This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Giving up on wikipedia

If you took this photograph, please indicate that, and that you release it under the GFDL or under public domain using either the tag {{ GFDL-self}} or {{ PD-self}}. If another person took this photograph, please indicate how it is under this license or in the public domain. — Centrx→ talk • 06:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to adopt the language of the media, as a journalist I encourage you to search for what the AP stylebook says about abortion. Also, I couldn't figure out what you meant by "the most conservative groups." Was that original language by me? Dadip6 15:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Loodog (Talk | contribs | block) [rollback] (more solid ridership data has come in for that page)

"

Where is it? WhisperToMe 03:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Next time, directly cite the information in the page. See how I linked to the statistic from the METRORail page. WhisperToMe 04:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Empireatbroadway.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ResurgamII 22:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Amb.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey there..what is the ideal size for an article? I will work on the "History" section of the article as you recommended. I would like to take the article to peer review soon. Thanks for your help. Postoak 00:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The global city stuff..my sentiments exactly :) Postoak 02:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Loodog:

Thanks for the editing and cleanup for Worcester MA. Feel free to look back and make changes on occasion.......I'm trying to complete gaps in article and cleanup........ pmeleski 31 October 2006

Looks good now (well, "agrees with the cite", not "gee, I'm glad a lot of folks are getting killed":). DMacks 05:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the Streetcar mileage; just a thought, also add in the ridership for it to MAX's total?

Ridership already includes streetcar, as per source.-- Loodog 13:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks again, and feel free to delete this section if you wish.-- Callcentermonkey 14:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You changed the table to include Hurricane Wilma. However, the table is a list of the most intense hurricanes to affect the US...Wilma was much weaker than that when it hit Florida. - Runningonbrains 01:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Chondrite 07:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: calling another editor an "asshat" [1] is a personal attack. Chondrite 17:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't on the cannibus page.-- Loodog 19:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro does not need references. It is a summary of the rest of the article which provides the support for the intro. - Ravedave ^{( help name my baby)} 16:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss any changes to Minnesota on the talk page as it is going through an FA rght now, thank you. - Ravedave ^{( help name my baby)} 16:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"The social system of major cities and out laying towns is changing immensely due do urban sprawl. When the middle class populations decide to move away form the city, lower class urban residents are left behind in city that has less to offer than it once did. According to John Powell form the Institute of Race on Poverty, 60% of the nation’s offices are located in the suburbs, compared to only 25% in 1970 (1). Urban residents are left with less employment opportunities and a declined tax base, which leads to a shortage in affordable housing and poor school systems."

How is this not relevant to the growth of sprawl? Granted it should be in the past tense as this has already happened and isn't really a current event. John Reaves 05:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the "its'". I always thought that the possessive had to have the apostrophe. Go figure that I was editor of my high school newspaper. User:SkipperRipper Sat, 2 Dec 2006, 13:17:59.

Hi there.. curious about the edit you made at Dallas, Texas. originally, there were hardly any political facts ( previous version). The idea was to create a third paragraph that summed up Dallas culturally. I'd appreciate a revised third paragraph, but the article isn't going to reach its FA status without a third paragraph in that vein... drumguy8800  C T 08:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Brighton - For some reason I thought Brighton was it's own city. Shows how much I know. We could use some more active hands in the Boston Project if you care to help out. Cheers Markco1 16:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Transportation of Los Angeles. In the future, please flag controversial assertions either by opening a new section on talk pages or inserting the citation needed flag, as a courtesy to other editors. -- Coolcaesar 10:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I will look at your examples for length. Also thanks to your note, I followed through with earlier comments on the talk page for the article and proposed cuts and merges. If you are interested, your reply there might help. Thanks. - Susanlesch 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Takes real patience to explain. Jd2718 17:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

