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.

Thanks for catching my inadvertent copying of the user-page template onto Beatrice, Nebraska. I worked on the article on one of my subpages, so that I could save frequently without feeling the need to write edit summaries; then I mistakenly copied the whole thing, user-page template and all, into article space. I apologize for the carelessness, and I'm glad you were paying attention. Ammodramus ( talk) 17:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize. We all make such mistakes at times, and that certainly includes me; and there are usually people who will notice them and fix them. Thanks for the note, though. Omnedon ( talk) 21:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Omnedon/2011! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

-- Kumioko ( talk) 18:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Project! Please let me know if you have any questions, commments or suggestions.-- Kumioko ( talk) 20:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.-- Kumioko ( talk) 03:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{ Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{ User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have finished up responding and implementing as suggested by your comments, and there were one or two questions back at the FAC. I hope you can look at it when you have an opportunity and that you will be able to take a position on whether the article should be promoted. Many thanks,-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:

1. Portal:United States
2. the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
3. the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
4. and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.

You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I can't come up with a more descriptive header :-) First off — I don't view you with animosity; I'm sorry if I've come across that way. If I did, I would have done something about edits such as this one, which aren't mathematically precise ( significant figures say that 2 mi² converts to 5 km²), although approximately correct. Unless we come up with more precise data (and I'm aware that you have), rounding to 0 mi² and 1 km² is the only way to follow the sources. Thanks for researching to get better precision on these articles! Nyttend ( talk) 07:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, applying the convert template doesn't attempt to address the deficiencies in the data contained in the articles, and there are cases like this where it can be problematic; but stating that an area is "0 square miles (1 square kilometer)" is also incorrect. The data comes from the source (the United States Census Bureau) but it was inserted into the articles with no decimal places, and rounding 0.47 down to 0 (for example) produced this unfortunate effect. The only real way to fix this is to provide more accurate data in the article, as should have been done initially. I'm working on that now in preparation for the release of the 2010 figures, which hopefully will happen soon. Omnedon ( talk) 20:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Go to measuringworth (measuringworth.com).
2. Determine the year, value, and type of money your initial sum was
   1. 1835, $2000, capital expenditure
   2. 1872, $48000, capital expenditure
3. 1835 $2000 in 2009 using Nominal GDP Per Capita, a capital intensivity measure, would be approximately $1 million
4. 1872, $48000 in 2009 using Nominal GDP Per Capita, a capital intensivity measure, would be approximately $11.3 million
5. cite correctly, Samuel H. Williamson, "Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount, 1774 to present," MeasuringWorth, April 2010; calculations made using Nominal GDP Per Capita, a measure of capital intensivity, using "the 'average' per-person output of the economy in the prices of the current year." This is a measure of the amount of capital and volume of labour required to reproduce the work over varying production methods, but, assuming that money represents a proportion of the economy.

Measuring worth over time is difficult. For capital expenditures or "mega projects" or major government projects, never, ever use Consumer Prices or other "shopping basket" measures of change in monetary worth. (I'm still on leave.) Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the guidance. I've applied this to the Warren County, Indiana article. Omnedon ( talk) 20:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You are quite correct, every example given of the references has the period, but it has been the practice at FAC not to quibble on that as long as you are consistent. I think that is a product of fractured views about referencing. Rereading my point, I felt it might be taken as brusque, and I wanted to make sure you knew I didn't mean it that way.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I quite understand, but I appreciate you taking the time to write this -- thanks. As you know I'm not an experienced reviewer and certainly want to do things right, and am still learning; and as I said I don't see the reference issue as an obstacle to promotion. I'm still hoping that my own FAC will succeed, and am discovering how demanding this process can be. But of course it has to be! Omnedon ( talk) 21:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you are going about it the right way as far as I can see. Reviewing is very much bread cast upon the water if you nominate FAs and the more you do the better, problem is it is very time consuming.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion starting up at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation), that may be of interest to you. The subject is technically a page move discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is to decide where Batavia should redirect. Until earlier today, Batavia redirected to History of Jakarta, but during this discussion, it is redirecting to Batavia (disambiguation). Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks for your help. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 22:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are receiving this because you are one of the principal editors of one of the articles that is linked to Batavia (disambiguation). This notice is being posted to all of the top three editors of each of these articles (in terms of total edits), with the following exceptions:

This is an attempt to be a neutrally-phrased posting in keeping with the principles of WP:CANVASS. If you find anything in the wording or the manner posted to be a violation of that guideline, please notify me at my talk page.

