![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
We could use maps which show the evolution of the county names and lines over time. I think the piece would be improved by that.
7&6=thirteen ( talk) 01:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Stan
NOT. I put in internal links in article that brought together all of the information that one could reasonably need. There already are maps, and now there is a link to them. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 14:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Stan
Dear BKonrad:
Interestingly, even as you were deleting my informaiton about the Kent in Kent County, Michigan as "extraneous", I was having another gentleman delete an internal link to List of Michigan county name etymologies as 'irrelevant' to the entry on the Toledo War.
With respect, one can fairly deduce the hows and whys of the Michigan county name changes. This ties in perfectly with the cabinet counties, and shows the undying gratitude of a grateful state.
You are just as wrong on this one as is the gentleman on the Toledo War.
I understand relevancy. It is my job. But this relates to the major thesis of the article.
One has to think about the total picture, and presenting it in accord with accuracy and recorded history. I did that here.
Think about it. I know you can do right on this disagreement.
Best to you. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Stan
I put in the following in the article:
The differences in meaning would appear to be (at least in part) due to the difference between a literal translation and a more contextual interpretation. Place names that are devoid of (remembered) history, context, persons or place are subject to infinite debate, since by definition all of the participants are dead, and actual documents showing their intent are rare or no longer existent.
My question is whether "persons" or "place" should each be singular or plural? Which would better convey the thought?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan
Wow, you sure we're busy. I might suggest, however, that simply saying that Alcona County or Alpena County was a made up word, without giving the supposed meaning and origin, might be throwing out the substance of the article. I in fact sources that information, so that can't be a criticism, I don't think.
You also got rid of the text on Otsego County in the examples, and it was not repeated in the list.
Just a gentle suggestion. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan
7&6=thirteen ( talk) 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan
You merged this. You didn't bother to notify contributing editors of the proposal. I was a major contributor. Viewed most charitably, this was an oversight. Viewed more crudely, this was rude and a breach of etiquette. Either way, I dissent. It is now a matter of record, as is your protocol. I trust this won't happen in the future. WP:AGF. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 03:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Stan
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
We could use maps which show the evolution of the county names and lines over time. I think the piece would be improved by that.
7&6=thirteen ( talk) 01:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Stan
NOT. I put in internal links in article that brought together all of the information that one could reasonably need. There already are maps, and now there is a link to them. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 14:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Stan
Dear BKonrad:
Interestingly, even as you were deleting my informaiton about the Kent in Kent County, Michigan as "extraneous", I was having another gentleman delete an internal link to List of Michigan county name etymologies as 'irrelevant' to the entry on the Toledo War.
With respect, one can fairly deduce the hows and whys of the Michigan county name changes. This ties in perfectly with the cabinet counties, and shows the undying gratitude of a grateful state.
You are just as wrong on this one as is the gentleman on the Toledo War.
I understand relevancy. It is my job. But this relates to the major thesis of the article.
One has to think about the total picture, and presenting it in accord with accuracy and recorded history. I did that here.
Think about it. I know you can do right on this disagreement.
Best to you. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Stan
I put in the following in the article:
The differences in meaning would appear to be (at least in part) due to the difference between a literal translation and a more contextual interpretation. Place names that are devoid of (remembered) history, context, persons or place are subject to infinite debate, since by definition all of the participants are dead, and actual documents showing their intent are rare or no longer existent.
My question is whether "persons" or "place" should each be singular or plural? Which would better convey the thought?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan
Wow, you sure we're busy. I might suggest, however, that simply saying that Alcona County or Alpena County was a made up word, without giving the supposed meaning and origin, might be throwing out the substance of the article. I in fact sources that information, so that can't be a criticism, I don't think.
You also got rid of the text on Otsego County in the examples, and it was not repeated in the list.
Just a gentle suggestion. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan
7&6=thirteen ( talk) 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan
You merged this. You didn't bother to notify contributing editors of the proposal. I was a major contributor. Viewed most charitably, this was an oversight. Viewed more crudely, this was rude and a breach of etiquette. Either way, I dissent. It is now a matter of record, as is your protocol. I trust this won't happen in the future. WP:AGF. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 03:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Stan