I have no issues with cleaning up the formatting and alphabetizing the listing in List of nursing schools in the United States. But, in the process, you also deleted some of the secondary references, such as the USNews reviews of top-ranked programs in the field (e.g., Simmons College). You might want to go through the list and check if some of the "corrections" were superfluous. You also lost parts of some descriptions. Alex.deWitte ( talk) 00:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the cited 2010 census updates (I've had to revert a lot of uncited ones) and for creating Fair Oaks, Oregon. I just haven't had the energy to get around to updating census data or creating new CDP articles. You may have noticed I have a have a little list of needed CDP articles with some notes about whether they should also be "unincorporated communities". You'll note I'm a bit opinionated about names that appear to have been made up by the census, feel to use the info or not, as you see fit. If you're planning to do all them, I've got a draft for Holley laying around, let me know if you need me to move it to mainspace. For the rest, at some point one of us with a copy of OGN can fill in some history. Cheers! Valfontis ( talk) 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's great that you have a list ready to go. I figured somebody was on top of things, since I noticed that the unincorporated places that had become CDPs already were categorized correctly. At this point, I'm just doing Douglas County, and then I'll be off to some other county in the US. But thanks for letting me know about your project! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 20:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it was nice to have you here for a little while anyway. Looks like the only other one is Union Gap, Oregon. That one is a bit puzzling--from my limited research I think it was pretty much just a RR station, but clearly a population has grown up around it. Yes, I'm the one who updated the categorization--it's always good to meet someone who gets the CDP/unincorporated community distinction! Valfontis ( talk) 20:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I viewed many River Photos from the New Hampshire area, all taken by Ken Gallager. They are exquisite. Thanks for your sharing them with the world and for releasing them to the Public Domain also. It is generous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.12.180 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for your edit. I have no problem with the tightening, but your comment confuses me. In WP:Notability_(people) I see no requirement for a WP article. I see "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" What am I missing? -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 17:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- And thank you for getting in touch. I apologize for the confusion. Effectively, the criteria that you list are the same as what would allow an article about the person to pass the article notability test. In the cases of the people who I deleted, it looks like in each case there was just one link given per person, and sometimes they were not independent of the subject. In other words, the people I deleted appeared to be listed more in a promotional way than in recognition of true notability. I realize it's not an explicit guideline, so there should be some wiggle room, but the quick rule of thumb (that I have seen others use as well) is simply, if they're not notable enough for an article, they're not notable enough for the list. I realize it's making more work for you if you want to see any of the people reinstated, but I would recommend starting an article about someone, providing the references, and taking it from there. Best wishes, -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 20:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I have been looking for some consensus on this for a while. I looked at the various WP:List pages and at the lists which were Featured Lists. I found mixed conclusions. I think your manual of style link for Sentence Fragments is the best guide line. Thanks for sharing. I'm gonna port that info over the various WP:List pages. Cheers Dkriegls ( talk) 04:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Good to hear from you, and I think you're doing great work cleaning up the Notable People lists. There are a lot of tough cases out there, but I think your adding the comment about having an article first is right on the mark. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 12:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you know of any Wikipedia guidelines on capitalization of official titles like Senator? Cheers Dkriegls ( talk) 18:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would go with WP:JOBTITLES, which starts with: "Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting." I think you can substitute "senator" or "congressman" in the guideline and get the same result. Possibly the confusion comes from the fact that "Senate" and "Congress" are capitalized. That's my take, anyway. You might want a second opinion! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 18:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Here's something right from the source: http://www.house.gov/representatives/. They use "congressman" or "congresswoman" without capitalizing. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 18:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for copyediting my articles, much appreciated.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 12:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- The articles are very welcome additions, so thank you! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 12:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
| Thanks for jumping in there, seeing a middle ground, and being bold with your initiative to resolve the issue! Dkriegls ( talk) 04:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you for your work on Norwich, Vermont
Thank you, Ken for your recent fine touch on the Norwich, Vermont article! User:HopsonRoad 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome! And I was thinking it was quite a good article at the time - nice photos, too. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 01:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| Thank You so Much for all your New Hampshire work if you could possibly do more on Mount Zion Christian Schools in Manchester that would be awesome. A Dingus 19:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC) |