In regards to revert on Phoenix, Arizona, information was clearly added in good faith and may not have needed to revert. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You may have a point in deleting the section on the Jax metro area. But some type of mention needs to be made, because Jacksonville's situation is fairly unusual. Unlike 99% of cities in the US, the vast majority of Jacksonville's "suburban" area actually lies within the city limits, due to consolidation of the city and county governments about 40 years ago. I think that the purpose in having the metro area was to draw some significant distinctions between the "suburbs" within the city, the suburbs within the county but outside the city limits, and the areas outside of the county altogether. Because it's not like other cities, it can be confusing (and I'm not sure that the section you deleted did an adequate job of clarifying that). Unschool 21:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I live in the Phoenix metro area. I feel it is misleading to say that Phoenix is the 6th largest-city in the United States without qualifying the statement. The metro Phoenix area is moderate in size-- it is the 14th-largest metro area in the U. S. Phoenix is the 6th largest city by virtue of the fact that it has enormous city limits. This is why I feel it is crucial to put the information about the area within the Phoenix city limits at the top of the Phoenix, Arizona page. In the case of Phoenix, area is not "esoteric." Area is relevant for Phoenix. It explains why a city like Phoenix is ranked #6 in population in the U. S. when the Phoenix metro area is only #14 in the country. JackWilliams 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... not sure I agree with this. Houston is 9th largest in area, is the fourth-largest in city limits, but still retains 7th in metro area. Los Angeles is actually slightly larger area-wise than Phoenix, yet it still achieves 2nd largerst metro area. I'd chalk this up to Houston and Phoenix being in the newly developing sunbelt, places which have not yet had had time to build the influence of a large metro area but that's just my idea. Better to state population and metro population and let reader decide. I don't think adding area is pertinent enough to warrant mention in the intro paragraph.-- Loodog 02:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad you are taking an interest in this article. If you want some material that might sew further ideas for edits to surface tension, please see a draft that I have been working on (off and on for several months now) for a supplement to the main article. You can find the draft at User:Karlhahn/Surface tension (supplement). The audience for the supplement is clearly folks who are adept at math, but the content (such as it is in partially completed form) meshes with the thoughts you added to the main article. Karl Hahn ( T) ( C) 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you be able to look over the article and make some more comments on it than you did on the article's talk page? Recently, I have tried to talk to User:Thomas Paine1776, who seems to be the one pushing the positive view of the city while attacking those trying to add some balance to the article, yet it appears that I have been rebuffed. In the meantime, I will step back from the article and continue to gather third party perspectives on it so that I could take the correct course of action without inflaming the conflict any further. Thanks. Pentawing ^Talk 16:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Loodog. Do you think Minneapolis, Minnesota is ready for featured article candidate (FAC)? I see a few weaknesses but no reason not to try. - Susanlesch 07:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Your review was enouraging, and thanks for taking time to edit, too. I made one change to the TOC (having only one item with second level headings looked funny so I moved health to a new section with utilites like Boston) and decided to hold off a bit before FAC. - Susanlesch 15:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, dude. You better hustle around and find some more people who understand what drivel that article is if you want to get it deleted. You and I do not a consensus comprise. I suggest you look through the old discussion pages for the 2000s article for people who share your antipathy for that crapola. Unschool 05:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misreading Wikipedia:Common knowledge, but it seems to be saying that Wikipedia editors should not rely upon common knowledge. Perhaps you could explain your understanding of the essay to me? -- Bobblehead 05:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Unforunately, the Wikipedia:Common knowledge article is more heavily focused on what not to do. To infer what is acceptable, make sure you aren't committing any transgressions against those guidelines. By that idea, the common knowledge there is OK.-- Loodog 05:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can make the inference that just because it's not listed on the list of "don'ts" that it's on the list of "do's". It's also a little misplaced to call WP:CK a guideline. It's an essay, which means it's not actionable. It's more an opinion piece that is not accepted by a majority of Wikipedians. -- Bobblehead 06:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the example you gave for History common knowledge actually does have a cite on the George Washington article.-- Bobblehead 06:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a terribly well-written or specific one, but it's the only thing I could find on this sort of information. Because of this present issue, I'm working now to try to make the Wikipedia:Common knowledge article more specific to address such situations in the future. I think common sense should dictate that things easily found on a low-detail map (e.g. Central Park is in Manhattan) shouldn't require citation. In general, anything that can be cited should, but some things are obvious and hard to find sources because they are so obvious. Though, feel free to contribute to the article as we try to make some hard guidelines.-- Loodog 06:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

True, it is quite poorly written. However, I'm not sure you'll be able to get it to be a guideline though. "Common knowledge" is extremely subjective and will be difficult to get consensus on. But hey, more power to you. Although, you may wish to wait until the essay is better written before you start removing fact tags from articles. Even if they are a bit too generously spread about as they were on the Boston article. -- Bobblehead 18:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"The talk pages of.. ..fill up with the same arguments ad infinitum." Might the above be a way to go? Rich Farmbrough, 08:45 28 April 2007 (GMT).

