User talk:Pepper/2013 Archive

January 2013
Hello Pepper. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know however,  that tagging articles for speedy deletion moments after creation as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3) and articles created through the Article Wizard, is too fast. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. A small aside: Pages tagged for A3 typically shouldn't be combined with any other criterion (i.e. G11), simply because, if they truly have "no content", how are they promotional? — Theo polisme  20:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose I was a bit hasty - I should be more careful checking when pages are made. I tagged with both because the sole text, which was an external link, was to a page advertising the subject, and the username also made me think along the lines of promoting a company. Thanks,  " Pepper "  @ 21:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I use a nifty script that displays the 'last modifed' information prominently in the upper righthand corner of the page—quite useful for NPP! See my common.js. Cheers, — Theo polisme  21:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Connecticut Interstate map
Here's the map. I didn't have access to Photoshop before today. Let me know if there's any issues. 25or6to4 (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The only thing I see is that I-95 is a bit thicker than the rest of the highways. If that is easily fixable that would be great.  " Pepper "  @ 19:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. 25or6to4 (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, thanks.  " Pepper "  @ 13:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Jewellery shop
A tag has been placed on Jewellery shop, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.


 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:HWY

Nbound (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
For deleting that from my talk page! Cheers :) Doc   talk  12:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem!  " Pepper "  @ 13:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:WARRIORS discussion
Hello. I have started a discussion at the project talk page regarding a proposal for merging the individual book articles into list articles. You are invited to participate in this discussion, providing feedback and offering your own proposals so that we may reach a consensus decision on the course of action to be taken. Thank you,  Bramble  claw  x   15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Pepper. For someone who's impatient you seem to have dropped out of the discussion. Anyway, any more comments before we proceed with the merge?  Bramble claw  x  15:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're quite right - I've actually been away on a backpacking trip with a few buddies of mine for the past week. I'm back now, so I'll go give my input.  " Pepper "  @ 15:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooooh. Backpacking trips. Those are fun.  Bramble claw  x  15:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ridgefield, CT & Weir Farm
Thanks for the update to the Ridgefield, CT article and clarifying the official national park service sites in the state. I think it needs some further tweaking now but I don't want to expand an article on Ridgefield, CT with more information about NPS sites in Connecticut. There are actually 401 official national parks in the national park system, of which the National Park Service includes that Appalachian Trail NST one of them, regardless of what you or I believe. If you look on the left hand side of the link that you provided, under "By The Numbers" it lists two as the number of national parks. The NPS also owns land along the trail in Connecticut and its the only other place in the state that the NPS owns land. The other two sites that you numbered are sites where the NPS provides assistance and are considered "special parks".

The article originally states that Weir Farm was the only NPS property in the state which we know is not true. I clarified that to remove that erroneous entry and added the fact that it was the other national park in the state. While it is the only site designated as "National Historic Site", it is also only one of two official national parks in the state. Before we go back and forth with edits, I'd like to suggest using the NPS's language and just state that Weir Farm is among two national parks in the state. Do you have any other suggestions? I would like to update what is in the article now to be closer to what is on the NPS site, since that is the official source. Dbroer (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for dropping me a note instead of starting an edit war {. I did notice that it listed 2 national parks, and I see what you mean about using their language. The reason why I modified your edit was because of the common usage of "national park". Nether the AT nor Weir Farm is a national park, despite being operated by the National Parks Service. After doing a bit of poking around, the term that Wikipedia uses in its place is "unit" (see List of the United States National Park System official units).
 * We could change the text to read Weir Farm is one of only two official National Park Service units in the state. What do you think of that?  " Pepper "  @ 18:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense to me and thanks for the positive response. I figure that it's easier to figure it out if two people have an interest in an article.  Dbroer (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Editing request
I changed my software to capitalize the runway surface, and I will create the talk pages as well. Thanks for the suggestions. Günther Eichhorn (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thank you for being willing to change.  " Pepper "  @ 11:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

When name spaces collide (Hill Island as an example)
Thanks for looking over the new stuff Pepper. I understand why you switched the title of my new stub-icle on Hill Island in Ontario, but it does bring up a question. What DOES one do with a place that is both a geographic feature (in this case, an island) *and* an inhabited place by the same name that is coterminous with the geographic location? (I am thinking of places such as Fishers Island, New York.)