Hi Omnedon. I've been busy most of the day but saw your notes a little while ago. Judging by the comments at FAC, most or perhaps all of the proofing has been done. I think I fixed the line-break problem in the lead, and I ran a script that turned one more hyphen into an en dash. Finetooth ( talk) 00:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see that; thank you very much. This has been quite an educational experience! Omnedon ( talk) 00:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! Well done. I think you'll find that the second time is less of a marathon.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Yes, this first time through involved a lot of things I hadn't dealt with before; I've already begun work on some other articles and am trying to apply everything that I learned here. Thanks for your advice and support; it's much appreciated. I expect to continue to review FACs, but may take a bit of a wiki-break first. Omnedon ( talk) 15:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Omnedon. I have a draft on a ghost town in Indiana that may have been the site of the county's first aircraft landing. The draft is located in my sandbox: User:TwoScars/sandbox3. My problem is that the Style Guide for cities causes several topics for this small village to be repeated somewhat, especially the railroad, Gas Boom, and stockyard. Any thoughts on this article's organization? TwoScars ( talk) 03:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it and see if I can offer any useful suggestions. At first glance, an interesting topic and an interesting article. There may be a delay before I get to this, but I'll do my best. Omnedon ( talk) 03:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Omnedon. You have new messages at Dual Freq's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wow, just noticed this diff; congratulations! I have to assume you pulled 99% of the load on something like that; I'm sure you'll have many more in the future. Great job. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 19:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! It was certainly not easy (nor should it be), but I'm glad to have finally reached the goal. More than anything it showed me how much I still have to learn. I appreciate you taking the time to write. Omnedon ( talk) 23:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the much-needed population updates. Maybe you already knew this, but just in case - I just wanted to alert you to the fact that the population often occurs in multiple places on a page. In Bell County, Kentucky, for instance, it not only appears where you updated it, but also in the first paragraph prose under the sections about Geography and Demographics. So, on Bell County, the 2010 census appears where you changed it, but the 2000 census is elsewhere. I think updating the new census numbers is a big undertaking, so I wish you luck with your progress on same. - Maile66 ( talk) 12:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not update the population; I have been standardizing the area description, which uses numbers which come from the census. If you look at the article's history, you will see that an anonymous editor updated the population before my edit. Actually this is a big problem; in 2011, many different editors have been making lots of mostly good-faith edits to update populations to 2010 figures; and while it is understandable that people would wish to do it, the problem is that almost all of these edits so far are unsourced, and in many cases the edits result in old references being applied to 2010 data. Personally I would not start making those changes until each individual population figure could be specifically cited; and I would guess that this will be done by bots once it is possible to do so. Omnedon ( talk) 12:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh...thanks for the info. - Maile66 ( talk) 13:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
-- Kumioko ( talk) 01:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
. -- Kumioko ( talk) 15:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You are approaching 3RR on Jefferson Davis. Please do not revert again while discussion is ongoing or you may be blocked. I wrote to the talk page 8 minutes before your last revert and you posted on the talk page 1 minute before insisting on reverting again so you know that discussion was occurring.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 05:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact it seems that you have violated 3RR prior to sending me this warning. I did not exceed 3 reverts, but you did so within less than 3 hours. Omnedon ( talk) 13:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please. I think you will see that I only edited the article 3 times exactly, plus I was upholding the consensus on the talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 00:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are at Talk:Jefferson Davis. You reverted back to the colorized image three times with three successive edits in under three hours. Omnedon ( talk) 01:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
-- Kumioko ( talk) 22:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello -- thanks for the improved county map and government section. Do not worry about "stepping on toes" -- the goal is to improve the Blackford County wiki. You are correct that the article needs much more work -- I got impatient, and I could not resist correcting some inaccurate history about John Blount. (I have Blackford County history books from 1887, 1900, and 1986.) I am weak in retrieving 2010 census info, it seems more difficult than 2000. If you have any suggestions, or want to update the Demographics section yourself, or any other section, do not hesitate. TwoScars ( talk) 13:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello -- great updates on Blackford County. Question about the railroad Central Railroad of Indianapolis -- how confident are you about it being in Blackford County? The line was Penn Central, then Conrail, then Norfolk Southern. NS definitely leased some track to CERA, but was it that far east? Could the Grant County Converse be causing any problems identifying the track? I know NS abandoned the line between Blackford's Converse and somewhere near Hartford City, because it is in the Surface Transportation Board's records. There is definitely no track on that line in Millgrove or Hartford City anymore. It is possible that the line was leased to CERA, then unleased and abandoned by NS -- I just have not been able to find any evidence.

