User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 22

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Talk:William Connolley

It appears you're verging on WP:3RR and possibly using meatpuppets to scrub the entries of those with whom you have a personal relationship with. Consider yourself warned. Ttowntom 16:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Baloney and nonsense. I've reverted your POV edits exactly twice. And your baseless accusations are simply evidence of your own bias. I have no connection whatsoever to Connolley -- you on the other hand, quite evidently have an ax to grind. older ≠ wiser 17:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the cleanup of Arrow (disambiguation). Rl 17:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Just wanted to boldly prime the pump a bit for a discussion. I was bold and you properly reverted me. In general I think that we have too much policy and pseudo-policy out there masquerading as guideline etc. Personally, I'd like to see many fewer instruction pages and those which remain carrying the weight of policy, without this it is but it isn’t logic. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Traxler edits

Thank you for creating the page on Bob Traxler. I feel that he does not receive the credit he is entitled to for many of his accomplishments due to his incredible modesty.

Please understand that I have no problem with your creating the page and editing it for style, but the substance of my edit regarding his Congressional successor is correct. Clean it up however you like, but Traxler was succeeded in Congress by Barcia, not Carr.

Not to start a game of one-upsmanship, but I know a bit about what I'm talking about. I grew up in his district, stuffed envelopes and licked stamps as a kid on the '92 campaign of Don Hare, Bob's former top assistant (who lost in the primary to Jim Barcia), attended MSU and campaigned for Gov. Granholm while an undergrad there. I know a bit about Michigan politics.

My parents met while working for Traxler's '74 special election campaign for Congress; on my bookshelf is the cigar box my late father gave Traxler as a gift upon his election (Bob gave it to me last year). Bob and my mother have been married for nearly two years. When I say I changed it at his request and with his approval, I mean I read it to him during breakfast on my visit home last week. (Incidentally, the other person to make a similar change was his nephew). While he was tickled that he has an entry on Wikipedia, he wanted it to be correct. He was adamant that he was not succeeded by Bob Carr.

Thank you for creating the page, and feel free to re-word it to fit your style. However, please make sure your information is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwhose (talk • contribs) 01:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As the representative of that geographical area of Michigan, yes, Traxler was succeeded by Barcia. However, the next representative of Michigan's 8th Congressional District was not Barcia, which all that the succession box is designed to show. It is precisely the same information that is available from the U.S. Congressional website. older ≠ wiser 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please provide me with a link to that website; you can e-mail me at gwhose@gmail.com. I would be happy to look at it and discuss it with Bob. It looks more like you got your information from www.infoplease.com, though. If you would like to re-format the successor box to the correct information, feel free to do that. I couldn't care less how the information is presented. My concern is its accuracy. District numbers change, but the fact remains that Bob's district went from 8 to 5 with the re-drawing of the Congressional districts. Had he run for re-election, it would have been in the 5th, which would have required a box like Bob Carr's (see below). Your most recent edit is closer to correct. Looking at the biography of Bob Carr, it could be done more like his, which reflects the change in district numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwhose (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Most everything in the article is from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress [1]. Carr's succession boxes are the way they are because Carr actually served in the different districts. All that the succession boxes indicate are who was represented a particular district -- the succession boxes do not track the geographic areas covered by the districts. older ≠ wiser 10:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Eliza Stewart (disambiguation)

Re the prod on Eliza Stewart (disambiguation), see the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 6#HIPC (disambiguation) (closed), which led to my edit on Wikipedia:Disambiguation to remove the instruction to always create the redirect. -- JHunterJ 11:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, both Redirects for Deletion and Deletion Review are amongst the most peculiar and unpleasant places on Wikipedia. I wouldn't consider that result of any particular deletion discussion as forming the basis for anything. There's no problem with removing the instruction to always create the redirect, but that does not mean that such redirects should always be deleted. older ≠ wiser 12:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mexican War