There is a case that has you listed as one of the parties. It has recently been opened for discussion. Jac _roe 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Seems like you're a little stressed out with Wikipedia...so here's a smile:

Jumping cheese ^{Cont @ct} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{ subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'll see you around the ECT page! =) Jumping cheese ^{Cont @ct} 08:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions and pictures to Curl. I have one suggestion however. It would be great if the pictures you put in were of higher resolution, and preferable in png, which is not blurry and which is better suited for line art. I wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did in the crudest way: plotted everything in Mathematica and copy-pasted to MS Paint. This is pretty much the only way I know, but if you have a method of getting clearer images, it would certainly make the article easier to understand.-- Loodog 03:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be possible to export from mathematica to eps I believe, or even to other formats, like png or gif (maybe from the "File" menu). Could you try and see if it works? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that I can figure out.-- Loodog 04:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps you could post the code at each of the pictures (which is a good idea in general anway), then I can try to fix them tomorrow (I don't have mathematica at home, but have at school). Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And I have another note. In math notation variables should be italic, so ''x'' instead of x, which shows up as x. And equations should be indented, so

${\displaystyle x^{2}}$

instead of

${\displaystyle x^{2}}$ Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So, as follow up of the above, are you reluctant to part with the dearly written mathematica code? :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 01:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, replace whatever to improve it. I won't be offended.-- Loodog 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Loodog, you misunderstood me I think. I am very happy with your pictures. :) All I wanted is to recreate them with higher resolution, for that I would need your original code. If that's fine with you. So I won't replace the pictures, except for the resolution. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sure. It's easy. Here it is:

<< Graphics`PlotField`

PlotVectorField[{y, -x}, {x, -5, 5}, {y, -5, 5}]

<< Graphics`PlotField3d`

PlotVectorField3D[{0, 0, -2}, {x, -5, 5}, {y, -5, 5}, {z, -5, 5}, VectorHeads -> True]

PlotVectorField[{0, 0,-x^2}, {x, -5, 5}, {y, -5, 5}]

PlotVectorField3D[{0, 0, -2x}, {x, -5, 5}, {y, -5, 5}, {z, -5, 5}, VectorHeads -> True]

This was done in Mathematica 5.2 Student Version; I don't know if any commands differ in other versions. -- Loodog 05:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll get to this after Memorial Day. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

i guess i shouldn't have said that eastern nazarene college's presence in boston is debatable; that's probably not for me to decide. i welcome any suggestions on how to improve here. -- alain poutre

Hi there. User:Mediumostrich has been vandalizing again. Could you do the honours? Thanks, Leo44 ( talk) 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added him to Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Leo44 ( talk) 19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just updated the New England historic city list. I liked the geographic order you suggested, and started the list at New Haven, and roughly followed the I=95 corridor to Portland.

And buy the way I warned User:71.235.81.39 about his Anti-Boston trolling on his talk page, and told him next time he posts one of his rants on any talk page that I would start a thread on him at WP:ANI with the intention of having him blocked.

