User talk:Student7/Archive 9

San Diego Metro
Actually I dont think i will do that. Its better if we have it done and then post it. This is controversal, not a lot of people agree with this article, it will be easier for it to get deleted like that. WIki has no deadline, we should work on it and have it well done before the public takes a look at it. Its simply not ready. I honestly, if I saw the article as it is now I would want it deleted. Lets work on it so it can be presentable, it will be an important article, so we cant have it less than 1/2 done. House1090 (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Work on the sandbox, and if you do work there, something big I might move the page. Also San Diego vs Huntsville? You got to be kinding me, SD will have way more traffic, so admins and other users will most likely complain. Lets just work on it there for now okay. House1090 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Other users like myself prefer the sandbox, instead of fighting this contribute to the article so we can make it available to the public as soon as possible. House1090 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ur
Hi, Student7.
 * If it had been just the spelling change from "colured" to "colored", I doubt I'd have bothered reverting, even though his edit would still have been wrong. It was the vandalism below that. Take another look at the diff; you'll see that he added a couple of sentences claiming that his tomb is there, in Ur: He inserted his name in another article, too. I don't know what variety of English Ur uses. I'm not sure I've read all of it; if I did I don't remember that info. If you want to give a try, take a look at Category:Varieties of English templates. Good luck. SamEV (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

San Diego Metropolitan Area
This should make you happy: San Diego Metropolitan Area. House1090 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks it was a group effort. House1090 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Political repression in Venezuela
For you information, Rd232, after having nominated for deletion Political prisoners in Venezuela, has also nominated political repression in venezuela for deletion. See the discussion page. Voui (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard W. Schneider
Just letting you know directly - Dick Schneider's article wasn't deleted because of notability, it was deleted due to it being blatant copyright violation of the NU webpage about him.--Vidkun (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Facttag at Brattleboro, Vermont
I never before knew that it was possible to insert a comment into a facttag as you just did in the media section of the Brattleboro article. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why wikipedia will never be reliable
Thank you for your response. I am increasingly getting frustrated with what I have seen here. A cabal of POV users come, edit an article to push their POV and shout "NPOV problem" when any contrary view is inserted to balance the article. This is what happening in Venezuela related articles which are controlled by socialist cabal. The lead of the article Hugo Chávez looks ridiculous and fails to mention any criticism. It portrays Chávez as a heroic figure fighting "evil American imperialism" single handedly. --Defender of torch (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead doesn't mention the 2002 coup either. The final paragraph needs expanding really; something about the political polarisation. Part of the problem, BTW, is the lack of a general "history" article about Venezuela under Chavez - cf History_of_venezuela. So everything recent historical gets packed into Hugo Chavez, and there's not enough focus on the person. Essentially, Defender, the problem is that insufficient effort has been put into shaping Venezuela articles. More time spent sorting out structural issues (eg I've suggested Judiciary of Venezuela and Crime in Venezuela repeatedly; cf Talk:Venezuela) would help a lot. Curiously, people seem to have time to for all sorts of debate about POV, but not for expanding glaring content gaps. I would do more, but I'm constrained by having to respond to the agenda set by other Venezuela editors who are substantially greater in number and so rarely do anything so neutral that it doesn't require a response. Rd232 talk 10:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind you talking to me, but if you wish to talk to Defender, kindly do so on his page! Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was kinda addressed to both of you. But, yeah, other people having conversations on your talk page is annoying, so let's not do that. Rd232 talk 16:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the assist
Thanks for the edit of some of my wordiness on recent Vermont articles. I'm a Wikipedia editting newbie, so I found your summary text to be helpful and I will use the points going forward.--Jcantroot (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mar Thoma Church
Reply to the questions regarding File:Nasrani Evolution.jpg is given in talk:Mar Thoma Church. Do not have much spare time, so please expect delays in replying.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis
Hi, thanks for commenting on Venezuelanalysis at WP:RSN. I've actually started a new section to summarise and refocus: WP:RSN - perhaps you could comment there? (I'm asking everyone who participated in the old WP:TLDR thread.) Thanks. Rd232 talk 13:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne Village -- smallest muni (sort of)
I found that the change that you made on 21 January, which includes the link to the Florida Today article, to be somewhat misleading. You added the bit about the "smallest municipality in the county" in the portion of the article that deals with land size.

However, Melbourne Village is not the smallest municipality by land size. That's Palm Shores. Melbourne Village is the smallest by population, which is what I wrote originally in the lead-in section. In addition, the Florida Today listing of municipalities is by population.

This is, admittedly, a subtle point, but one that I think should be corrected.

TMVMayor (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that!

TMVMayor (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Mar Thoma Church
I edited some stuff (including creating the logo) back in the earlier days but when the edit wars started more than a year ago, I kinda backed off, not being Mar Thoma and all. My interest in this article was merely to provide some Malaysian context to help "internationalise" the article since I was privy to some of the activities that the Marthomans do here. - Bob K | Talk 08:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. No i dont think the population stats gives the denominational breakdown are available online. But i have print copies with me.

The Kerala Syrian Christians squabble and argue in real life too and they would make a mess out of history, if left alone to them in wikipedia. So i think presence of non-indians is good. Are you sure you are not an immigrant Indian? Some of you seem to have a bit of info about our churches. But Saint Thomas Christian history of Kerala is like a huge jigsaw puzzle and unless one has all the pieces with him/her, its impossible to understand it. Especially since most church websites are propagandist in nature. If you check out the websites of all these churches, you will see each presenting contradictory view of history. I created an account in wiki only because i was outraged seeing the propaganda written in the pages of these churches and one in particular tarnishing the indian orthodox church. I only hope to present a neutral viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathenkozhencherry (talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Review, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldho_Mor_Baselios
Would you kindly review the new page, of Eldho Mor Baselios. Please let me know, what all changes are necessary.Fyodor7 (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church - Arbitration Committee
Hello Str, Karanacs is trying to open an arbitration case against us and the Catholic Church page. Could you comment on the allegations please at [Arbitration Requests Catholic Church]  Xan dar  06:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church - Arbitration Request
Thanks for the message. You can leave a comment on the arbcom request by following this link and adding your own comment or statement after all the others on this case.  Xan dar  11:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Student7 thanks for coming to add your comment to the arbitration situation. I came by to ask you what you meant by the "votes" comment. I was not clear on what you were referring to - what vote?  Nancy Heise    talk  19:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The claims made regarding the SD Metro are indeed correct. What specifically is it you seem to think is not factual? Give a specific expample? Do you live in or work for San Diego? Where are you getting your information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.214.148.195 (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Common history
Very often comments appear in Wikipedia under the assumption that Saint Thomas Christians, before the arrival of Portuguese, had a common history, without realizing that there is no such history. The St. Thomas Christians before 1500, consisted of at least four groups: and so they have their own histories. At a close study of these groups, even today their differences in worship and beliefs are clearly visible. All these groups try to put their history and their beliefs into these articles with the result that all related articles become confused.


 * . St. Thomas Nazrani (Known as Marthoma Nazrani at the time of arrival of Portuguese) - The original converts of St. Thomas. They had their own elders to lead them.
 * . Syrian Christians, Northists. – Children of Knai Thomman by his first wife. (who arrived in AD 345),
 * . Syrian Christians, Southists. – Children of Knai Thomman by his second wife.
 * . Syrian Christians who arrived from Persia in A.D. 825. It is believed that with them came two bishops.

