Messages 2020-2021
Could you be a little more specific about the issues that motivated you to place these tags on the article? Perhaps on the talk page? Daniel Case ( talk) 18:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Specifics
This article is not written like an encyclopedia article, with background, facts/events, and discussion. Instead, it reads more like a newspaper or magazine article, "beginning near the end" with the discovery of the skull fragment and then moving around, temporally. There is, for example, very little about the family of the victim: the story jumps from his birth year to his late teens in the next sentence. A fair amount of the text could be seen as taking a particular point of view. One might compare other crime articles, especially "murder of ___", such as Murder of Meredith Kercher or Murder of Travis Alexander. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 19:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
For the same reason, that this is the story of a death, not a life, I began it with the discovery of the skull, which confirmed that he was dead and ended the search. Deaths, however they happen, are events, not lives, and our articles about them need to reflect that, which means we begin by describing what happened, not who it happened to. Suggesting it be about the latter is, frankly, well established as not in keeping with BLP1E.
I don't think the Meredith Kercher article, given its tortured history, is really the best example to look at here (nonetheless, I would also point out that it spends all of two grafs on her life before she went to study in Italy) (and likewise, we get one graf of Travis Alexander's life in that article).
It seems, really, that your quarrel is with the structure of the article, perhaps, more than the tone. And if you believe there are POV sections, could you please give some specific examples here, as I asked?
Also, you haven't explained what your issue is with the referencing. Daniel Case ( talk) 01:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
And that is properly referred to as a usage issue. As for tone, I fixed the one thing you pointed out. If you are willing to tag the article with {{ tone}}, I think you should be willing to list more than one example.
The short grafs are not a problem; the point is for it to be easy to read. MOS:PARA does not specify a particular graf length; it does, however, point out that "paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read." Daniel Case ( talk) 00:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
-- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 20:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure there are additional sources ... I'd love it if the Post-Gazette would make more of its coverage, or the Press's for that matter, available online (I understand they might have to digitize it as it was all pre-Internet). I'm sure some of them are in libraries and on microfilm, perhaps, but as I don't live near Pittsburgh, or in Western PA, I can't easily go look for them. Should they become available in the future, and offer some additional relevant information, I'll add it (or, of course, someone else can). Daniel Case ( talk) 00:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't get it, why?.
I mean, sometimes I can get 'basic' English wrong (e.g. The compound-modifier conundrum) but I just don't see the 'why' here. It seems jarring to me. Shenme ( talk) 19:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I hope to contribute to content on Wikipedia Sirbrown2020 ( talk) 21:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
You take issue with my assertion that diplomatic considerations and naval engagement occupied the first few years of the Hundred Years' War ("No, it didn't") and ask for a source. It is Hundred_Years'_War#Beginning_of_the_war:_1337–1360. While the phrase inserted is a simplification, of course (it's not easy distilling eight years into fourteen words), leaping directly from the start of the war in 1337 to Edward's sailing in 1345 a sentence later begs the question (in the vernacular sense) of what was happening all that time. Something is needed; if you'd care to try your hand at it, I'd be happy for an improvement in the article. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
-- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 18:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Balaam (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Virginian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Piledhigheranddeeper: Hey, thanks for taking an interest in the article! I think it's important to keep the fact that the streets were named for characteristic trees of Texas (not just for any old trees that someone thought were nice). Also, do you have a source for the assertion that the Philadelphia plan also originally had east–west streets named for local trees? I'm not saying they weren't, it's just that I don't see any names on the map that's included in this article. Thanks for being bold! - Bryan Rutherford ( talk) 00:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stepney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hythe.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you added some content in Special:Diff/1014441879, but you added a named ref without the actual reference, causing a ref error. Could you please fix that? Thanks. Elli ( talk | contribs) 04:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The national flag in the infobox is the wrong one. The flag depicted was not adopted until 1865, but the regiment that is the subject of this article existed in 1862 only. The " Stars and Bars" is the national flag they would have carried. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 01:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The tone of this article is somewhat less than encyclopedic. Numerous slang and insider terms are used in place of more formal terms. The article should be rewritten so as not to seem like it came from a show-biz trade publication. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 21:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
It is very interesting that the four years of this man's army service accounts for about 7/8 of the text in the article, while the next 35 years of his life is practically dismissed in two short paragraphs (five lines total), despite that this was a Featured Article. Did he really do nothing of import in the second half of his life? -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Vermont flood 1927 - Enosburg Falls.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Harding (forger), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ace of Spades.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits! I am Dutch, my English is good, but apparently not good enough ;-) I also added the sources where you put citation needed's. IIVQ ( talk) 17:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
It is remarkable that this article even exists, being a no-refs stub (four sentences). It is truly amazing that it took over two dozen edits over a course of more than a decade to get it to this point. Couldn't this effort be put to better use? -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 15:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Hardwick&WoodburyLocoNo.1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 04:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello Piledhigheranddeeper! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Woodbury Granite Company, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.timesargus.com/news/woodbury-granite-co-a-rural-industrial-giant/article_4b45fb48-aa7f-5589-990b-2f2d1b73b75d.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.
Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Woodbury Granite Company saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa ( talk) 13:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I am working on a review for Template:Did you know nominations/Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad. Please look for comments and I hope to see this nomination on the main page soon! Flibirigit ( talk) 12:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Messages 2020-2021
Could you be a little more specific about the issues that motivated you to place these tags on the article? Perhaps on the talk page? Daniel Case ( talk) 18:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Specifics
This article is not written like an encyclopedia article, with background, facts/events, and discussion. Instead, it reads more like a newspaper or magazine article, "beginning near the end" with the discovery of the skull fragment and then moving around, temporally. There is, for example, very little about the family of the victim: the story jumps from his birth year to his late teens in the next sentence. A fair amount of the text could be seen as taking a particular point of view. One might compare other crime articles, especially "murder of ___", such as Murder of Meredith Kercher or Murder of Travis Alexander. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 19:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
For the same reason, that this is the story of a death, not a life, I began it with the discovery of the skull, which confirmed that he was dead and ended the search. Deaths, however they happen, are events, not lives, and our articles about them need to reflect that, which means we begin by describing what happened, not who it happened to. Suggesting it be about the latter is, frankly, well established as not in keeping with BLP1E.
I don't think the Meredith Kercher article, given its tortured history, is really the best example to look at here (nonetheless, I would also point out that it spends all of two grafs on her life before she went to study in Italy) (and likewise, we get one graf of Travis Alexander's life in that article).
It seems, really, that your quarrel is with the structure of the article, perhaps, more than the tone. And if you believe there are POV sections, could you please give some specific examples here, as I asked?
Also, you haven't explained what your issue is with the referencing. Daniel Case ( talk) 01:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
And that is properly referred to as a usage issue. As for tone, I fixed the one thing you pointed out. If you are willing to tag the article with {{ tone}}, I think you should be willing to list more than one example.
The short grafs are not a problem; the point is for it to be easy to read. MOS:PARA does not specify a particular graf length; it does, however, point out that "paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read." Daniel Case ( talk) 00:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
-- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 20:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure there are additional sources ... I'd love it if the Post-Gazette would make more of its coverage, or the Press's for that matter, available online (I understand they might have to digitize it as it was all pre-Internet). I'm sure some of them are in libraries and on microfilm, perhaps, but as I don't live near Pittsburgh, or in Western PA, I can't easily go look for them. Should they become available in the future, and offer some additional relevant information, I'll add it (or, of course, someone else can). Daniel Case ( talk) 00:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't get it, why?.
I mean, sometimes I can get 'basic' English wrong (e.g. The compound-modifier conundrum) but I just don't see the 'why' here. It seems jarring to me. Shenme ( talk) 19:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I hope to contribute to content on Wikipedia Sirbrown2020 ( talk) 21:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
You take issue with my assertion that diplomatic considerations and naval engagement occupied the first few years of the Hundred Years' War ("No, it didn't") and ask for a source. It is Hundred_Years'_War#Beginning_of_the_war:_1337–1360. While the phrase inserted is a simplification, of course (it's not easy distilling eight years into fourteen words), leaping directly from the start of the war in 1337 to Edward's sailing in 1345 a sentence later begs the question (in the vernacular sense) of what was happening all that time. Something is needed; if you'd care to try your hand at it, I'd be happy for an improvement in the article. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
-- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 18:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Balaam (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Virginian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Piledhigheranddeeper: Hey, thanks for taking an interest in the article! I think it's important to keep the fact that the streets were named for characteristic trees of Texas (not just for any old trees that someone thought were nice). Also, do you have a source for the assertion that the Philadelphia plan also originally had east–west streets named for local trees? I'm not saying they weren't, it's just that I don't see any names on the map that's included in this article. Thanks for being bold! - Bryan Rutherford ( talk) 00:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stepney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hythe.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you added some content in Special:Diff/1014441879, but you added a named ref without the actual reference, causing a ref error. Could you please fix that? Thanks. Elli ( talk | contribs) 04:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The national flag in the infobox is the wrong one. The flag depicted was not adopted until 1865, but the regiment that is the subject of this article existed in 1862 only. The " Stars and Bars" is the national flag they would have carried. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 01:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The tone of this article is somewhat less than encyclopedic. Numerous slang and insider terms are used in place of more formal terms. The article should be rewritten so as not to seem like it came from a show-biz trade publication. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 21:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
It is very interesting that the four years of this man's army service accounts for about 7/8 of the text in the article, while the next 35 years of his life is practically dismissed in two short paragraphs (five lines total), despite that this was a Featured Article. Did he really do nothing of import in the second half of his life? -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Vermont flood 1927 - Enosburg Falls.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Harding (forger), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ace of Spades.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits! I am Dutch, my English is good, but apparently not good enough ;-) I also added the sources where you put citation needed's. IIVQ ( talk) 17:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
It is remarkable that this article even exists, being a no-refs stub (four sentences). It is truly amazing that it took over two dozen edits over a course of more than a decade to get it to this point. Couldn't this effort be put to better use? -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 15:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Hardwick&WoodburyLocoNo.1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 04:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello Piledhigheranddeeper! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Woodbury Granite Company, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.timesargus.com/news/woodbury-granite-co-a-rural-industrial-giant/article_4b45fb48-aa7f-5589-990b-2f2d1b73b75d.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.
Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Woodbury Granite Company saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa ( talk) 13:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I am working on a review for Template:Did you know nominations/Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad. Please look for comments and I hope to see this nomination on the main page soon! Flibirigit ( talk) 12:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)