Well, the 2011 Indiana rail system map shows the CERA line entering Blackford County and stopping in Hartford City. Since the map comes from INDOT, I assumed it was fairly authoritative; however, I don't have anything further than that presently, and don't know if other sources would contradict that map (or if the map is out-of-date in terms of that particular line). Certainly the RailAmerica map doesn't show that line, but it also unfortunately doesn't give any historical information. I recently brought Warren County, Indiana to FA, and welcomed the opportunity to work on another Indiana county article when I saw that you made some major improvements to Blackford County recently; but as I mentioned, I also don't want to interfere with anyone else's work -- I just enjoy this sort of project. At this stage I tend to focus on MOS-related improvements, on converting lists into prose, and on providing citations; but you clearly have local expertise here. I'll see if I can dig up anything on the web about any of this; I do find railroad history to be rather interesting. Omnedon ( talk) 20:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I did find this 2010 map from the Indiana Railroad Company, which shows a Norfolk Southern line going from Marion through Hartford City and on to Redkey, which presumably is the Blackford County line in question. Unlike the INDOT map, it doesn't associate this section with CERA. I wonder now if the INDOT map incorrectly swapped the CERA and USRP labels on either side of Marion... But that's just speculation. I haven't found anything definitive on the abandonment of that line, though. Things like this can change so quickly and often there's little that is said publicly about such changes. Omnedon ( talk) 20:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've e-mailed someone in charge of Hartford City's Industrial Park, which is located east of the Renner stop and west of SR 3 on the map. My guess is that the line from Converse/Crumley's Crossing to somewhere in Hartford City has been abandoned (and removed) by NS (I assume you saw the link to the Surface Transportation Board on the BC page), but the line from the HC Industrial Park may still be in use westward. If that is the case, it could be a RailAmerica railroad like CERA taking freight out of the industrial park instead of Norfolk Southern. This means that I will need to fix my interactive diagram of Blackford County (I could also add SR 167). Switching gears -- I think we can bring Blackford County to FA, using Warren County as a template. It looks to me like the BC page needs 1) solve RR issue; 2) update Demographics; 3) Economy section; 4) a sentence or two more in the Climate section; 5) Not sure I am happy with the picture in the county template -- there are several courthouse pictures in the Blackford County Courthouse wiki, although using them would be repetitive; 6) anything else you can think of. TwoScars ( talk) 13:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That all sounds good; it would be great to get another county article featured. Just to clarify my previous comments -- if I can be of assistance with improving the article, then I'd enjoy doing that and can certainly help with some of the sections you mentioned. I just jumped in, but I have no problem at all with leaving it up to you if you'd rather. You're doing outstanding work on it. Omnedon ( talk) 13:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep doing what you have been doing. I am going to research the railroad issue further. The Indiana Railroad Map uses the same source as you did, and shows CERA, but the AAR, RailAmerica, and Norfolk Southern maps show something different. I'll also try to get something on the BC economy this weekend. TwoScars ( talk) 01:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Omnedon, I have checked with CERA and the Blackford County Economic Development Coordinator (see railroad issue). CERA says their map is correct, and they don't go into Blackford County. The BC EDC says the track south of Indiana 26 has been removed, but the track north is still there and connects to Upland. They also say it is Norfolk Southern track. This is somewhat close to the Norfolk Southern map. It is probable that CERA had some type of leasing arrangement with NS over the line, but it must have ended -- I don't like to put speculation in Wikipedia. I plan to fix the interactive map. I propose we modify the railroad info slightly to mention that some out-of-date maps show CERA operating over the NS line north of Indiana 26.