Do you look at the Free State Project article? I'm interested in getting some other editors, since it tends to be dominated by what I would call true believers, which remove criticism and lard it with complementary trivia. I'm afraid I'm turning into the only naysayer there, which isn't good. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 18:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've tended to avoid it, precisely due to the conditions you state, since I tend to have an aversion to dogmatic thinkers. However, I'll be happy to take a look at it. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 18:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Ken, I'm not very active anymore on Wiki. I did notice some vandalism of White Mountain art. What gives with this? Is it common? Is there any way to trace IP addresses to put a stop to this? Please respond on my Talk page. Thanks. JJ ( talk) 13:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Ken, thanks for your response. JJ ( talk) 16:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey I don't think Josiah Bartlett is a real person so why put him up there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.157.19 ( talk • contribs)
- Why not follow the link I put into your sentence and find out? I believe you're thinking of Josiah Bartlet of The West Wing. Best wishes, -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 12:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out ways to improve my editing. I did not realize it was better to have the URL displayed in the infobox for the town's website. I missed that on the wiki guideline somehow. Thanks again, I will make both improvements you suggested. I am fairly new to editing ad I really appreciate the input of other editors.-- BuzyBody ( talk) 18:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to ask you about the proper placement of something on town or city websites because you were so helpful before. On the "Saint Michaels, Maryland" page the article shows the town was named #8 of the Top Ten Romantic Escapes in the USA. I am wondering where is the best place to list this information? I did not know if it belonged in the introduction, history section etc.. Thank you-- BuzyBody ( talk) 23:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- To tell you the truth, I don't have a good answer for a standard place to put town ranking info. However, looking at the specific article, it has an "Economy" section which mentions St. Michaels' tourism draw. That's where I'd add the info. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 02:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I have been changing Indians to Native Americans on some of the early American Colonist web pages as well as the King Philips War article. It seems that the present-day tribes do not like the term Indians. Some, indeed do not even like Native Americans, but most especially, they do not like to be called Indians.
I see you also seem to agree. Mugginsx ( talk) 13:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Indians" is clearly an antiquated term. I don't generally go looking for the term to change it, however, though I will try to find a better term if I'm already working on an article for another reason. "Native American" is also problematic in my view, because it's vague. I would much rather use the actual name of the people, nation, or tribe involved. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 14:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is of course preferable when possible. There were many small tribes and in some of the resources, their names are either not known or not stated. In the later history the tribes are more clearly defined. But I agree with your viewpoint and will try to follow it from now on. Mugginsx ( talk) 14:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Ken, since you know wikipedia way better than I do I have a question. User 94.224.198.239 has repeatedly vandalized the page Immaculate Conception Apostolic School denying that it is a High School Seminary and now the spiritual formation of the students. How can I get him blocked from editing as a vandelizer? I ask you since you reversed one of his acts off vandalism. Thanks. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 12:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see the other editor's contributions as vandalism. They did re-delete something after ignoring your edit summary, but since then it appears that they have been trying to find the right language for the role of the Legion in students' spiritual life. I think the two of you have a good-faith disagreement over how much emphasis to give that role versus the general role of the Catholic church. There is no reason to try to block the other editor at this point. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 13:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, for the clarity. I have under 1,000 edits and I am not quite sure where the limit is because he has re-deleted several items on the same page. Just a weird quiescence but we both edited Cheshire, Connecticut today on completely different items. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 14:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I've been doing my best to methodically update the templates to reflect the new CDPs in New Jersey for 2010 and to update / create the articles for the CDPs as needed. Thanks so much for taking the time to wander down from New Hampshire to make the template changes, which may help goad other editors to make the changes to these article, as well as better serving readers. My sincere thanks for all of your New Jersey-related edits. Alansohn ( talk) 15:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words! New Jersey's templates were in really good shape; I only found a couple of counties where the updates hadn't been made yet. I can always expect that I will find little to do when I look at New Jersey articles because you're taking such good care of them. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 15:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I received a message that I, or rather someone with my IP address, had changed a wiki article on Gorham, NH, it was not constructive, and was removed. What? I did no such thing and wonder who is using my account. What was the change and when was it done? Thanks so much, worried about hackers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.14.237 ( talk) 13:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your correcting what I gather was an apparent error in address ("Durgin" rather than "Durgan" in street name), at Tuftonboro United Methodist Church article. Thanks for making the correction. I don't know if you are aware of the existence of a central recording area about errors in NRHP's NRIS data, at wp:NRIS info issues. For New Hampshire sites more specifically, this is located at wp:NRIS info issues NH. The idea is to keep track of where wikipedia editors find errors in the National Register's information, so that we can feed that back and get the National Register to fix their info. And, as importantly, to document our changes so that future editors won't find the National Register info and use that source to "correct" back to the erroneous info.