Please stop vandalizing the article about the Mexican War. Your edits are not constructive. If you have any issues with the content of the article please use the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.201.56.15 (talk • contribs) 23:15, September 9, 2007 UTC

Yeah, right. older ≠ wiser 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Lucas

Neither of us always gets things right every time. Please see WP:CIVIL before your next edit summary. Jimfbleak 12:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate that editors are only human and can make mistakes -- I am appalled at the apparently growing acceptance of speedy deletion as the first response. It is incumbent on both the persons nominating for deletion and the person doing the deletion to check FIRST before deleting. I stand by my edit summary. older ≠ wiser 12:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are prepared to ignore WP:CIVIL, and just reinforce your offensive comment, I'm surprised that you expect other people to follow other guidelines that you apparently do support. At least I attempt to do so, but sometimes slip up. What's your rationale for deciding that offensive behaviour is acceptable under any circumstances? Jimfbleak 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider my action to be ignoring WP:CIVIL nor do I consider my edit summary to be offensive. I'm sorry if you found it to be offensive, but I honestly don't feel there is any need to defend my action. older ≠ wiser 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cache

Sorry, I assumed that you were seeing the full thing and your cache had updated. I was replying to you in a similar way to the other poster who used "trainwreck" and suchlike, while you were much more polite. I'm a little out of sorts right now, so I apologise for not wording things appropriately. violet/riga (t) 18:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I should have read through the page more carefully before jumping to conclusions. older ≠ wiser 23:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with editing

On Mark Schauer's page i am trying to add a reference, which works fine, but once it is saved, all text bellow that refernce disappears, and I can't seem to get it back. Also under Louisiana United States Senate election, 2008, when you put the poll results under the heading "Polls" they appear under external links, and I can't get it right. Do you know how to fix either of these problems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chflitwick (talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to add a closing reference tag </ref> at the end of the reference. older ≠ wiser 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Saginaw River

Thank you for fixing my screw-up! : ) Asher196 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Board of Regents of the University of Michigan

Thanks for fixing the John S. Horner reference. I should have caught it, glad you did. -Sarcasmboy 10:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Medal of Honor links

I noticed that you have removed links I added to several articles as being redundent and "tangential". They are 3 completely seperate articles that are related, hence the see also section. Additionally, I do not understand how the article already contains this information other that the Medal of Honor link. --Kumioko 02:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:LAYOUT#See_also. A see also section is not supposed contain multiple links to topics that are at best only tangentially connected to the subject of an article. That a person received a medal of honor should certainly be noted in th article and with the appropriate category. But links to lists of other medal of honor recipients is quite irrelevant. If anyone is genuinely interested in finding such lists, they can easily do so by following the links at the medal of honor article or in the category. older ≠ wiser 22:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you pointing me to the link rather than simply saying I am wrong and moving on, however I am familiar with that note and in it I believe you should see a reference to pointing to Related Persons with a similar achievement.--Kumioko 23:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. That is in a way the purpose of categories. older ≠ wiser 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And I believe that leading the user to a category page isn't the same. So, rather than debate this endlessly and get into an undoe war I recommend we throw this debate on the Medal of Honor talk page and get some consensus on the issue. If the consensus is that it is tandential then so be it but if the consensus is that there is some validity to placing these links can you live with that as a resolution.--Kumioko 01:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Medal of Honor is only an article talk page, not a project or wikipedia page. Certainly feel free to raise the question there, although to seek a wider opinion and broader consensus, the question should probably be raised at someplace like Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout. older ≠ wiser 01:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Politican critical web sites

Thanks for reminding me that blog pages are to be avoided. How is this web site targeting Congressman Joe Knollenberg? It's hosted by a political web site hosting service. Steelbeard1 22:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Morning Post vs. Morning Post

What's the story on your reversion of my reversion? I disagree with you about "The" not being a part of the name of the paper. Have you read the postings of mine on the Talk page there? --Ludvikus 14:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times vs. New York Times

So what's your position on these two choices? --Ludvikus 14:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Post vs. Washington Post