What is the next step to get Blackford County to Featured Article status? Peer Review? TwoScars ( talk) 23:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Peer review is not actually required, but is highly recommended. Have you been through that process before? I found it useful, because as prepared as I felt Warren County's article to be, a peer review turned up issues that I had missed, and this helped improve the article that much more. Of course, the FAC process itself turned up even more issues; it can be a bit grueling, as you may receive quite critical reviews from many different editors, but it's worth it. If I can help, I'd be glad to do so. Omnedon ( talk) 02:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Peer Review or FAC procedure, although I found a Peer review page. Yes, any help would be appreciated. I should become familar with the process. As info, BC currently has an "issue" with linking to 2010 Census Data, since Census will not enable direct links to some 2010 pages. Hopefully this will be fixed in the Fall.

Yes, that's annoying about linking into the new FactFinder. I also hope they'll make some changes that will allow direct links to pages of statistics. As to the PR process, the page you found is the right place -- there are instructions there on what to do. The last nomination step involves finding someone, out of the list of volunteers, who will agree to do a peer review on your article; but people may also just notice your article in the list and may stop by and provide input. One might look at PR as a sort of "dry run", a way of making the article as good as possible before submitting it as a featured article candidate. At FA, various editors may provide very detailed critiques, or "drive-by" reviews, and you may get input from many editors or only a few. Try not to be discouraged if the process takes a while (some weeks, perhaps, during which not much may seem to be happening), and if some of the criticism seems harsh. There are a few editors who manage the FA process, and if, after some reviews have been done, everyone is in support of the article being promoted, then at some point it probably will be. In my case, one reviewer initially came in with an "oppose", but after some changes were made, s/he changed to "support"; if there are any "opposes", then the article almost certainly won't be promoted. You might find it useful to skim through the archive of the Warren County FAC process. Omnedon ( talk) 18:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If I might make two specific suggestions now... There are a few paragraphs that do not end with citations, and that is usually a red flag. Also, the lists of unincorporated and extinct towns are currently bulletted lists, and while I personally like them and find them to be useful, prose seems to be preferred in high-quality articles. Omnedon ( talk) 18:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will start working with your suggestions, and I now have a copy of the WC FA archive2. With work and vacation, I hope to start a peer review in September, and possibly try for FA in October.

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic· t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
-- Kumioko ( talk) 13:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!

The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is hosting its second Backstage Pass and its first Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, August 20. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the event page if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the Edit-a-Thon page. --- LoriLee ( talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Half Barnstar
	I appreciatied your help on the Davis photo issues. I know they didn't want to address it because it opens up the broader question of the recolorization of other historical photos that really have no concrete verifiability on the issue of color. And I'm not quite sure how to advance further on that question in general. YouMakeMeFeel: ( talk) 06:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
-- Kumioko ( talk) 03:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cited coordinates have been removed when they were appropriate, while the new statement was entirely unsourced; of course it's appropriate with a citation, but without a citation it doesn't belong. Meanwhile, the standard map was missing from the article; Indiana communities get the type of map that I restored to the article, not an odd kind of pushpin. Nyttend ( talk) 22:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
-- Kumioko ( talk) 04:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at your Wikiquette case, and, because it's got more than just conduct arguments (some content arguments as well), I referred teh content arguments to MedCab (with myself as a mediator alongside someone else). You should receive official notification soon, but here's the case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/16_December_2011/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)