I recorded the Durgan-Durgin error in this diff there. Please consider making notes in the central NRIS info issues system in the future. Either way, thanks for making this correction, keep up the good work! -- do ncr am 14:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I'll put this information up on my user page so I won't lose it! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 15:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Please correct the syntax in the geography portion of the bot. It currently perpetuates the incorrect form, "...total area of x sq mi, of which, x sqmi of it is land...", etc. If you write "of which" in a sentence, it is redundant to add "of it" later. The correct wording should be, "...total area of x sq mi, of which x sq mi is land...", etc. Many editors have spent many edits correcting these mistakes from the first time a bot added them several years ago, and it is a shame to see those corrections being undone now. Thank you. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 13:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm the owner of JBradley_Bot whose talk page you wrote this on. I wasn't an active editor prior to writing my bot so I was unaware of any issues the community had with the original auto generated content, and I copied the way that content was done in an effort to eliminate possible mistakes on my end. I can change these sentences fairly easy, but it would be over 6k edits, I've updated almost the entire Midwest. That is why I was wondering if you could put the suggestion up on the wiki city project and make sure that it is a consensus that it is worth the effort, because like you said it is just redundant, I don't know as though it is necessarily wrong. I just don't want to start doing it and have somebody else message me saying something along the lines of "what are you doing its always been written like that". Or if there has already been a discussion about this somewhere could you point me to that. Once I have a guarantee that a consensus favors the change I'll be glad to change the pages. Jamo2008 ( talk) 16:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - Thanks for your reply. I'm not aware if it's been discussed at the wiki city project, so I'll bring it up there. I'm less concerned about changing past edits than about the bot going forward. I'll send you info when I find it. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 16:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Did not find anything in the talk page for WP:US Cities. The original changes using that syntax were made by Detroiterbot ( User:MJCdetroit) in fall 2007, and I did not find any discussion of the wording on his archived talk pages either. It may never have been discussed (either before or after) by anyone. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 17:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I will go ahead and make the change for future edits I'm not concerned about people getting upset if I'm changing as the bot runs on a page for the first time, since it will also be doing several other things on the page as well. I'm only worried about having a consensus if I was to start going back over pages since that would be a lot of edits at one time and some people might get upset or confused as to why I'm making a grammar change to thousands of pages. I'm open to the idea of changing the older pages though if a consensus is reached that it is a good idea, I have first hand dealt with the difficulties of not having the wording standardized across all the states, and for the sake of whoever codes the bot in 2020 they would appreciate having as little variation as possible to deal with. After all if all the pages formats were standardized for the things I'm updating I would have been done by now rather than only being done with 12 states, the 20-30% of attempted edits that fail due to formatting issues per state is a real drain on productivity. Jamo2008 ( talk) 17:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Knowing first-hand how much variation there is between articles nationwide, I can only congratulate you on how far you've gotten. It's a much more enormous task than when the Rambot set things up 10 years ago! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 18:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thank You! Nick2crosby ( talk) 01:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. You were kind enough to help me in September regarding an article and I have run across something I would like some help with. I thought I would ask you, if you do not mind. I wondered if there were certain steps I should take when I run across an article that has been taken directly from another source without any references being cited. In the article for Benjamin Huntington it was apparent that an editor had taken sentences from an uncited source. I put the information on the talk page of the article as an explanation as to why I changed the article so much. I was trying to practice the idea of "be bold when editing". I just want o make sure I handled this the correct way. Thank you. -- BuzyBody ( talk) 22:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- You did it just right. Sometimes I'll see editors simply remove material that's been pasted wholesale from a source, but it's much better to make the effort, like you did, to keep the information in, using your own words. Thanks for your diligence! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 14:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I have no issues with cleaning up the formatting and alphabetizing the listing in List of nursing schools in the United States. But, in the process, you also deleted some of the secondary references, such as the USNews reviews of top-ranked programs in the field (e.g., Simmons College). You might want to go through the list and check if some of the "corrections" were superfluous. You also lost parts of some descriptions. Alex.deWitte ( talk) 00:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the cited 2010 census updates (I've had to revert a lot of uncited ones) and for creating Fair Oaks, Oregon. I just haven't had the energy to get around to updating census data or creating new CDP articles. You may have noticed I have a have a little list of needed CDP articles with some notes about whether they should also be "unincorporated communities". You'll note I'm a bit opinionated about names that appear to have been made up by the census, feel to use the info or not, as you see fit. If you're planning to do all them, I've got a draft for Holley laying around, let me know if you need me to move it to mainspace. For the rest, at some point one of us with a copy of OGN can fill in some history. Cheers! Valfontis ( talk) 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's great that you have a list ready to go. I figured somebody was on top of things, since I noticed that the unincorporated places that had become CDPs already were categorized correctly. At this point, I'm just doing Douglas County, and then I'll be off to some other county in the US. But thanks for letting me know about your project! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 20:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it was nice to have you here for a little while anyway. Looks like the only other one is Union Gap, Oregon. That one is a bit puzzling--from my limited research I think it was pretty much just a RR station, but clearly a population has grown up around it. Yes, I'm the one who updated the categorization--it's always good to meet someone who gets the CDP/unincorporated community distinction! Valfontis ( talk) 20:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I viewed many River Photos from the New Hampshire area, all taken by Ken Gallager. They are exquisite. Thanks for your sharing them with the world and for releasing them to the Public Domain also. It is generous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.12.180 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for your edit. I have no problem with the tightening, but your comment confuses me. In WP:Notability_(people) I see no requirement for a WP article. I see "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" What am I missing? -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 17:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- And thank you for getting in touch. I apologize for the confusion. Effectively, the criteria that you list are the same as what would allow an article about the person to pass the article notability test. In the cases of the people who I deleted, it looks like in each case there was just one link given per person, and sometimes they were not independent of the subject. In other words, the people I deleted appeared to be listed more in a promotional way than in recognition of true notability. I realize it's not an explicit guideline, so there should be some wiggle room, but the quick rule of thumb (that I have seen others use as well) is simply, if they're not notable enough for an article, they're not notable enough for the list. I realize it's making more work for you if you want to see any of the people reinstated, but I would recommend starting an article about someone, providing the references, and taking it from there. Best wishes, -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 20:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I have been looking for some consensus on this for a while. I looked at the various WP:List pages and at the lists which were Featured Lists. I found mixed conclusions. I think your manual of style link for Sentence Fragments is the best guide line. Thanks for sharing. I'm gonna port that info over the various WP:List pages. Cheers Dkriegls ( talk) 04:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Good to hear from you, and I think you're doing great work cleaning up the Notable People lists. There are a lot of tough cases out there, but I think your adding the comment about having an article first is right on the mark. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 12:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you know of any Wikipedia guidelines on capitalization of official titles like Senator? Cheers Dkriegls ( talk) 18:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would go with WP:JOBTITLES, which starts with: "Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting." I think you can substitute "senator" or "congressman" in the guideline and get the same result. Possibly the confusion comes from the fact that "Senate" and "Congress" are capitalized. That's my take, anyway. You might want a second opinion! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 18:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Here's something right from the source: http://www.house.gov/representatives/. They use "congressman" or "congresswoman" without capitalizing. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 18:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for copyediting my articles, much appreciated.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 12:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- The articles are very welcome additions, so thank you! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 12:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
|
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
| Thanks for jumping in there, seeing a middle ground, and being bold with your initiative to resolve the issue! Dkriegls ( talk) 04:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you for your work on Norwich, Vermont
Thank you, Ken for your recent fine touch on the Norwich, Vermont article! User:HopsonRoad 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome! And I was thinking it was quite a good article at the time - nice photos, too. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 01:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
|
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| Thank You so Much for all your New Hampshire work if you could possibly do more on Mount Zion Christian Schools in Manchester that would be awesome. A Dingus 19:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC) |
Do you look at the Free State Project article? I'm interested in getting some other editors, since it tends to be dominated by what I would call true believers, which remove criticism and lard it with complementary trivia. I'm afraid I'm turning into the only naysayer there, which isn't good. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 18:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've tended to avoid it, precisely due to the conditions you state, since I tend to have an aversion to dogmatic thinkers. However, I'll be happy to take a look at it. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 18:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Ken, I'm not very active anymore on Wiki. I did notice some vandalism of White Mountain art. What gives with this? Is it common? Is there any way to trace IP addresses to put a stop to this? Please respond on my Talk page. Thanks. JJ ( talk) 13:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Ken, thanks for your response. JJ ( talk) 16:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey I don't think Josiah Bartlett is a real person so why put him up there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.157.19 ( talk • contribs)
