User talk:Ourhistory153

William H. Peck
I did some clean-up on your contributions to William H. Peck. I highly recommend you familiarize yourself a little more with Wikipedia style and formatting. Consider, for example, WP:Build the web to learn more about internal links and, certainly, the Manual of Style. Best of luck. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sharing accounts
Each account must represent only one person, please see WP:NOSHARE. This seems to be a shared account. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is just one person. Not sure what lead you to believe it wasn't. Please explain.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Brevard County, Florida, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Donald Albury 23:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Artesia appears too detailed to insert in the higher level article, Brevard County, Florida, which tends to be too long anyway. We are trying to rm detail, not add it. Quite appropriate for the Cape or a lower level article. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Viva Florida 500 WP
Viva Florida 500 WP, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Viva Florida 500 WP and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Viva Florida 500 WP during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.


 * This duplicates an existing Wikiproject, which is not a good idea. Why did you ignore the existence of WP:WikiProject Florida when you created this? The guidance on Wikiprojects does say first look to see if there are existing projects, and if you look at [{Talk:Florida]], which I hope you've done, it makes it clear there is an existing project. Note I am a native Floridian. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that Ourhistory153 created Viva Florida 500 in mainspace and user Zeng8r converted it into a project. -- Donald Albury 14:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference to Wikiproject in Timeline of Florida History
I reverted your edit to Timeline of Florida History because references in articles to other Wikipedia namespaces, or to the fact that the article is in Wikipedia, violate the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. -- Donald Albury 15:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to be constructive than threaten?
Seriously and with all good will, please understand that we already have a wikiproject Florida. Yes, your posts should have been noticed earlier. But we shouldn't have two (or more) wikiprojects for the same state, we should be combining our efforst in the original one. Why can't the people you are working with support the main wikiproject? It's hard sometimes not to get personally involved in Wikipedia disputes, but I think what you are doing is great. But I'm sure you will get more support if you don't do it as a competing wikiproject (because that is what it is, no matter what your intentions are). Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Threaten? What are you talking about? I'm talking about my level of involvement. For 5 months I've worked on this wiki project and we are off to a good start. If the work I put into this is negated, can it not seem reasonable that I will cut back on future work? Sorry but I rest my case. I'm working on publishing another book and this stuff is interfering with the little time I have available. Do what you all want to do and I will check back and see what happens and from there determine how much or how little my time is spent on Florida History articles at Wikipedia.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sadly, it's all too common to run into editors who seem more concerned about their wiki-turf and/or their personal interpretations of minor wikipedia guidelines than in improving the quality and quantity of articles. It's only a small percentage, but it only takes a few; or even just one, if the user in question roams a narrow enough range of articles. That's why it's so difficult to get well-qualified experts to stick around - they're used to teaching and generally have no interest in playing wiki-politics.


 * For what it's worth, I first noticed this project when Ourhistory153 accidentally started it in the main article space. I mentioned the possible overlap with WP Florida, but since he seemed sincere about trying to recruit experts in Florida history to Wikipedia and the Florida history articles on my watchlist had been dead in the water for years, I went ahead and helped move it over to the proper location. Still haven't seen many results, but it's not hurting anything, imo.