Visitors from Persia and Middle East used to visit Malabar to meet their friends, relatives (who came earlier from Persia) and their descendents. Whether they were bishops, priests or laymen, most of them were addressed as “Bava” (bishop). These visits made others believe that Syrian Christians were ruled by bishops from Persia. Neither knowing the language nor the culture, these visitors lived at the mercy of the Syrian Christians and spent their time teaching their mother tongue, Syriac. Some of these visitors returned, but most of them lived and died in Kerala.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Voting at Talk:Order of St. John
Hi Stu, We could use your vote at Talk:Order of St. John. This article duplicates the content of Knights Hospitaller and several other articles. Shall we eliminate and redirect? Thanks, Il Castrato (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

King of Canada
Hi,

King George VI toured the USA in 1939 in his capacity as King of Canada (accompanied by his Canadian Prime Minister), not as King of the United Kingdom, or Emperor of India, or in any other capacity. This is explained in the linked article Monarchy of Canada. I will put my correction back.

Sir rupert orangepeel (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne Village - Tree size citation
In your edits, you suggested a citation for the height of trees in Melbourne Village. That one has me stumped (pun intended). I don't know of a tree size survey or any such thing. The size of the trees is just a fact, evident by walking outside and looking up.

So, I'm open to suggestions on how to provide a citation for this. TMVMayor (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Party/New Party
Hey Student7, since you've expressed an opinion on this subject before, could you weigh in on the Old Party/New Party discussion at Talk:Malankara Church? I tracked down several citations for the terminology, but there's some resistance to it.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RFC
Would you care to comment on this exchange. You also endorsed NancyHeise's view but not Xandar's. Is your reasoning the same as Marauder40's?  thanx. --Richard S (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of K. V. Mathew
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is K. V. Mathew. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/K. V. Mathew. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Samos
Hi there,

If you look at the population of the various Greek islands, Samos has the 9th largest. So there's no real need to provide a citation. Regarding tourism as the major industry, well, that is the case on virtually all Greek islands, but we can leave it out of the lead if you insist. Cheers, Athenean (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism
In the edit section of this article, you argued that Hitler couldn't have become German chancellor, had it been known that he was Catholic. This is complete non-sense. The whole of Western and Southern Germany is predominantly Catholic. As of 1880, more than 35% of the Reich's population were Catholic. Just because Martin Luther was a German, doesn't mean Germany is all Protestant. Best regards. Rudefuss (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Refresh my memory. When did I do this? Student7 (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from Melbourne
How are you? I see you've been doing great work on Melbourne area articles...BZ! I just got back from deployment, but I'm back at it now. Hope all is well. Semper Fi, FieldMarine (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Isle La Motte
Before reverting back to something that you are not sure of, you better check the facts. Fort Sainte-Anne was the fifth of five forts on the Richelieu river. The others in order were Fort Richelieu, Fort Saint-Louis de Chambly, Fort Sainte-Thérèse, and Fort Saint-Jean. The first three were built by 4 divisions of the Carignan Régiment in 1665, and the last two, including Fort Sainte-Anne were built in 1666. For your information, the United States did not exist back then, and the forts were in the control of Canada, which belong to the Kingdom of France. (See Canada*Quebec Synthèse Historique pages 90 and 91) The fort has long disappeared. --142.169.118.147 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (from an unregistered editor with no edit summary, no WP:FOOT changing a number by one!) Student7 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

October Deletion
Listen, Student7. I don't want to write this article anymore than you want to read it. However, I have to for a class in order to keep my 3.93 GPA up for the next three weeks until I graduate. After that, you can delete my user page for all I care. Had you taken the TIME to look at the discussion page for my article, it CLEARLY STATES that this article is for a class and I kindly asked that it not be deleted. So if you would kindly un-nominate my article for deletion, that would just be great!!!!! Panzak7 (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are ten million students in the world, all of whom could use "free" editing. Do the math. Student7 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't want you to edit it. I had to write an article on wikipedia for a class assignment. Thanks.Panzak7 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are ten million....etc. all of whom have "class assignments" regarding writing! Wikipedia is not a "school project." It is an encyclopedia which is supposed to be comprised of notable topics, documented by outside WP:RELY, third-party citations. Student7 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

D 400
Hi Student7

Thank you for consulting me instead of taking action yourself. This kind of kindness unfortunatelly isn't common among most Wikipedians. However I don't agree with you in delating the template. There are only two cities (Antalya and Mersin ) on the D 400. Most of the other settlements are small touristic towns and depend on this road heavily. Certainly you can't compere this road with Parisien motorways. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Conversions
Hello. Among the most confusing aspects of ship measurement is tonnage, which in most cases is a specialized measure of volume, and not of weight. Both gross tonnage and net tonnage are nominal measures of volume, so conversions to units of mass do not work. (It is different with deadweight and displacement.) Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Non defining attributes"
Certainly! I tend to believe that navboxes should link topics bidirectionally. i.e.: a navbox that links the major communities of a state or province together. A city is defined by its geographic location, and that location is defined by the cities within it. Thus, all of the cities within that location share the defining trait of being within that state/province.

Templates like the D400 only link topics in one direction. For a road, the locations that it connects is what defines it. A city, however, is not defined by other locations that happen to share one of the roads that passes through it. Given neither town is defined by the existence of this highway, it becomes inappropriate to link Bozburun with Mersin, as an example, in this fashion. It is important to note on the highway article what communities it serves, but the communities themselves don't care that this highway serves other locations.

I also view issues like this in terms of scale. Imagine there was a template like this for every highway. How many of these templates would exist for a city like Chicago? A dozen? you begin to bury high value templates and links under these low value ones. Also in terms of individual highways: I couldn't imagine how big a template for something like the Trans Canada Highway or I-90 would be, as both would have dozens of links. Templates that large offer no navigational benefit, imo.

Just some thoughts on the matter. Cheers! Resolute 15:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I agreed on the vote for reasons of proliferation, but was wondering about your comment. I found the above to be very enlightening. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully in a positive way. ;) Resolute 16:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Definitely! Student7 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Seven Corners
Hi, Student7. I've been following the discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads about your Seven Corners question. As a fellow Northern Virginian, believe me, I understand.

It sounds to me like you need to get in touch with a field office of VDOT that handles the Falls Church area. See http://www.virginiadot.org/about/nova_quick.asp. The office they mention is: Northern Virginia District

14685 Avion Parkway

Chantilly, VA 20151-1104

(703) 383-8368

It also sounds like you need information on road usage statistics: they're at http://www.virginiadot.org/info/2008_traffic_data_by_jurisdiction.asp, and you can get information for all over Virginia there.

Good luck! --Tim Sabin (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Competitors
Are McDonalds, Jack-n-the-box, and Wendy's competitors? Does if it have to be published for wikipedia "police" to let go of the power? seriously... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.24.150 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 April 2010


 * The USAA article has been a target for agenda-driven vandalism in the past. Having said that, I think the addition of GEICO and the usage of the term property and casualty insurance are appropriate as used here. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Oscar Peterson
My, you ARE a stickler, aren't you? ;-D OK, I'll write an article about Bob Peterson, but not this week. Too much else going on in my life right now, and I'll want to do it right. I should be able to get a "Did you know...?" out of it. "Did you know... that Robert Oscar Peterson, founder of Jack in the Box restaurants, was married to the mayor of San Diego during the 1980s?" Then I suppose I'll have to do one about her too. Well, one thing at a time. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it turns out she already has an article. So I'll just have to do one about him - and then list them BOTH as residents of Point Loma. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. As you say, he should have had an article all along. Yes, I remember those "Jack will speak to you" signs. --MelanieN
 * How about that, somebody beat me to it and created the article. It's now nominated for DYK. Complete with "Jack will speak to you!" --MelanieN (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

USAA competitors
Student7 - i question your logic friend. A. the fact that nobody has published a "statement" of USAA competitors does not "imply" that calling GEICO a competitor is "untrue". Your argument follows this logic: if it is published it is true. if it is not published it is false. please stop it. B. even if someone did publish such a statement, it would not make it true. it would just make it a published statement and lots of analysts and journalists publish lots of stupid and wrong statements.