- Why not follow the link I put into your sentence and find out? I believe you're thinking of Josiah Bartlet of The West Wing. Best wishes, -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 12:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out ways to improve my editing. I did not realize it was better to have the URL displayed in the infobox for the town's website. I missed that on the wiki guideline somehow. Thanks again, I will make both improvements you suggested. I am fairly new to editing ad I really appreciate the input of other editors.-- BuzyBody ( talk) 18:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to ask you about the proper placement of something on town or city websites because you were so helpful before. On the "Saint Michaels, Maryland" page the article shows the town was named #8 of the Top Ten Romantic Escapes in the USA. I am wondering where is the best place to list this information? I did not know if it belonged in the introduction, history section etc.. Thank you-- BuzyBody ( talk) 23:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- To tell you the truth, I don't have a good answer for a standard place to put town ranking info. However, looking at the specific article, it has an "Economy" section which mentions St. Michaels' tourism draw. That's where I'd add the info. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 02:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I have been changing Indians to Native Americans on some of the early American Colonist web pages as well as the King Philips War article. It seems that the present-day tribes do not like the term Indians. Some, indeed do not even like Native Americans, but most especially, they do not like to be called Indians.
I see you also seem to agree. Mugginsx ( talk) 13:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Indians" is clearly an antiquated term. I don't generally go looking for the term to change it, however, though I will try to find a better term if I'm already working on an article for another reason. "Native American" is also problematic in my view, because it's vague. I would much rather use the actual name of the people, nation, or tribe involved. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 14:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is of course preferable when possible. There were many small tribes and in some of the resources, their names are either not known or not stated. In the later history the tribes are more clearly defined. But I agree with your viewpoint and will try to follow it from now on. Mugginsx ( talk) 14:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Ken, since you know wikipedia way better than I do I have a question. User 94.224.198.239 has repeatedly vandalized the page Immaculate Conception Apostolic School denying that it is a High School Seminary and now the spiritual formation of the students. How can I get him blocked from editing as a vandelizer? I ask you since you reversed one of his acts off vandalism. Thanks. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 12:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see the other editor's contributions as vandalism. They did re-delete something after ignoring your edit summary, but since then it appears that they have been trying to find the right language for the role of the Legion in students' spiritual life. I think the two of you have a good-faith disagreement over how much emphasis to give that role versus the general role of the Catholic church. There is no reason to try to block the other editor at this point. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 13:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, for the clarity. I have under 1,000 edits and I am not quite sure where the limit is because he has re-deleted several items on the same page. Just a weird quiescence but we both edited Cheshire, Connecticut today on completely different items. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 14:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I've been doing my best to methodically update the templates to reflect the new CDPs in New Jersey for 2010 and to update / create the articles for the CDPs as needed. Thanks so much for taking the time to wander down from New Hampshire to make the template changes, which may help goad other editors to make the changes to these article, as well as better serving readers. My sincere thanks for all of your New Jersey-related edits. Alansohn ( talk) 15:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words! New Jersey's templates were in really good shape; I only found a couple of counties where the updates hadn't been made yet. I can always expect that I will find little to do when I look at New Jersey articles because you're taking such good care of them. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 15:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I received a message that I, or rather someone with my IP address, had changed a wiki article on Gorham, NH, it was not constructive, and was removed. What? I did no such thing and wonder who is using my account. What was the change and when was it done? Thanks so much, worried about hackers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.14.237 ( talk) 13:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your correcting what I gather was an apparent error in address ("Durgin" rather than "Durgan" in street name), at Tuftonboro United Methodist Church article. Thanks for making the correction. I don't know if you are aware of the existence of a central recording area about errors in NRHP's NRIS data, at wp:NRIS info issues. For New Hampshire sites more specifically, this is located at wp:NRIS info issues NH. The idea is to keep track of where wikipedia editors find errors in the National Register's information, so that we can feed that back and get the National Register to fix their info. And, as importantly, to document our changes so that future editors won't find the National Register info and use that source to "correct" back to the erroneous info.