-- BH (Talk) 22:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

in regards to User:71.235.81.39 I already started a thread on him at WP:ANI, after he vandalize/trolled on my talk page BH (Talk) 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You know I think that the longer that thread on WP:ANI stays up, the more he'll make a fool of himself, and the chances of him getting blocked will only increase. He just posted another rant on the thread, and he's still calling us propagandists. BH (Talk) 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor, I've noticed your contributions to the Providence, Rhode Island article. I've just nominated it for Featured Article status.-- Loodog 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool! If you need assistance, please advise. Thanks! -- Tom 15:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do this weekend (I am pretty busy during the weekdays). Pentawing ^Talk 00:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!-- Loodog 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, looks better up there. Thanks.-- SarekOfVulcan 20:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

What is so "silly" about distances between cities?
Where are the list of official neighborhoods within the city limits?
Those are my projections, why no projections? I see them all the time on Wiki. These projections are based on the 2000 census with the population growth at 2% a year (Source: city of Billings) so I thought that the estimate is reasonable and about sources, I don't have the time or energy to research sources for future or what ever else there was. This is general knowledge that is true and accurate and I'm just trying to make this page as complete and informal as possible.

Wolfdog1 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wolfdog, I have never seen another wikipedia article give distances to neigboring communities, let alone 24 of them in a bulleted list. If a reader wants this information, there's googlemaps. Wikipedia really wasn't meant for this sort of information.

Official neighborhoods, Pittsburgh, Providence, Rhode Island, and Manhattan have official lists. The lists aren't always easy to find, but if you don't have something on the page, it's just OR.

As for my removal of projections, again, no other cities have this. We don't prophesize populations. There's even a tag for wikipedia being used as an oracle: {{prophecy}}. Demographics is more a reflection of actual data gathered, though the tradition has been to allow one estimate for present day, which can never be more than 9 years from last actual census.-- Loodog 05:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, we've met before, notably on the New England article and talk page. I've done alot of work at WP:RFA, voting on candidates to be administrators. I was wondering if you would accept a nomination to become one. BH (T| C) 05:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but judging from the comments I see, I'm usually not nearly an active enough editor. I'm also trying to scale down how much time I spend on wiki.-- Loodog 13:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. BH (T| C) 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed User:Raul654 already archived the FAC nom. I think that was a bit quick, since you are working on it to address concerns. Some other nominations given more time. Anyway, I suggest keep working on it, and renominated it at some point. It took New York City seven nominations, but with Providence, I think you are much closer to FA quality. I'll be happy to look at the article again. -- Aude ( talk) 01:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean I have to renominate it now? I mean, there are articles on the FAC page that were nominated in May.-- Loodog 01:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest asking Raul about it. -- Aude ( talk) 01:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are frustrated with the IP editor, but removing comments from a talk page is not a good way to proceed. Having said that, restoring openly racist comments and clear violations of WP:NPA may make a point, but we don't do that. this edit and then this one should not have occured. In fact, they now rest in the history of the talk page under your name, which I am sure was not your intent. Jd2718 00:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure people disagree with me, but I feel all talk page material should be kept for reference, no matter how offensive. Suppose someone wants to see how the discussion unfolded, to take proper context of the current comments. It'd be a pain in the ass to sort through all the history just to find all the comment and the order the comments were left in.-- Loodog 00:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I misinterpreted your action as a frustrated response to my restoring the bulk of his comments. Please accept my apology. However, I would prefer to see the comments restored onto his page with a warning. Would that be acceptable? If not, again, your point is well-reasoned, and I will accept your preference without interference. Jd2718 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Were you thinking along the lines of "The following content has been restored for the record though it may be offensive"?-- Loodog 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish you were right, and your point, now that I have slowed down and read it, certainly has merit. But I conflated you with BH, and in doing so I failed to assume good faith (BH had just deleted a large section of the talk page). Again, please accept my apology. Jd2718 00:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

You placed a "huh" tag on the intro to bernoulli's principle, i wasn't sure how to describe it, but the sentence wants to say something like

"It is important to note that the only cause of the change in fluid velocity is the difference in balanced pressure on either side of it"

where it is the differential/considered fluid element. But to say that in an intro will confuse readers? What do you think about this? User A1 04:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Either side of WHAT?-- Loodog 04:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As per my previous comment "where it is the differential or considered fluid element"'. Perhaps we need a diagram here to clear this up. User A1 10:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

u may be right, but i couldnot resist ...Actually, i could prob find verifiable facts to support the food stuff..the food here is so bad, it is like a joke PS: how many times has a movie theater shown Bunuel in the last year ? Cinnamon colbert 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this is a member of Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. Is this deliberate? Rich Farmbrough, 07:37 28 June 2007 (GMT).