Try using some business logic:

1. for readers, it is germane in a "company" article to identify competitors in the industry - though i think it is crass 2. it is also germane to limit the competitors to the top/major competitors in an industry - especially if the industry has hundreds, or in the case of auto insurance even thousands of competitors 3. when identifying the top companies it is germane to use something quantifiable like market size or revenue since these companies will control the industry 4. it is also germane to group the companies within the industry. example: in banking BofA, Wells, JPMorganChase, Citi are in their own catergory of "mega banks" based on deposits 5. likewise, in auto insurance you have a mega company, State Farm, followed by a group of large national companies: geico, allstate, progressive, natiowide, usaa, farmers, and then you have all the rest whether you group by number of policies-in-force or premiums-written 6. further, in regards to a "niche company" article, it is germane to readers to focus on competitors in the same niche market 7. usaa was established to provide auto insurance to military officers - a niche market therefore a "niche company" 8. geico was established about 10 years after usaa, by a former usaa employee, to offer nco's auto insurance - usaa and geico were not YET competitors, but both were in the "auto insurance military" niche! 9. over time geico and usaa both changed their restrictions with little or no overlap - still NOT COMPETITORS 10. recently geico expanded to become a national player and is no longer a niche player; however, they still have a large portion of the nco and enlisted segments as customers 11. recently usaa expanded beyond just officers to also target nco's and enlisted - making usaa and geico the only auto ins companies that have a signficant portion of U.S. military personnel and families as customers 12. if usaa has a competitor in the "auto insurance military" niche, it's geico - usaa targets geico's nco's and enlisted customers daily! and geico knows it! 13. if one is going to list usaa competitors in the usaa article, then it should focus on the niche!! 14. since geico historically focused on auto insurance for U.S. military nco's and enlisted, and since it has a large share of nco's & enlisted, geico is a competitor of usaa

Satements 1 through 14 are LOGICAL

so, are you gonna be a "wikipedia traffic cop" and take the position that nothing can be used in an article unless it is supported by a published statement, stupidly assuming that all facts are published, and stupidly assuming that published content is correct, or are you going to use LOGIC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.104.158 (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have moved this to the USAA discussion page. Please continue further arguements there please, Student7 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Edward Vincent
Do you have any additional thoughts on your nomination to delete the Edward A. Vincent article? Paul K. Graham (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Census data
I'm confused: what do you mean with the USECENSUS? The data added by the IP is from the 2008 official Census Bureau estimate; it's not as if some random individual performed an estimate. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Still confused. Do you want me to create that as a redirect to somewhere?  Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Naming
You're welcome. I am almost finished with what I feel is what I can contribute. The only thing that I am working on is the listing all of the places named after Benjamin Franklin. I will not be including any page leading to a disambiguation page (except for the existing lead Franklin link) or any redlinked location. I had several problems with making sure that the info in the list was also in the respective communities' articles:


 * In the case of the New England articles (where I am from originally), most had either no History section or a History section that did not lead to my putting for whom the community was in the place that you suggested. The Maine articles in Hancock and Washington counties were especially problematic. I wanted to get this project done as quickly as possible.
 * In the case of the Texas articles (where I live currently), they are a complete mess. An excellent example, which did not use for the list as it doesn't qualify, is Rose Hill Acres, Texas. What is in the article is practically verbatim what was in the original article in The Handbook of Texas Online (published by the Texas State Historical Association [TSHA]) for Rose Hill Acres, but the TSHA article has been rewritten very recently, within the past two weeks. One article which as not been rewritten and has not been added to the list is for Evadale, Texas, a CDP. (Compare with TSHA as CDPs are not in ePodunk) Finding a way to update that article is quite complex. I do not want to get into any plagiarism issues.
 * I did not include any place where the origin of the name is disputed, believed to be, or a choice of between two or more origins. Vermont is rife with places of this sort, with Maine having several as well.
 * I'm not sure of existing wording of this sort without the wiki markup: Levittown, New York and other Levittowns. Perhaps this saves space, but I feel that it's a cop-out. What I found with the various Clintons was mind-boggling. The Lincolns were quite surprising, as only two of them that I found were named after Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln MA, my home state, didn't even make the list as its name was from a town in England.
 * I didn't include any county/parish names in the list.
 * I am starting a new job on Friday. After I finish with the Franklins, I will be finished with updating the list. Perhaps other Wikipedians will pick up where I left off. I did the six New England states and bits and pieces of others. Someone else (you perhaps?) did California. There are 43 other states out there.

Cheers! :) Ed (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

St Peter's
Can you please get back to the talk page of St Peter's with a proper reference for the R.W. Emerson quote. A date is not enough. Where has the quote been published? Preferably in its original form eg a diary, rather than as a quotation that has been lifted out of context and included in an article on St Peter's. Amandajm (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Naming (Part 2)
I noticed that an editor put an unref tag on the list. I don't think that having over 1,000 items in a reflist, after most or all of the refs are added in, will do much other than to weigh down the length of the list, but it will placate the editor. BTW, unless I find anything else, I'm done with adding new items to the list as promised. Ed (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Abuse Response Filing
Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 66.31.12.58. Reason: No long term abuse. No blocks. Please read the guidelines before filing a report. Netalarm poke  04:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (What happens when you don't have Firefox/Mozilla tools available on borrowed computer. Probably some "i" not dotted. Just an ordinary vandal BTW). Student7 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied will full response on my talk page, but you probably want to report ordinary vandals to WP:AIV. Netalarm poke  17:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (Full answer: wrong area for this type of vandal. Again due to lack of Firefox/Mozilla tab)Student7 (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, cya around! Netalarm poke  05:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

St Peter's
I'm not entirely happy about the removal of the names of the authors. I think that if the quote is pertinent enough to be included (as a direct quotation), then the author should be named, notable or not.

However, it is probable that similar quotes by more notable individuals can be found. Helen Gardner, James Lees-Milne and Sir Banister Fletcher are all sufficiently notable authors to quote, but the article relies upon them rather heavily. Who else can you come up with? Amandajm (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking about authoring a subsection. You prompted me to. When I saw the quotes, I thought about what to do with them and realised that the article is fairly academic. It weighs heavily on the side of architectural history. Which is a fascinating story (I wrote it). But St. Peter's is a lot more than that, and yer average reader who doesn't want to plough through the details might benefit by the overview. I also realised that there was no general description, only a description of sections as they were completed. So now there is. Amandajm (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (I had stumbled across a quote someplace; couldn't figure out where it belonged in this article, new to me (correct answer would have been "noplace!"). Asked on the discussion page if there was a place for it. Apparently inspired editor to write a pretty nice overview with bright quotes. Serendipity! ) Student7 (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Demographics of the United States
Hi. This is just to let you know that I have reverted this edit because, unless I misread the cited supporting source, (1) it says "a full 40%", not "41%" and (2) it does not confirm the assertion that this was the highest percentage ever. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (Cripes. He's right. Softcopy doesn't match hardcopy. Softcopy wins, I guess). Student7 (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Belmont Abbey College
Hey there! No, thanks for all the help and the correction. I'm pretty new to this and it's great learning experience. I'll also make sure to review those policies you linked to. I've been trying to work on the article now for a couple of weeks, so I apologize if I've made a couple of mistakes here and there. Thanks again! --Cajackson2009 (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've worked with a number of new editors before. You rank in the top 10%! Student7 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphan tag applied to List of American places named after people
Hi. I noticed on 30 May 2010 that an editor applied an Orphan tag to List of American places named after people when s/he used AWB. I can think of way to get this tag removed and not have it reapplied, though it would take a long time to do but worth it in the long run. This is similar to the article List of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile, one to which I contributed. Every article in that list has at the bottom a See also section, and List of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile within the section. What do you think of this?