If Hill Island were in the USA, it would be a census-designated place. (I have no idea of how the Canadian census folks handle such things.) As with Fishers Island, a CDP appears to get its own article with the place name and state name separated by a comma. Having two separate articles, though -- one for the geographic feature and one for the eponymous coterminous populated place -- seems like overkill. I suppose one can create a redirect going from one style of article name to the other; but which style should be "primary" (as it were)?

DM1693 (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, there is a bit of a fine line, and there hasn't exactly been a decision one way or another.
 * The first way to look at it is from a Canadian perspective, for which I will reference Manual of Style/Canada-related articles. It says For cities which do not qualify for undisambiguated titles, the correct title format is City, Province/Territory (the "comma convention"). However, that is only applying to incorporated municipalities: Incorporated municipalities can always be referenced at least to Statistics Canada census data, and accordingly these should always have independent articles. A search for "Hill Island" on the Statistics Canada page returns that it is part of the community of Leeds and the Thousand Islands. Thus, I conclude that the populated place of Hill Island is not worthy of an article.
 * However, this is not the case for many places in the States, as you pointed out. From here there are a few different cases, which I think are important to distinguish. In the case of Fishers Island, the island and the CDP are synonymous: if you live on the island, you live in the CDP and vice versa. The same also applies to Sanibel, Florida on Sanibel Island. However, nearby Captiva Island houses the CDP of Captiva, Florida, which does not take up the whole island. In this case, it makes sense that there are two separate articles. For the former, however, it seems the tendency is to name the article after the populated place, not the island. Yet, I don't see this written anywhere in policy or in naming conventions, so I think it's still a bit open to interpretation.  " Pepper "  @ 12:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Many problems:
I was not aware of the rule that the name has to be in English. I will fix that. I am not sure how I can delete pages that have the native name so I can create a new page with the English name. And I will make the names consistent. Incidentally, STOLport is an airport for Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL), generally with a short runway that can only be used by STOL airplanes. That is a real name.

The database has many native names, I will add a translation to my program and watch it when I create new pages.

The aerobaticsweb.org server hosts the Landings database. I was not aware that the links don't work, it was OK when I tried it.

I don't know what happened with the elevation in that case, when I ran my program again for that airport, it worked fine. But I will put a check in the program to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Günther Eichhorn (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied here.  " Pepper "  @ 19:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Tilley
Dear Pepper, I know that once i have posted a nonsense comment. Im sorry. But when I added that John Howland has fallen off of the Mayflower, i am not lying. I also have 3 links that prove that it is a fact. 1) http://mayflowerhistory.com/howland/    And I quote: 'During the Mayflower's voyage, Howland fell overboard during a storm, and was almost lost at sea--but luckily for his millions of descendants living today (including Presidents George Bush and George W. Bush, and Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt) he managed to grab hold of the topsail halyards, giving the crew enough time to rescue him with a boat-hook.'

2)Your very own Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howland_(Mayflower_passenger)      ' During the voyage there was a turbulent storm during which John Howland fell overboard. He managed to grab a topsail halyard that was trailing in the water and was hauled back aboard safely.'

3)At http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org/john_howland.htm, it says that 'During the Atlantic voyage, he was swept overboard and rescued, in a dramatic incident recounted by William Bradford.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.208.190 (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, and I apologize for leaving you the second warning. However, the page is about Tilley, not her husband. If you go to the page about Howland, it does mention his near-death experience. Also, the quality of the English with which you edited led me to believe more malicious intent than a helpful addition. Thanks,  " Pepper "  @ 21:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Herald talk with me 15:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Warriors role call
Hello. You have listed yourself as an active contributor of WikiProject Warriors, but as we are trying to see who is still active, we have put all active contributors under "status pending." If you are still active, go to WikiProject Warriors and move your name to "Active." Move your name to "Inactive" if you no longer wish to contribute. You may always move it back. On January, 9, 2014, all members who have not listed themselves as active will be moved to the "inactive" section. Thank you!  Bramble claw  x  22:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)