OK looks like it is. Rich Farmbrough, 07:38 28 June 2007 (GMT).

Hi. You opposed FA status for this article citing problems with publishing dates of web sources being incorrect. I would gladly fix these, but I don't know to which you refer. Thanks.-- Loodog 02:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have time to look through all the references at the moment, but if you do it yourself you'll see which dates are incorrect. Epbr123 09:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the promotion of Providence, Rhode Island to featured article status! Postoak 21:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		To Loodog, on the occasion of Providence, Rhode Island and Minneapolis, Minnesota reaching featured article. With thanks - Susanlesch 22:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		To Loodog, on the occasion of Providence, Rhode Island and Minneapolis, Minnesota reaching featured article. With thanks - Susanlesch 23:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The stats are wrong. If you divide the new numbers up, it comes up to what I posted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by XxTrillvillexX9 ( talk • contribs)

I apologize in failing to assume good faith; however, I failed to noticed your changing from 3480 originally, to 3703, to 1344, and later 1428 were in different units, and so, without edit summaries, I assumed them to be vandalism. You are correct and I have since changed the Houston densities back to your figures, with slight corrections.-- Loodog 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Loodog, thanks for the chart in the economy section of the Houston, Texas article. Looks great! Thanks again, Postoak 05:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just read in the signpost that Providence reached featured status. Good Job. I think you should request that it be the main page's featured article. To do so go to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Boston was recently on the main page, and Samuel Adams will be there tomorrow (July 4, yes its intentional). If you do request I'd chime in if you wanted. Black Harry (Highlights| Contribs) 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I felt kind of demanding when I listed it for FA twice. I figured I'd give it a bit of time before trying for front page. Also, far as I can tell, they like to vary the front page articles and Boston's front page moment was two weeks ago.-- Loodog 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was wondering what you would think about having providence there. Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'd love to see it. I'm just waiting for a more feasible time.-- Loodog 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you just warned 71.235.86.179 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) about vandalism to Boston. I ran the "WHOIS" thing, and it appears this user is from New Haven, CT. New Haven, is also home to the trolling IPs 71.235.81.32 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 71.235.81.32 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (thpse two are the same person).

While the evidence is only circumstantial at best, I suggest we keep an eye on that whole range of IPs.

-- Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Loodog, Hydrogen Iodide has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{ subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

What is your issue? What's up with the drive-by fact-tagging on every sentence including several items that are not " likely to be challenged"? Many of the items you threw tags at (such as "Atlanta is the third-highest in elevation...") are hardly controversial and confirmed fairly easily; remember, "You can also add sources even for material you did not write." Also, for metro-Atlanta residents, "legal battles with neighboring states Alabama and Florida" over water are common-knowledge. Why would that be controversial or "likely to be challenged"? Btw, I believe you were the one that fact-tagged the Georgia Aquarium size statements? Georgia Aquarium is linked and fully referenced - you need only click-through to validate that statement. AUTiger » talk 02:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Welcome to wikipedia, where our goal is verifiability, not truth. Please feel free to learn about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Thank you!-- Loodog 02:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've been here for quite a while. Please re-read that and WP:CITE which I linked (albeit less obviously); you're confusing verifiability with citation style and guidelines. You have subsequently verified a couple of things yourself; maybe even some things that could have been verified by reviewing the general references listed at the bottom of the article. In-line citations are NOT required by WP:V. AUTiger » talk 02:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Loodog. First, I did not forget about the curl pictures yet, I'll get to them.

I have a few style notes about this edit. First, there's got to be a period at the end of the formula if that formula is at the end of sentence, and that period should be in the math tags, per WP:MSM. Second, variables must be in math or italic style, so ${\displaystyle T}$ or T instead of plain T. Lastly, there's got to be exactly one space between paragraphs, more than that does not look aesthetic. Hope that's useful. :) You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference states "Atlanta Leads Nation in Single-Family Housing Activity for 13th Consecutive Year" but your summary states (trying to remove overdressing of a simple fact, ref says nothing about it being single family only). I was attempting to find a reference for the following statement that was sitting there uncited: The metro area has been #1 in single-family housing starts for 13 consecutive years. ^{citation needed} It appears to me that the reference that I located is accurate. Feel free to add additional statements based on the article but I believe that it's accurate to leave the original statement alone.