Also, I noticed in another list article (I forget which one, but it's one similar to this one) that that list was split into two articles: [title] A-L and [title] M-Z. Perhaps later this article can be split like that one. Ed (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure I am following you, entirely. Are you proposing a change to AWB?


 * When evenly splitting an article, the split artlcles should certainly "inherit" the original's notability. That makes sense.


 * I am not enthused about a "see also" link conveying notability to a new article. This seems a possible way around notability guidelines. But maybe I am misunderstanding. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This list is not a new article. It was created on 6 January 2007. All that I am proposing is that, using the other article cited as an example, someone (I probably) should put the "See also" in each individual page cited on the list, an arduous task indeed. This is in no way proposing any change to AWB; it's just getting around it so that the Orphan tag does not get triggered for this article again. Ed (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be so dense. (Worst of all, I'm not pretending! :) As I understand it, your idea is to construct a specialized list that would cross-reference the truly orphaned article. In this article, there would be a "see also" section that would contain a link to the truly orphaned article. I'm trying to describe this generically using the specifics you've provided above, as I understand them.


 * My article, Environmental issues in Brevard County, was truly a spin off of a notable article,Brevard County, Florida whose notability was unquestioned. The article got too large and we had to spin off something. There was a link from the main article (with a "main" tag!) so it was never a true "orphan."


 * The template tag generically warns true orphans and "near-orphans" indiscriminately, which I consider a problem. I probably should note at the top in a comment that it was a spun off article. It takes work to remember this and to realize that the article won't be ever referenced by many/any other outside articles. Since then I've tried to change it to something generic that might wind up in a navigational template someday, like "Ecology of Brevard County", but have been prevented by the crazies, alas, who don't think the new title sufficiently self-accusing.


 * If I understand you correctly, and I still probably don't, the way you have proposed was intended to help true orphans, articles not referenced by any other article. Student7 (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First, you do understand me. I see your point. What I had said was something that I wasn't crazy about doing anyway, something that I know you sensed. Since this list is, as you said, a spin-off from another article, is there indeed a better way to get the orphan tag removed and avoid getting it tagged on again? Ed (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * On my article, it is simple. Someone removed it for me which was helpful. But I replaced the top with a comment of how the article inherits notability from its notable "master" where it was spun off from. I do not know this will work. It would assume it wouldn't work for a bot-type procedure. I did complain to the originator who saw my point and promised to "look into it." That might help everyone else.


 * For a brand new article, I am at a loss. I handled a bunch of similar schools with a nav box inbedded in each. A bit cheating I thought, but it seemed to work! I hope the main thing is notability. I guess the interconnection will follow. But it could take some thinking. Good luck! Student7 (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tokyo
Hi - Thanks very much for commenting. I'm not sure if you're watching the article, but I've replied to your comment and would appreciate any further thoughts you might have about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I wasn't watching the article! Thanks for straightening me out. I've left yet another opinion which I hope is a bit more realistic! :)  I will again not watch unless summoned back!  (I can't look! Argh!  :) Student7 (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Thank you for the complement Nuujinn (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:UE
I fought long and hard against using "Funny Foreign Squiggles" in names. Indeed back in may 2005 Audiovideo put in that link because I used that expression so much. I became interested in this issue after someone move the First Battle of Zurich to First Battle of Zürich (The editor who made the move justified it on the move of Zurich to Zürich, and not on what was used in sources) but I realised later on that the arguments about what was the correct name which foreigners often presented as justification for a name was counter productive. What I realised was that just as funny foreign squiggles looked wrong to me, so to a native speaker (even if their English was very good), native names looked wrong to them. So it was necessary to find and objective method of judging what was the correct name, particularly as monoglot English language speakers are often swamped on a name by local speakers who tend to cluster around their own topics of national interest and so tended to be in a majority in move debates over the issue of squiggles. This was at the time that WP:V was being developed as a policy, and WP:UE was one of the first naming guidelines to incorporate it (it was much later that the AT policy incorporated reliable sources). I think PMA introduced the concept to UE, and it solved the problem. Once English sources were used the issue became much easier because it was no longer a matter of opinion in most cases. And guess what! In the majority of cases English language sources are without "Funny Foreign Squiggles". So I suggest that you abandon arguments like ease of use (because foreign national are not on side over that one) and just argue that the name should reflect the name in English language sources. It ties in with the other policies and cuts out endless arguments about what is the "best" name to use. -- PBS (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, we hope to wind up at the same point, right? I personally don't object to various foreign spellings for "esthetic" reasons, but because I usually can't scan for them in a document nor search for them (easily) in a google search.


 * I'm a pragmatist/realist. I can live with that (UE) I guess. I've never taken Spanish, but can agree that certain words with the "funny foreign squiggle" over the "n" would result in a different pronunciation. Which, frankly, I could care less about in a printed encyclopedia!  :)


 * I like that phrase, BTW. Pretty funny! :) Student7 (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

re: your message
Hi Student7, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page. I'm sorry for the delay in response :-) -- User:Marek69 .     01:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Facade
As a writer of architectural pages, I'm with you. I get sick of the insistence on French spelling for a word that has been thoroughly anglicised. Amandajm (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

UR centre
Hi Student7, I hadn't seen the template. Sorry. If only 91.84.76.0 had used an edit summary... Ah well, I have left a message there. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations and lists of notable people
After some more research, it looks like you were right about including citations on lists of notable people. It seams all lists of notable people nominated to Featured lists contain references for each entry. See: List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni for an example. Dkriegls (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Orleans, Vermont
Hello- Walmart bit was already there, I fixed some typos and put a tag and left it. Unreferenced POV but I thought it may have been accurate enough to leave for someone with some knowledge of the area to sort out. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)).

Sebastian, FL
Hello Student7,

Is there any reason why you deleted the Chamber of Commerce information from the Sebastian, FL wiki page? As an employee of the Chamber, I know what an important role we play in the Sebastian community so the chamber staff, including myself, thought it would be appropriate to put a bit of information regarding the Chamber on Sebastian's page. You are the second person to delete it and I was curious as to why and perhaps get an insite from an editor's point of view to see how we might avoid this in the future. The Sebastian Chamber is incredibly valuable to the community like I mentioned so is there any particular reason why this would have been deleted?

Many thanks

Pelican1958 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical provinces
All recent changes made are wrong. Articles about the diocese belong to the category of the diocese not the province. Category of the dioceses belong to the category of province.--WlaKom (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

New England
Sorry to revert you - but It says "one of the...", and the rest of the paragraph explains - I honestly think its fine. I'm not sure how much more background could be needed there, without getting into some sort of strange ranking discussion. - Begoon (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Point Loma
Hi - I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I had a couple of questions about your changes of my edits to the Pt. Loma article. I'd put Nature as a new heading, because it didn't seem to fit under "Geography" - could "Fauna" be its own heading? Next, the "ecologically sensitive" language came from the SPAWAR brochure that I used as the reference. Third, what's wrong with saying, "Point Loma is home to..." I understand the benefits of brevity, but it seems that the rest of the article freely uses similar phrases. Finally, I felt that "a population of feral green parrots" was more descriptive than just "feral green parrots". I'd appreciate your input - and also your advice, including if this was the best way to address these issues! Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.
Thanks for the feedback, Student7. Your explanations made sense, although I don't know if I consider Elements of Style to be quite the Bible that a lot of people do. I'll keep trying. Dohn joe (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wondering if I might bother you for an edit?
Hello there friendly friend. I was wondering if I could bother you to do a small edit that I dare not do myself because I have a conflict of interest with the subject matter. For a few years, my brother had a nice little Wikipedia biography page. After some review, it was decided that his accomplishments did not warrant a full biography, but rather belonged as snippets on pages referring to events he was involved with. You can see the final resolution of these discussions here. I dare not add these snippets myself, and I don't think the editors involved with the discussions seemed very interested in doing it. So that brings me to kindly asking you.