 * As I mentioned at the deletion discussion, it wouldn't be a too difficult to merge the wikiproject if need be. However, it's annoying stuff like this that sours many potentially invaluable contributors on Wikipedia in general. Zeng8r (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. I didn't see this as a big thing. What I'd like to suggest has been suggested by someone else - keep this as a project but make it a subproject of Wikiproject Florida. Keep the current page but make it a redirect to the subproject. That way any links will still work, and the name is kept. I really think that is the best solution and shouldn't make any of the five months work lost in any way. I wish that this had been proposed earlier, particularly before any attempt to delete anything. Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm the person who made that suggestion, btw, so obviously I agree with it, but you're right about the unfortunate sequence of proposals in this case. Yet another relatively new and eager user soured on the project... Zeng8r (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Zeng8r, and it is just not me, "another relatively new and eager user soured on the project". I'm involved in a writer's group on LinkedIn and recently we had a thread where a writer wrote about their disappointment having their article removed for no reason at all. They vowed they would never come back despite my encouragement and direction. Others chimed in too with their poor experience with Wikipedia. I talked to historians and other historical writers about Wikipedia and they roll their eyes. Wikipedia needs to do something about their PR in this area' I'm certaintly curtailing my efforts here until the final outcome of my Wiki-friends of Viva Florida 500 WP is resolved. BTW when does that get decided? --Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, that sounds like a reasonable solution. BTW What was deleted? that is premature isn't it. What will be deleted next of mine?--Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Would these discussions be better placed on the project's talk page as it is populating my page with too much on this issue. see my recent notes there--Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * yes. I don't think anything has been deleted. Two problems good faith editors can face are original research and notability. We want everything that might be challenged, etc to have reliable sources - have you read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY? So if an expert writes something based on his own knowledge, that editor may be challenged. We also have what we call a notability policy - see WP:NOTE, so there are lots of things people would like to write about that don't meet our criteria. We are trying to be an encyclopedia, not a general collection of things or a venue for new ideas. And there is a steep learning curve. I got reverted quite a bit at first. Then there are those who just want to push some religious/nationalist/political/alients built the pyramids ideas. You would probably be amazed at some of the stuff we get. And then there is our strict copyright policy. But most editors just either never have these sort of problems or just say 'Oh, that's what you want, cool.'. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I first became a registered user 4+ years ago when I noticed that both the History of Tampa and History of Ybor City were rather incomplete. As an eager amateur local historian, I set a goal to improve them both until they became featured articles.


 * Then the wiki-lawyers arrived. Sure, my first contributions were a bit peacocky. But even after I got the feel for the dry writing style preferred (but not mandated in any policy that I've ever seen), the content debates began. The best part was that I was arguing with users who admitted that they had absolutely no knowledge of Tampa-area history, but they nonetheless insisted on butchering well-sourced text just because they could.


 * After a couple months of this, I decided to stop wasting my time making substantial contributions here and focus on my even older goal of writing a concise history of Tampa. For the most part, I've kept to that, and my book is slowly coming along. Sorry to be cynical, but that's my experience. And, yes, I do feel better after having gotten all that off of my chest. :-) Zeng8r (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Manual of Style
I don't know if you have read our manual of style, but I'd encourage you and any others that you involve to become familiar with it as well as our policies on sources, original research, etc - I've mentioned that new editors often have a learning curve. This edit for instance although well meant isn't something that we do with articles. The MOS has subpages on all the things you'd imagine it would, eg layout, citation style, etc. We also have help desk pages for new editors I can point you to. I'll keep thinking about how to help you. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Belated welcome
Hello Ourhistory153 :-). Belated welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm thrilled to see that you are working on adding content related to Florida, and in particular the 500th anniversary. I live in Saint Augustine, FL and plan to collaborate with St. Augustine 450 Commemoration (a 4 year initiative from 2012-2015). I'd like to communicate with you about the work you have done recruiting people to add content to Wikipedia. Currently, I'm at a Wikipedia DC GLAMcamp at the US National Archives working on an initiative to reach out to U.S. cultural organizations. Love to hear about any plans you have. --FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Hello, Ourhistory153. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. DreamGuy (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Time Line of Time Capsules


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Time Line of Time Capsules requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me)  21:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Time Line of Time Capsules. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Also, is it okay if I move the page to "Timeline of time capsules"? Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me)  21:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the template. Citrusbowler  (talk) (contribs) (email me)  21:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Timeline of Cape Canaveral for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of Cape Canaveral is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Timeline of Cape Canaveral until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Student7 (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Timeline of Cape Canaveral for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of Cape Canaveral is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Timeline of Cape Canaveral & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Student7 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)