Additionally I did not see any harm in adding the further information with respect to the growth as compared to the top-50 metro areas. I don't see how that would be "overdressing of a simple fact" but instead adding an additional fact.

I don't know if you are likely to read the talk page on the article and so am leaving this comment here instead. Please let me know your thoughts either here or on my talk page. Thanks! Drew30319 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

By "overdressing" I mean taking a simple piece of information (like Atlanta has a high growth rate) and making copious comparisons and rankings. 5th out of 50 is unimpressive compared to fastest growing for the ten largest.

The reference you found for the housing market doesn't say Atlanta's top housing status is in single-family homes. It says: Atlanta, which has #n single family housing permits, led the nation in housing activity.-- Loodog 17:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• The title of the article referenced states that "Atlanta Leads Nation in Single-Family Housing Activity for 13th Consecutive Year." It then goes on to state: "The greater Atlanta area, which recorded 53,750 single-family housing permits last year, led the nation in housing activity for the 13th consecutive year beginning in 1991." Whether or not the term "housing activity" in this sentence refers specifically to single-family housing is not explicitly clear but I believe is implied. I would defer to the title of the article rather than assume that "housing" may (or may not) include townhomes, condos, apartments, etc.
• With respect to growth relative to the top-50 I'm agnostic and if there is no perceived value then it's fine with me to stay with the single statistic. I merely added it because I noted the number while searching for the reference and thought it might be valuable to some. Drew30319 18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Atlanta metro area was also the highest metro area in absolute gain, 2000-2006 Ryoung122 03:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there - sorry I don't log on to Wikipedia all that much these days - I'm mostly a reader. Do you still need the outline map of Rhode Island? I'd like to eventually do spot-maps for all the New England states, but it's a matter of time and motivation. :) All the states are separate though, at least from the source I got them from, so it would be somewhat hard to attach MA and RI together. Let me know. Petros63 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for trying to let people know of our progress.Other city article's don't need them because they have for the most part Great Reputations and are filled with millions more people.Are you even from Detroit? Because if you're not you don't know of our progress and have no right to cut out my section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCoolOne99 ( talk • contribs)

Editor, we'd be glad to have your contributions to wikipedia, but please first familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, in particular WP:OWN. Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildas on talk pages like so: ~~~~. Familiarizing yourself with wikipedia policy will help you understand my edits to the Detroit, Michigan article.-- Loodog 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It seemed the end of the history section was misplaced from the back and forth, it stopped at 1980. It looked inadvertant, since it is good info. Make a suggestion, I'd like to trim it down anyway. Thomas Paine1776 22:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Im just thinking,a big part of Detroit is how far we have come and putting that in history just wouldn't be right because the cahnges are current or since the 90's anyway.Im gonna go ahead and edit the History section for now and see what i can do with it,maybe not add a whole section but i'll play with it.

TheCoolOne99 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)TheCoolOne99

Keep in mind, every city has the opportunity to write about its great comeback: Cleveland, Ohio, Providence, Rhode Island, Miami, Florida, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, even Billings, Montana has its own renaissance story. Keep this in perspective.-- Loodog 02:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I replaced Image:Uniform curl.JPG with Image:Uniform curl.png which is better looking, by running your code, going on the image, clicking on "Edit -> Save Selection As -> EPS" and then I converted the EPS to png. I was not so lucky with the other images. Image:Nonuniformcurl.png looks ugly since the sticks of the arrows are not seen. I could not plot the other two images at curl since my Mathematica does not have the

<< Graphics`PlotField3d`

package. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your new images look nice, but I worry leaving out the axes neglects an important point about the spatial dependence.-- Loodog 16:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the axes. The new image is Image:Uniform curl.svg. I'd argue that the lines look much sharper, and there are no JPG artifacts. If you could give me the EPS version of the other images I could do the same for them (I can't run the 3D code on my Mathematica installation). Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)