Specifically, would you mind adding a short snippet about my brother being first in line to the Grant Park Victory Speech, 2008 page, which the other editors suggested? I know it's a small little thing, but it meets Wikipedia Notability. I don't want to tell you what to add because of my CoI, but I will give you the references necessary for adding it. Here is a cache of my brother's Wikipedia biography so you can get an idea of what was written about the event before. Here are the key citations MTV, NBC, Ekstra Bladet (Danish News), Público (Portuguese News) and the Chicago Tribune (important because it revisits his experience a year later.

If you're up for it, it would be much appreciated. If not, I completely understand. Would you mind letting me know either way. Thanks for taking the time to read this Dkriegls (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
Please do not change comments on talk pages that were made by other editors. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (Child-friendly computer in library edited another editor's remarks in same subsection! Editor assumed I did it "on purpose" :) Student7 (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Florida High Speed Rail
I think I addressed your issues with the Florida High Speed Rail section of the Florida article. Please let me know if there is any thing else that needs to be done. Thanks -  Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 17:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of the Medicaid and Medicare (United States) articles
Please stop your WP:Disruptive editing of the Medicaid   and Medicare (United States)    articles—repeatedly adding false and misleading material (mis)citing UNRELIABLE sources. Repeated re-addition of false and misleading material to the Medicaid and Medicare (United States) articles and careless (mis)citation of UNRELIABLE sources is disruptive and unacceptable. Apatens (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * An opinion column by Col. John D. Beeson, USAF (Ret) in the July 2010 The INTERCOM newsletter of the Cape Canaveral Chapter, Inc. of the Military Officers Association of America quoting an October 20, 2009 Wall Street Journal editorial is  not  a WP:Reliable source.
 * A silly ("All currency figures in this paper are in nominal form, i.e., unadjusted for inflation") partisan July 31, 2009 opinion paper by the Joint Economic Committee Republican staff on the Joint Economic Committee Republicans website is  not  a WP:Reliable source.


 * (editor did not want to read that costs of programs were grossly underestimated in order to get them through Congress and by the public. I did not draw the latter conclusion, but merely quoted sources pointing out that one estimate was made in 1965, for example, resulting in a much higher cost in the actual year. The editor did not want readers to see that! I don't blame him. They were off by a factor of ten! Pretty embarassing! Still trying. So far, the censors have the best of it.) Student7 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comment from two weeks ago
Thanks for the note :-) I was at a weeklong church event; I didn't get much online time, and what time I did get was spent (1) finding locations for sites to photograph during breaks, or (2) communicating with Dcmacnut, who had asked me to get some photos near where I live.  But yeah, I've removed the Vermont articles from my watchlist because I simply didn't have enough time to keep up with them and do everything I needed to do.  Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

power centre

 * power center (retail) consider proposing a merge it into retail park, see gasoline and tram for examples. -- PBS (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Southern States University
The main deal with the "wikify" tag on the article Southern States University is that it lacks wikilinks. It has 12 paragraphs and only 6 wikilinks. Back in September 2009, when the article had only two stubby sentences, it contained 4 wikilinks. I would expect users to be able to find (and follow) links to articles about topics like the cities where the school has campuses, the subjects in which it offers courses, the state organization that is said to have approved it to operate, etc.

Additionally, many Wikipedians would want articles like this one to include an infobox, not to mention the navbox template that the article contained before Lanakon showed up and replaced the former stub article with an unwikified advertisement. --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Power center
It's not about which name is more "smug," but rather which one is more common. The concept is more common in the US, where it's called a "power center." This is a widely used term in the retail industry, not some PR thing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Saint Thomas Christians has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Student7 (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Seven Churches
I have responded to your comment on the discussion page of the Seven Churches of Asia, and would like to discuss the possibility of including a mutually agreed paragraph in the article. Rev107 (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of WikiProject Saint Thomas Christians
WikiProject Saint Thomas Christians, 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:WikiProject Saint Thomas Christians and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of WikiProject Saint Thomas Christians 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools

 * It was not a deletion, but combine with existing item on that school project. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Religion: reword active per Strunk and White.
If you're going to cite that horrid little book you might at least take care to note that the grammatical term "active voice" does in fact have a well-defined meaning (E.B. White's well-documented confusion notwithstanding). In your edit, you changed one passive-voice clause to another passive-voice clause (not that there's anything wrong with the passive voice, E.B. White's well-documented confusion notwithstanding). 121a0012 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I (sort of) answered your question
At Talk:Florida Circuit Courts Bradford44 (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Norbert Basil MacLean III article
Some time ago (2008) you did some edits on Norbert Basil MacLean III. For the past 50 days, I've been editing and tagging away at the article. Very recently I came across some info on MacLean related to his civil litigation on behalf of prisoners in the California prison system. (MacLean was an inmate when he instituted the litigation, which included class action matters.) When I proposed including some of this info in the article (see talk page), Mr. MacLean himself got wind of the article. He has written Wikipedia and asked that the article on him be deleted out of both privacy and notability concerns. I, critical of the whole article, am happy to comply with his request so I've started a AfD nomination based on its lack of notability. Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 9. Your comments (and guidance) is most welcome. --S. Rich (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. What a strange case! So well-documented, hard to say "delete" IMO. If it goes away, I will not cry much! :)  I only wish I could get rid of less notable people I have stumbled over, as easily. Lots of people running for office who have never won but want their bio and get it for no good reason. Rats! Student7 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Brevard County, Florida
I have made a major change to an article that you may or may not like and you may be an interested party, I thought I'd give you a "heads up" so hat you may comment and/or make or suggest improvements. VictorianMutant (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

School
Hi. Thank you very much for the message. The article about which I was worrying is Langley School, Loddon: you might also want to have a look at its Talk page, where another editor and I have attempted to start a discussion. I think I probably make my concerns fairly clear there.

Guessing wildly, I wondered if you might be in the United States, in which case I further wondered if this article would present particular problems to you because of localized BrE meanings which might not translate well into AmE and back? It is, however, a desperately bad article in its present form anyway (with one or two honourable exceptions, I can find, in most sections, at least one sentence which is so awful it just makes me want to weep) and I think it could do with a good look-at regardless of where you are sitting right now. If my guess is right, and it were to be a problem for you, I might be able to rope in a BrE-speaking editor with some schools-editing experience to help out a bit too ... what do you think? Cheers, DBaK (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you were right about the BrE terms, which were really non-standard. "Termly"? Ahem. I read books by English authors all the time and have never encountered that one! I replaced or erased most of the stuff I didn't understand and asked for clarification on the others. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I've vanished a bit, more or less mid-sentence - no discourtesy intended. I will comment properly as soon as I get a moment. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help with the article. I think you have done great work removing some of the ad copy. I can't agree with your comments on the BrE terms, which I feel a largely mainstream and must be left alone, but I have no stomach for a fight on this. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your sandbox
Sorry to edit your sandbox, but one of the images in there has been discovered to be a copyvio, so I've deleted it. Nyttend (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, I cannot join the discussion since I cannot understand your point. Why are you keeping this sentence "During the Turkish War of Independence Kuşadası was occupied from 1919-1922 first by Italian (till 1921), then by Greek troops" in the article? Probably you have not seen it, or you are not against it. Which one? If you tell me which one is correct, I would reply to you. Kavas (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Using "occupied" word for the situations that cannot be described as "occupation" is not WP:NPOV. Kavas (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

St Peter's
Re the business about indulgences:

Someone (not me) included the paragraph on the funding by indulgences and the fact that it became an issue in the Reformation. These are the historic facts.