And how about these two choices? Are you going to make a Move there too? --Ludvikus 14:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've read your postings there and I don't see any conclusive evidence. I have just provided a number of scholarly and historical sources that omit the definite article from the title. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name. So far as the definite article is clearly part of the title of The NYT and WP, and is commonly included when referring to these papers. BTW, when you propose a move on WP:RM, you should follow the instructions there and set up a section for discussion and wait for discussion to determine if there is a consensus before moving the article. older ≠ wiser 15:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A confusion arose over your name because I only saw your name in your reversions - where it was always BKonrad. And when I wrote to you on your Talk page, or on the article's Discussion page. you never answered. So the first time I saw your "new" name was after the page was Locked. That was when your "new" (to me) name appeared/ So naturally, it looked like you were hiding your identity. But all that could have been avoided if you just responded to my many queries. --Ludvikus 23:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I only notice you in the beginning by your repeated Reversions of my Moves. At that time in Wikispace I did not notice any of your comments on any Talk page whatsoever - I looked for you everywhere there as Bkonrad (at that time I knew you by no other name). The first time I notice a comment made by you on a Talk page was after the Morning Post page was Blocked from being Moved. And then I discovered that you were the same as the person going by that old/wise psuedonym. Are you trying to tell me now that you made at least one statement on a Talk page before the Move/Block? --Ludvikus 03:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Just look at the revision history of the talk page [2] Redvers did not move protect the article until 18:10, September 29, 2007.

I added the following comments on the talk page before then:

[3] at 12:07, September 29, 2007
[4] at 14:55, September 29, 2007
[5] at 15:32, September 29, 2007
[6] at 15:57, September 29, 2007

And I also responded to you here on my talk page [7] at 15:07, September 29, 2007

I first moved the article back at at 12:03, September 29, 2007, after which I added my first comments on the talk page shown above.

I moved it back again at 13:57, September 29, 2007, after which I spent more time researching the issues before posting my comment on the talk page at 14:55. You moved it back again at 14:15, without responding directly to any of the comments I had made on the talk page. I moved it back at 15:08 after which i expanded my comments and replied to your comments on the talk page. older ≠ wiser 03:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Chill out. Both you an I are spending way too much time on who did what when - i think it's a waste of valuable energy. So let me conclude my response to you as follows, and please don't wast your valuable time on this stuff between us. Let me say this one more time: I notice Now that Older/Wiser left some substantial work on the Talk page. However, I ignored His work, because I was looking for the work of Bkonrad. Only now I noticed that substantial work, because only now, after You, BKonrad made me realize that maybe it was Older/Wiser who did some work which I failed to read because I was only looking for the work of Gkonrad. Boy, I hope you can find it within yourself to acknowledge my point so we can move on to more productive work.

I truly wish you the best - I do not know you any way but in this novel Cyberspace way. So why would anyone wish another any ill will? If you and I cannot make peace over such silliness as an article of English, what hope is there for the rest of humanity? --Ludvikus 03:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite right. This is inconsequential. But you know, even if the comments left by older ≠ wiser were from some other editor, that is no reason to ignore them if they are germane to the issue. older ≠ wiser 03:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

non recognized Shawnee tribes

I am currently in the process of requesting the minutes of the 1993 meeting between the 3 federally recognized tribes and the alleged Shawnee groups from Ohio. This should qualify for your requested citation. As a member of one of these federal tribes, we do not take such things lightly. Simply put, the State of Ohio does not recognize Indian tribes other than federally recognized tribes. Currently there are no federally recognized tribes in Ohio. The United Remnant Band is a so called non profit organization that pretends to be Shawnee to pursue financial gain from the use of the Shawnee name. We are deeply offended by this. It is too bad that you choose not to believe the words of a true Shawnee but rather fall prey to the URB propaganda machine. You are doing the true Shawnee an injustice by constantly furthering the cause of the URB. I only hope that this is unintentional on your part.