I recorded the Durgan-Durgin error in this diff there. Please consider making notes in the central NRIS info issues system in the future. Either way, thanks for making this correction, keep up the good work! -- do ncr am 14:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I'll put this information up on my user page so I won't lose it! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 15:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Please correct the syntax in the geography portion of the bot. It currently perpetuates the incorrect form, "...total area of x sq mi, of which, x sqmi of it is land...", etc. If you write "of which" in a sentence, it is redundant to add "of it" later. The correct wording should be, "...total area of x sq mi, of which x sq mi is land...", etc. Many editors have spent many edits correcting these mistakes from the first time a bot added them several years ago, and it is a shame to see those corrections being undone now. Thank you. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 13:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm the owner of JBradley_Bot whose talk page you wrote this on. I wasn't an active editor prior to writing my bot so I was unaware of any issues the community had with the original auto generated content, and I copied the way that content was done in an effort to eliminate possible mistakes on my end. I can change these sentences fairly easy, but it would be over 6k edits, I've updated almost the entire Midwest. That is why I was wondering if you could put the suggestion up on the wiki city project and make sure that it is a consensus that it is worth the effort, because like you said it is just redundant, I don't know as though it is necessarily wrong. I just don't want to start doing it and have somebody else message me saying something along the lines of "what are you doing its always been written like that". Or if there has already been a discussion about this somewhere could you point me to that. Once I have a guarantee that a consensus favors the change I'll be glad to change the pages. Jamo2008 ( talk) 16:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - Thanks for your reply. I'm not aware if it's been discussed at the wiki city project, so I'll bring it up there. I'm less concerned about changing past edits than about the bot going forward. I'll send you info when I find it. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 16:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Did not find anything in the talk page for WP:US Cities. The original changes using that syntax were made by Detroiterbot ( User:MJCdetroit) in fall 2007, and I did not find any discussion of the wording on his archived talk pages either. It may never have been discussed (either before or after) by anyone. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 17:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I will go ahead and make the change for future edits I'm not concerned about people getting upset if I'm changing as the bot runs on a page for the first time, since it will also be doing several other things on the page as well. I'm only worried about having a consensus if I was to start going back over pages since that would be a lot of edits at one time and some people might get upset or confused as to why I'm making a grammar change to thousands of pages. I'm open to the idea of changing the older pages though if a consensus is reached that it is a good idea, I have first hand dealt with the difficulties of not having the wording standardized across all the states, and for the sake of whoever codes the bot in 2020 they would appreciate having as little variation as possible to deal with. After all if all the pages formats were standardized for the things I'm updating I would have been done by now rather than only being done with 12 states, the 20-30% of attempted edits that fail due to formatting issues per state is a real drain on productivity. Jamo2008 ( talk) 17:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Knowing first-hand how much variation there is between articles nationwide, I can only congratulate you on how far you've gotten. It's a much more enormous task than when the Rambot set things up 10 years ago! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 18:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thank You! Nick2crosby ( talk) 01:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. You were kind enough to help me in September regarding an article and I have run across something I would like some help with. I thought I would ask you, if you do not mind. I wondered if there were certain steps I should take when I run across an article that has been taken directly from another source without any references being cited. In the article for Benjamin Huntington it was apparent that an editor had taken sentences from an uncited source. I put the information on the talk page of the article as an explanation as to why I changed the article so much. I was trying to practice the idea of "be bold when editing". I just want o make sure I handled this the correct way. Thank you. -- BuzyBody ( talk) 22:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- You did it just right. Sometimes I'll see editors simply remove material that's been pasted wholesale from a source, but it's much better to make the effort, like you did, to keep the information in, using your own words. Thanks for your diligence! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 14:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)