However, there are editors who object to any mention of any subject that might not reflect in an entirely "good" way upon the Catholic Church, and want to sweep anything like this under the carpet. Whether or not the Pope was within his rights to do it is of no consequence. My use of the adjective "dark" might be unfortunate in implying something "sinister". That is not what I intended. I merely intended to signify that the story of the building of St Peter's is not necessarily an entirely "positive" one. Tread gently. If a balance has been reached in which people are not having major disptes, then it's best to leave well alone. Amandajm (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Kuşadası
One of the main WP policies is to comment on the contribution not on the contributor. So, you're Greek or not does not interest me. Calling Greece as the occupier of Kuşadası in 1922 is an undisputed truth. You agree on it.

But calling Turkey as occupier is POV. You have called Turkey as occupier of Kuşadası. If Turkey occupied Kuşadası it was when Mehmed I conquered the town in 1413. (http://www.kusadasi.biz/info/guide/history) It has remained under Turkish sovereignty since 1413. If there was a one day in history where Greece had sovereignty, Turkey could occupy the city, but there is not such a day. You need a ratified treaty in which Turkey renounced in favour of Greece its rights over Kuşadası, there's not. Let's be clear here. You cannot occupy your own legal territory. Now, you can call Turkey occupied Cyprus as it is not part of it, but you cannot call Sri Lanka occupied Tamil because Tamil is part of Sri Lanka legally. So, the important point is the legal status of a city. If the sovereignty of some country over some city is recognized under international law, you cannot call that country occupied that city, if it expels hostile armies from it. Can you please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War? Malvinas Islands were under Argentinian occupation, and when it was retaken by British forces, it was not occupied although 61.3% of the islands are not British. So, calling Turkey as the "occupier of Turkey" is POV, as most parts of Turkey were inhabited by Greeks or Armenians prior to war. For example, you cannot say Iğdır is under Turkish occupation, it would be a marginal POV which is even rejected by Armenian government in Zürich this year.

What you have wrote as the history of Turkey is your originial research and not close to reality. The Turkish people were not nomads, it was Turkomens who were nomads, but when they have come to the lands now called Turkey they stopped nomadic lifestyle quickly. There were remaining nomads in 1920's, but they were a small part of Turkish population. Today only one aşiret remains in Turkey which follow nomadic lifestyle, and Turkish people are moving to cities from villages.

This is POV: The census at the exact moment of the Turkish takeover of Kusadaşı is not known, and, most likely, not knowable." According to census conducted by the Ottomans (note that the data of census is very accurate), Greek Orthodox were 44% of total population of Kuşadası, 54.65% of the population were Muslim. The article I have used uses the data borrowed from Kemal Harpat's book. (http://www.edebiyatdergisi.hacettepe.edu.tr/1998152MSacitPekak.pdf) The only place which can be called as a Greek town was Çirkince near to Ephesus in the region.

Greeks had a long presence not only at coastal parts of Anatolia, but also anywhere in Anatolia. In 1920's, in coastal parts of Aegean Sea, Eastern Thrace and the Pontus region. It was 1,500,000 Greeks actually moved to Greece from Turkey. The population of Turkey was 13 million, therefore Greeks were a minority in Anatolia, you cannot say Kemal conquered the Anatolian peninsula. The Ankara government only recovered Western parts of Anatolia. If you use the same formula, you can say Turkey is the occupying force in Anatolia, in the same situation as Israel which is the occupying force in Gaza. This would certainly be POV.

"He probably would have liked to take the surrounding islands, too, but the Greek navy predominated at sea, as did Ataturk's army on land." This is absolutely wrong. The Greeks have taken the islands in the Balkan Wars, in which Turkish navy has not shown any resistence except piracy. The islands were legally Greek islands, it wouldn't be a good idea to invade the islands even if you had the sea power. Some of the islands were under Italian occupation (why can I use occupation here?), so it was quite crazy to take the islands on the cost of starting a war with Italy. But, the Turkish Army had enough power to take Thessaloniki back, but it would be an occupation (why?), Atatürk opposed this idea. What Atatürk was trying to establish was a smaller nation state.

As the Greeks formed 44% of the city, I see your concern when opposing to the use of liberation term. However, it is not a word to watch in WP. See Liberation of Paris, Battle of Kiev (1943), and many others. The situation near to this is Alsace Lorraine in which Germans were living. Let's see. "Though the main towns of Alsace-Lorraine were liberated during the autumn of 1944, by troops of Generals Koenig and Leclerc, fighting raged on in the Colmar Pocket until 2 February 1945. The region was formally returned to France in 1947." in Territorial formation of France. Your objection to liberated word does not give you the right to use occupied for recovering of the city. Can you see the peace treaty finishing the war, http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Lausanne? The Greek, British and Italian Armies were the occupiers according to the treaty, not the Turkish Army. (why?) On the other hand, "won permanent control" is worse, it is as if Turkey had no sovereignty over Kuşadası before 1922, or Turkey has still no sovereignty over Kuşadası today. Kuşadası is a town of Turkey since 1413, it did not win permanent control over it in 1922, because it remained under Turkish sovereignty throughout last 600 years. By the way, Turkey is not founded by Ataturk. He formed "Republic of Turkey". Turkey is an older country. It is as early as 12th century when Italians called these lands Turchia. So, I will revert your edit as I cannot see a more neutral source than the Treaty of Lausanne. Kavas (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing Ottoman sovereignty with Turkish sovereignty. The modern state of Turkey had much different aims and a quite different army and organization and political goals than the previous Ottomans did.
 * The Greeks were happy with the Ottomans and vice versa. The new state of Turkey had no use for Greeks. This is fine, but let's be clear. The two "Turkish" groups do not overlap only when it is historically convenient.
 * That is like saying that the "Americans" won the French and Indian War. They did not. Their ancestors helped the British win. Two different administrations. Quite different political goals and governments. Similar people though. Sometimes the same people. However, there are clear lines for each. Student7 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * While I am not familiar with the specifics of the situation, it seems unlikely to me that the Italians (or any allied power) would have tried to land while opposed by the new Turkish army. They had learned better during the Gallipoli Campaign, where they were opposed by the old regime, but by the same Turkish leader, now a general! They would not have landed there if they did not expect a decent reception, I suspect. Student7 (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are unfamiliar with the specifics of the situation, you can start reading Turkish history before editing. At least you can read Treaty of Lausanne. Your thesis is in error.


 * I think you are confusing Ottoman sovereignty with Turkish sovereignty: Turkish sovereignty is Ottoman sovereignty and vice versa. If you can please read the Treaty of Lausanne, you can understand this. Please to refer to for example, Article 22 of the text. "Without prejudice to the general stipulations of Article 27, Turkey hereby recognises the definite abolition of all rights and privileges whatsoever which she enjoyed in Libya under the Treaty of Lausanne of the 18th October, 1912, and the instruments connected therewith." If Turkey had to renounce its rights on Libya, then Turkish sovereignty is Ottoman sovereignty because otherwise, Article 22 will be unnecassary. OK? Can you please read Imia/Kardak article? Turkey has territorial claims over these islands. Why? Because in the Treaty of Lausanne, there's not an article which clearly states that Turkey renounced its rights over Imia/Kardak. Can you see Turkish sovereignty is Ottoman sovereignty now? Turkey claims that the islands remain under her sovereignty, if Ottoman sovereignty was different from Turkish sovereignty it would be impossible to argue this. For example there is a town in Romania called Ada Kaleh, Turkey renounced its rights over it in the Treaty of Lausanne. If it was necassary to even renounce rights over a Romanian town, it is because Romania was part of the Empire, and former treaties had not an article on the status of Ada Kaleh. If the rights over a city under Ottoman sovereignty is not renounced, the city remains under Turkish sovereignty.