Redtailhawk12 9/30/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtailhawk12 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics

Is there some special reason why you want to keep the comments to the survey in non-chronological order? There was no real reason for them to be added out of order to begin with. –panda 18:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, typically for requested moves, there is a section for the survey and a separate section for discussion. That has gotten a little messed up on that page, with several !votes getting mixed into the discussion section (or rather -- extended discussion has crept into the Survey section). older ≠ wiser 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout, any subsequent votes after my comment should be below. So I ask that you restore it to a chronological order. You also took out the time + date stamp that I added to one of the comments, which was unnecessary. I know of no WP policy that states that a discussion must be kept separate from a survey/votes. Reference please? –panda 19:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I can't wait for a reply but in the time that I've been waiting there have already been 2 comments added, one above and one below my comment. So I'm going to just restore it to a chronological order so that there's no ambiguity with where the next comment should go. –panda 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the instructions at WP:RM, and also to similar protocols on pages involving surveys/polls, it it typical to have separate sections for the survey/poll and discussions. older ≠ wiser 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me to the exact location in WP:RM cause I can't find it. I only found that there should be a discussion added to the talk page about the requested move. –panda 19:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Step 2 of the instructions given under WP:RM#Requesting potentially controversial moves includes starting the discussion on the article's talk page using {{subst:WP:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}}, which automatically inserts a top level section heading for Requested Move with the reason provided followed by level 2 sub-sections for Survey and Discussion. I believe the purpose was that when extended discussion is interleaved into the survey, it becomes very difficult for admins closing the requested move to determine whether any consensus exists. older ≠ wiser 19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I hasten to add, this is not a hard and fast rule -- it is only intended to help when protracted discussions get messy. older ≠ wiser 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You and I must be looking at different versions cause the text I read states:

"Step 2 — Create a place for discussion. If the discussion does not already exist, create a section at the bottom of the talk page of the page you have requested to be moved. This can take any form that is reasonable for administrators to follow, although it is convenient to use the heading ==Requested move==, because this is assumed by the template in step 3. The template {{subst:WP:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} can be used to create a framework for a poll, but be aware that polling can be divisive." Wrong link perhaps? –panda 19:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that is precisely what I was referring to above. older ≠ wiser 19:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You've stated yourself that it is not a hard and fast rule. Other editors are continuing to add comments below my comment so you're only contributing to making the survey disjointed. I would recommend that it be put in chronological order. –panda 23:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, you already put it back the way you liked. Makes little difference to me. Just makes it that much harder for anyone trying to gauge whether there is any consensus or even a majority. older ≠ wiser 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at an old version of the page. My apologies for the confusion. –panda 01:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Kestenbaum

Thanks for straightening that out. --Orange Mike 20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

Could you please give some feedback on the discussion in Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics? I've also asked a couple other editors for their opinion. Thanks! –panda 18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input at Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics! I just wanted to ask if you really think that the Prize in Economics is a Nobel Prize by virtue of the duck test? BTW, nice link -- I didn't know it existed beforehand. –panda 00:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, aside from a few purely technical formalities, it seems indistinguishable. older ≠ wiser 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

disambiguate Lindquist

Hey, next time you create a redirect page for someone's surname, please check to be sure that there aren't more than one folks of that surname in WP. Susan Lindquist, a notable scientist, had had an entry in WP since 2002, but when you created your entry for Lindquist you redirected to a michigan politician added at the same time. I switched it over to a disambig. --lquilter 13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't offer any easy way to determine if there are other articles for persons based on their surname. When I create a new article on a person, I generally add the name to the surname disambiguation page, if it exists. If it doesn't exist, I usually create a redirect to the person. In some cases, the surname page may be a redirect to some other person or subject and in such cases I will turn the redirect into a disambiguation page just as you did with Lindquist. older ≠ wiser 15:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

Are either of these Images Free?

I have an e-mail granting permission to use the first image, but i don't like it as much and I still don't know if it is legal.

