other articles into Galveston Bay which was barely more than a stub. Not fully developed yet (the discussion of the urban stuff and climate is decent but needs a lot more development on ecology, wildlife, etc.). If you want to take a peek and offer comments, feel free. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You are votestacking
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHertz1888&diff=316163362&oldid=315219639

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvass#Votestacking

This is not the first time, I have seen you do this several times before. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Using "please see" is not vote stacking. I suggested he would be interested in reading the article using Template:Please_see - a limited, neutral, nonpartisian and open template.  At no time did I direct him to the discussion page or tell him how to vote, or even that he should "vote".


 * Furthermore, its hard for someone to vote-stack, when EVERYONE (article creator aside) in the AfD supports its deletion.


 * Please get your priorities and policies straight, and stop wikistalking people. --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cut the crap, you know damn well how he was gonna vote, and you have done this several times before at these kinds of things going around to pro-Israeli editors and notifying them.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the real issue here is your disagreement with the outcome of an AfD on an Anti-Israeli/POV pushing article. You are welcome to try to re-create a balanced, NPOV article, that doesn't try to demonize or slander a particular people or nation. --Nsaum75 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Galveston, Texas peer review
I think the article has slowly improved over the past few months. I'm requesting a peer review to get additional feedback. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, I am going to build a subsection on Healthcare, under the Economy section; Along with the tourism industry (which is mentioned), the healthcare industry is a major employer in Galveston, so something should probably be included about it (although I realize it is acknowledged some in the education section about UTMB). Cheers! --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Image request
What we need is a good image for the Galveston, Texas infobox. Maybe the beach with seawall, or downtown/Strand area. Maybe even that pointing statue on Broadway with the oleanders (I think I recall there were oleanders at the base of the statue, can't remember). Something representative for the city. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Both images are beautiful. I like the second one a little better. It would probably fit the box a little easier. Could you crop the image to remove the roof and exhaust fans of the closer building at the bottom? Thanks, Postoak (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you consider releasing this one, pleeeeze :) This would be perfect right before "Historic Districts". Thanks, Postoak (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, let me upload it to commons. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They look beautiful, thank you so much for sharing. Postoak (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Education in Galveston
Article looks great. If you don't mind, could you please trim the education section in main article? I would try but I might remove something that is needed. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect! We can add the "See also:" template once the education article is in mainspace. What I think would look good is a picture of the Galvez Hotel in the tourism section, left aligned. What do you think? Postoak (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 nableezy  - 05:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 05:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)