 * The modern state of Turkey had much different aims and a quite different army and organization and political goals than the previous Ottomans did: Not quite different, all generals were Ottoman generals, many MP's of the parliament opened in Ankara came to Ankara from the parliament in Istanbul after Istanbul was occupied. The Misak-i Milli was accepted in the parliament in Istanbul. The aim was the same, to keep Turkish independence and caliphate. Yes, the formal aim of Atatürk was to keep the caliphate in the Independence War. But, he was a Republican and after the war, he ended the Ottoman sultanate and finally he abolished the caliph position in 1924, because this position is not needed if you have a parliament according to him.


 * The Greeks were happy with the Ottomans and vice versa. The new state of Turkey had no use for Greeks. : No, they were not happy, they were a second class people as they did not believe in the 'final prophet'. They were not allowed to wear first class clothes. But, it was better for Greeks to be under Turkish control rather than Italian control. (See the war in the beginning of the 1700's.) But, after the French revolution, they became nationalist, and they started a campaign to establish a homeland. After the modern Greece was founded, their aim was Megali Idea, i.e. to join all places where Greeks live to Greece. The Ottoman government was not happy with this, Enver made life unhappy for the Greeks. Kemal was trying to get rid of Greeks in Anatolia because he did not want to govern an Empire, what he wanted was a small nation state. So, he did not try to take Thessaloniki back. But note that it was Greeks who offered to 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey.


 * This is fine, but let's be clear. The two "Turkish" groups do not overlap only when it is historically convenient. That is like saying that the "Americans" won the French and Indian War. They did not. Their ancestors helped the British win. Two different administrations. Quite different political goals and governments. Similar people though. Sometimes the same people. However, there are clear lines for each: No, they overlap. Ottoman was the name of the dynasty, it's a Turkish rule that people living under some dynasty takes the name of this dynasty. So, that's why Turks were called Ottomans in Turkey. However, in West, the Ottoman Empire was known as Turkish Empire or Empire of Turkey, while the Turkish name was دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه. You cannot compare French and Indian War to World War I, maybe you can compare it to Battle of Manzikert. You cannot say "Turkish people have won this war", because it was Turkomens who won this war, but after this war the migration of Turkomens to the lands now called Turkey has been increased, so Turkomens who migrated to Turkey were designated Turks. (But many books call who have won Battle of Manzikert as Turks, without taking the difference between Turkomen and Turk into account.) As you know or not, German Empire was transformed to Weimar Republic after the WWI. It was later transformed to Nazi Germany. The difference between German Empire and Weimar Republic is similar to the difference between Ottoman (Turkish) Empire and the Republic of Turkey. Or, consider Russian Empire and Soviet Union. Or, consider Shah's Iran and the Islamic Republic of Iran.


 * While I am not familiar with the specifics of the situation, it seems unlikely to me that the Italians (or any allied power) would have tried to land while opposed by the new Turkish army. They had learned better during the Gallipoli Campaign, where they were opposed by the old regime, but by the same Turkish leader, now a general! They would not have landed there if they did not expect a decent reception, I suspect. Wikipedia Talk Pages is not a place for suspection. After all, you have to verify what you write, OR is not allowed. But, if the British Army had been the given the order, they would have defeated the Turkish Army. But, they were not given the order, as the British people was tired of the war. After WW I, the British Navy passed though the Dardanelles without any resistence. They occupied the capital city, Istanbul. How did Turks liberate Istanbul? The British forces went home as they were tired of war, so the British occupation authority in Istanbul was ended and Turkish troops entered Istanbul without a war. Indeed, Mussoloni had the idea to occupy Western parts of Turkey before WWII, but he could not accomplish this.

In summary, you started reverting the word liberated for describing the event on September 7, 1922. The word is POV according to you. Although I do not use it anymore, you insist on adding "occupied" word as a term to describe that event. As I have explained it to you, you cannot say, for example British occupied Falklands Islands since it's under her sovereignty, or French occupied Paris, or Turks occuopied Anatolia. Before posting a reply, reading at least the Treaty of Lausanne can help you. Kavas (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Over categorization
Hi! Please check User:Takeaway's revert on your edit commenting "locations of James Bond films are routinely categorised under the film cat".

I kindly ask you to add in the future a wikilink to the article you are talking about so everybody knows. Thanks.CeeGee (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

St Gregory
I ran across a "no references" (only since August 2010) section in the St. Gregory article: St._Gregory_the_Great which gives additional summaries of Gregory's service as Pope. It may be good content - sounds thoughtful and good anyway. I've no background on the subject, but knowing your interest in such topics I thought I'd bring it to your attention in case you know someone who can improve it or come up with references, without having to delete. :-P Tkech (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiNews
I agree with what you said. I only read your comments after I had made mine. However, I still feel that you had been given the soft soap for something which is essentially of no real benefit to WP readers. The recurrent defence is that it is supported by sister projects... So frigging what??? Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping
Hi, I emailed you. Cheers. Tony  (talk)  09:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Space Coast Wiki

 * Space Coast Wiki

Greetings,

I recently started the Space Coast Wiki. It is a wiki for everything in Brevard County, Florida, including many articles which may not be notable enough for Wikipedia. It's brand new, so we really need some help recruiting editors and building content. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Greg Bard (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: K1 Speed
Hello Student7, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of K1 Speed, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing
I just wanted to point out that while isn't strictly against WP:CANVASS, it could be problematic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (Blueboar had told me to submit Afds on Notability page, but hadn't yet voted). Student7 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

talk page comments
Hello Student7, I reverted this edit,, as I intended for my comments to be right where they were. Please do not move them again, especially as you had not asked me about them beforehand. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (An article discussion was started on the Project page, finally discontinued when an editor complained. I moved the entire discussion to the article, to the annoyance of one editor who clearly didn't care that his comments were misplaced). Student7 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cobb County template
Mmann1988 is back at it on this template; s/he's now hit 4RR. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:PR
This point has been raised several times but you appear to have not addressed it at all. WP:PR (also known as Peer Review) is not a policy related to deletion of articles at all. You cannot nominate articles for deletion under the claim of "WP:PR" because no such policy exists to back such deletions. Please either find the correct policy to back your claim, or do not nominate articles for deletion under this incorrect claim. The359 (Talk ) 02:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that if you nominate an article for deletion you should pay attention to the AFD discussions, especially as many people may have questions regarding your nomination and your responses are usually required. The359 (Talk ) 18:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