Chflitwick 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Beats me. Unless whoever owns the copyright on the images explicitly grants permission to use them under a free license (such as the GFDL or another listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses), you have to assume that they are not free. Images on the Michgian state government web site are not public domain. older ≠ wiser 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates

The purpose of templates is that they are quick and easy when creating articles. The purpose of subst templates is to reduce the load on the servers. Many argue that template use should be minimized, where possible, because of the demands that it makes on the servers. That is one reason why the subst: prefix exits. --Bejnar 03:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, the argument that the use templates pose an undue load on servers has been debunked as a myth. Who are these "many" who argue that template use should be minimized? That is actually not one of the reasons subst exists. There is no mention on subst: prefix of that reason. And further, {{reflist}} is not listed as one of the templates that should be substituted. And if you look at the documentation for {{reflist}}, it makes no mention of substituting the template. The most compelling reason for using templating is that it very easily allows for a consistent presentation and, when necessary, adjustments can be made to the template that filters down through the template (which would require making individual edits to each page to make the equivalent adjustments without a template. older ≠ wiser 00:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

requested moves

Is there a reason you reverted my denial of two requested moves there? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record both closures were correct per the manual of style, we put spaces between the initials for J. R. R. Tolkien, and the concept of pulp fiction clearly belongs on the main page, while the film deserves the film modifier. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

While the current MOS does contain some guidance to the effect of making it seem mandatory to include spaces and dots in the initials of names, that has been controversial in the past and is still a subject of frequent disputation. In so far as the subject was the title of a book rather than the simple name of a person only complicates the matter.

The title of the film in title case is distinct from the all lower case generic term.

In neither case was there any good basis for pre-emptorily removing the links from WP:RM -- even further without even so much as a comment on the talk pages of those articles indicating what you have decided. older ≠ wiser 00:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

civility

Your comments on requested moves were quite uncivil and not conducive to further discussion. Please do not do that in the future. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Which comment was that? The one were I suggested you might want to try discussing things on the talk page before imperiously deciding that you know better than the wiki process how to interpret guidelines? Bosh. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dearborn Mosque

Hi, I note that you moved moved Islamic Center of America to Dearborn Mosque, noting in the edit summary: "my mistake" (May 2006). So are they not the same? hoping you remember! Even if the same group kept the old site as well when building the new Center, and one is the oldest and the other is the biggest in the US, I think a "merge & redirect" would be helpful. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. I have only a vague recollection of moving the article. Looking at the article content and the revision history, it looks as though I had mistakenly thought both names referred to the same entity when in fact they are distinct. So it seems it is appropriate that there are two articles and I'm not sure what you are suggesting to "merge & redirect". older ≠ wiser 12:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll just add text to distinguish the ICA in the Dearborn Mosque article. I added the ref New Dearborn mosque to be the nation's largest to the wrong article, confused by the title. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Michigan State Senators and Representatives

Based on your reversions, you clearly have very strong (if completely idiosyncratic) opinions on how these articles should be written. I assume that means you have more than enough time to create articles for ALL the remaining Michigan State Senators and Representatives by yourself. The primaries are approaching soon, so I expect you'll have ALL of them done in plenty of time for campaigning (that would be NOW).Flatterworld 14:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I do what I can when I can. My actions are not driven by external events (except so far as I have obligations that limit the time I can spend editing). If you think my edits are idiosyncratic, perhaps you should seek some other opinions. Since you're not very specific about what opinions you're imputing to me, I can't provide any detailed comments. However, since you had been adding a lot of external links, you might want to review WP:EL. And for the format and structure of biography pages, see WP:MOSBIO. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben Affleck et al.

I saw your comment on the quote in the reference for Ben Affleck. I've brought this entire issue up on a couple WP resource pages about another page the user who added that comment has done this on. Thought maybe you might want to weigh in on the issue: Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Quotes_in_references and Wikipedia:Help_desk#Quotes_in_references or check any of the three article links in the opening paragraphs there. Thanks. Wildhartlivie 20:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)