US Foster Care
There was a section on "constitutional" issues, where some gadfly lawyer sued the state and won $3 million, which is penny ante for the state, big time for the lawyer, who had nothing better to do, apparently. He first deducted his fees, which were undoubtedly a good portion of the $3 million, then removed 40% of what was left over for "himself." The editor thought that this was charitable of him. Actually, this is pretty much how US lawyers earn their money most of the time and why the US wastes a good deal of its time and money in court as opposed to all other Western nations. "Contingency" is typical in cases where the lawyer figures he can win. In cases when he can't win or there is nothing to win, he charges for his time. You sue your neighbor, no-good brother-in-law, etc. Then he wants to see his money up front, because there won't be any later. American lawyers do not run charities. Student7 (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not a lawyer, I am a software programmer from Europe, but I have lived in Oregon for over 10 years and have seen on the TV about this case. When police crashed into the foster home there was video of the dried excrement in the children beds and dirty cribs covered with chicken wire. Boy had a shunt put into his head at birth to drain fluid, but the foster parents did not care to clean it, so kid was had almost died. "The Oregonian" is a main local newspaper in Oregon, so as you can see from the article "Gresham foster kids abused despite DHS checks", it took over 2 years to finish the case, and all these years lawyer worked for free, because contingency basis mean "no win no fee" i.e. if lawyer lose, then he gets no pay for his time at all (read first the definition of "contingent fee" or talk to any lawyer). Normally lawyers are hard to agree to take such a risk and often demand 50% when working on contingent fee, but in this case he took 33% (not 40%) after the case was settled which is actually includes all his fees for the over 2 years. Also the case was settled for $2 millions, not $3 millions, so about $1.32 millions went to the twins (which I think they totaly deserve). In Europe it would of been much more scandal to such an outrages case, but here in US some social workers prefer to hide the facts and blame a lawyer, instead of working on the source of the problem. I also heared stories from people in our immigrant community about kids taken away from mothers just for couple bruises on their legs, but then these kids was abused 100 times more when they got into the foster homes. You have deleted foster kids comments from this discussion page about their first-hand experience with abuse in foster homes because you do not belive them. But this is Wiki vandalizm to remove dozen of other people work, also this inhumane to remove child comments when they tell about abuse and rape in foster home. I have put their comments in archive, and I will stand for that, because I also have kids. Nobody belived children who was telling about the priests abuse, until the abusers got cut on video, the ignorance of adults is what led to the problem. P.S. English is not my first language, so forgive me if it sounds like I was trying to promote the lawyer. I have removed phrase about him working on contingency basis, so it will not confuse readers who do not know what "contingent fee" means. A contingency fee arrangement provides access to the courts for those who have no money at all (like kids) or cannot afford to pay the attorneys fees and costs of civil litigation. Also there is a Federal Rule that parents or friends cannot represent minor children in court, only lawyers can do that (see Pro Se in Fed Court).   Innab (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Tim Wakefield
If you want to go visit him go into lansing island, what evidence do you want, a picture? Not a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.31.33 (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He's right! Wrong city though.Student7 (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Beach, San Diego, California
Thanks for your work on the "Economy" section of Ocean Beach, which was a mess. I have taken the revisions further than you did, deleting the references to non-notable hotels and tidying up the narrative. I kept in the stuff about opposition to chain stores, since that really is almost a defining feature of O.B. You can still see bumper stickers saying "Starbuck's out of OB" even though Starbuck's has now been there for nearly 10 years, and the town is really unusual for its almost complete absence of chain businesses. --MelanieN (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. I see that back in 2008 - before I had learned to be bold - I left a note on the OB discussion page, questioning the plugs for the hotels. I should have taken them out right then! but I was timid in those days. --MelanieN (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Kalampaka/Kalabaka
When I started the article it was basically a stub, most of the current text is not mine. I don't really care whether it's written in American or British English, let's pick British. Markussep Talk 07:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

18:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned

On areopagus and araomai
"good faith edit which is, however, speculation & therefore WP:OR"

Yeah, right ...

Also see the paragraph's preceding "could have come", "The origin of its name is not clear. In Greek pagos means big piece of rock. Areios could have come from Ares or from the Erinyes, as on its foot was erected a temple dedicated to the Erinyes where murderers used to find shelter so as not to face the consequences of their actions," and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arete (referenced in the offending edit by link), "According to Bernard Knox's notes found in the Robert Fagles translation of The Odyssey, 'arete' is also associated with the Greek word for pray, 'araomai'" (which has reference "Homer. The Odyssey . trans. by Robert Fagles. Introduction and notes by Bernard Knox. Penguin Classics Deluxe Ed, London. 1996") The paragraph is largely, and even necessarily, speculative, in whatever faith, which I in no wise impugn.

I at least provided a reference for the edit (to Wikipedia arete) in support of the surmise whatever its steadiness; Areios as "from Ares or from the Eriyes" does not have reference to indicate any sources of the speculations.

"Araomai" is as plausible and supportable as origin for "areopagus" as Knox's for "arete" if not more so for retention of the "o" in the single word contraction form and for sanction as sanctuary (yes, I am being deliberately lexically heavy-handed here, whatever the holiness we may associate with prayer) of refuge for murderers.

See also the Israelite designation of cities of refuge at about the same time as the founding of Athens.

A bigger problem as I see it is credibility of Knox's "araomai" as Gk for "pray," which I although no Gk scholar, have not been able to corroborate, among such as "proseuchomai," "iketeuo," "parakalo," and "euchomai," in other sources. If "araomai" is however in fact solid (and if so it would have to be early Gk, Homeric (for the context of the Knox note) or earlier, I would think), so Prayer Rock for Areopagus as much as quite possibly prior to and less speculatively contrived than "from Ares or from the Erinyes."

Given the subsequent operative significance of the Areopagus the Ares speculative association (largely by Roman attribution, transmogrifying into Mars) is of course patently spurious however historical, and Erinyes more likely to share origin with rather than to be origin for Areopagus. It is interesting that the Vulgate retains the underlying Gk text, "stans autem Paulus in medio Ariopagi ait viri athenienses per omnia quasi superstitiosiores vos video," rather than transforming it into the Roman Hill of Mars, an accretion more Latin classical than (Christian) ecclesiastical (a meniori Hellenic).

Areopagus really has two meanings, one (the original) a place and the other (derivation from the place) a council. (A modern analog is Vatican, which has come designate more the Roman Papacy than association with the Mons Vaticanus, whatever the vatic vision vanished.) A careful reading of the Acts passage indicates that Paul's speech was in the council rather than on the landmark. The Wikipedia article would read better, more supportable from the text at a couple of levels, "it was to this civic body," than the present "it was from this location," whatever the council's venue. (The Pauline "Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands" does however align well with ancient precedent of the place as a prayer rock.)

The Wikipedia article would do well distinguish the two meanings more clearly.

If Knox is credible, the "araomai" etymology is sufficiently plausible to stand in the context of the paragraph, although the article should read "associated with a [emph. added not for retention] Greek word for pray," there being more than one. If Knox is not credible, even published, the statement "According to Bernard Knox's notes found in the Robert Fagles translation of The Odyssey, 'arete' is also associated with the Greek word for pray, 'araomai'," should be likewise deleted for spurious however scholarly eminent assertion.

Huguenot (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

LGBT parenting
Student7, there was a discussion on the article's talk page about whether to include Schumm, with the clear consensus being opposed. Unfortunately, as your edit violated consensus, not to mention a number of rules about reliable sources vs. undue and fringe views, I was forced to revert it. Please join the discussion if you believe I was mistaken. I caution you not to edit war. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mesa College
See my response here. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Mary
You do know that under Wikipedia WP:Article Titles policy, alleged issues of POv are irrelevant? The important things for a choosing a TITLE are commoness of the name and ease of use for users. Both would indicate that we use "Virgin Mary". Now, however, we are stuck with the artificial and annoying "Mary (mother of Jesus)" horror.  Xan dar  22:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't casting any blame. It's just that I had to mention that the POV argument doesn't tend to apply as respects WP Naming Policies. Issues of POV shouldn't deny the use of a common or proper name, unless there are issues of ambiguity involved. In any event I would hold that "Virgin Mary" is fairly neutral and well-accepted - more so than "Blessed Virgin Mary" which does have more religiose overtones.  Xan dar   23:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Best Buddies
Thanks for the message; no need to back off -- your points were good, and another friendly voice would no doubt help. Let's just wait and see what the student comes up with. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)