User talk:LtPowers

Talk archives: January 2006–July 2006 | August 2006–January 2007 | March 2007–February 2008 | March 2008–July 2009 | August 2009–December 2011

Your intervention is incomprehensible [1]. You have eliminate all my work without any discussion with me. I inform you that the text is in discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Watercooler and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism. Can you maintaining to present to the group your arguments and opinions. Thanks --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally better to copyedit text that you believe is poorly written, rather than deleting it all. Kaldari (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text was unrecoverable in my opinion. I couldn't make sense of it enough to copyedit it. A proper copyediting would have required a complete rewrite. Powers ^T 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2866 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

You were mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN; Wikipedia:AN#Should_editors_be_discouraged_from_asking_admins_to_justify_their_actions.3F --Born2cycle (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You said "The recent Philip J. Fry move is, as far as I can tell, an abberation influenced by other titles of Futurama characters. That shouldn't be a problem here, as we have James T. Kirk, Leonard McCoy, and Pavel Chekov already"

Hmm... Was there actually a formal move request? Or was it just held on the WikiProject page?

Remember that a consensus of the wider community always trumps the consensus of a small group of editors. So if the wider community thinks "Philip J. Fry" is better, then the community would make that occur WhisperToMe (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a formal move request. Talk:Fry (Futurama)#Rename. I personally think the old title is better, but I don't know if the wider community agrees, nor do I know how they would "make that occur" spontaneously. Powers ^T 13:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LtP. The article is already at the title you requested (somebody moved it this afternoon). Regards, EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please nominate all of them. I don't want to have 35 different debates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's at least wait and see what happens to the New York one first; no point nomming the other 34 if this one fails, is there? Powers ^T 03:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point. If you nominate all 35, more people who are interested in this issue will be alerted. E.g., I never knew about Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_12#Template:KS_cities_and_mayors_of_100.2C000_population. If you nominate all 35 at once, everyone who cares about any of these templates will be alerted. If you do them one at a time, it is inappropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following your query about scope, and the intervention of two other editors of ice hockey articles, I've made a further general point today about projects and bannering. You'll find it in this section. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WP:TFD_deletions_by_admin_User:Fastily.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:New York cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population. Be advised that I have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27#User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember when you expressed concern that the no consensus decision at Talk:Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts) might be used as some kind of precedent? Well, it has. See Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School_(West_Roxbury,_Massachusetts)#Reverse_or_start_anew.3F. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since January 2011, Wikipedia's "Gender gap" has received much attention from Wikimedians, researchers and the media – triggered by a New York Times article that cited the estimate that only 12.64% of Wikipedia contributors are female. That figure came from the 2010 UNU-MERIT study, which was based on the first global, general survey of Wikipedia users, conducted in 2008 with 176,192 respondents using a methodology that had raised some questions (e.g. about sample bias and selection bias, other studies found similarly low ratios). A new paper titled "Conflict, Confidence, or Criticism: An Empirical Examination of the Gender Gap in Wikipedia" Collier, B., & Bear, J. (2012). Conflict, criticism, or confidence. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ’12 (p. 383). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. PDF • DOI has now delved further into the data of the UNU-MERIT study, examining the responses to questions such as "Why don't you contribute to Wikipedia?" and "Why did you stop contributing to Wikipedia?", finding strong support for the following three hypotheses:

• "H1: Female Wikipedia editors are less likely to contribute to Wikipedia due to the high level of conflict involved in the editing, debating, and defending process." ("Controlling for other factors females were 26% more likely to select 'I got into conflicts with other Wikipedia contributors' as a reason for no longer contributing. The coefficients for being afraid of being 'criticized' [31% higher probability to be selected by female users as a reason against becoming more active in Wikipedia], 'yelled at', and 'getting into trouble' are all significant".)
• "H2: Female Wikipedia editors are less likely to contribute to Wikipedia due to gender differences in confidence in expertise to contribute and lower confidence in the value of their contribution. "
• "H3: Female contributors are less likely to contribute to Wikipedia because they prefer to share and collaborate rather than delete and change other's work."

A fourth hypothesis likewise tested a conjecture that has been brought up several times in discussion about Wikipedia's gender gap:

• "H4: Female contributors are less likely to contribute to Wikipedia because they have less discretionary time available to spend contributing".

However, the paper's authors argued that this conjecture was not borne out by the data, instead finding that "men are 19% more likely to select 'I didn't have time to go on' as a reason for no longer contributing."

source: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/Recent research Bonne réflexion pour vous, --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check back I have the screen shots for you as a reliable source. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Anthonythegamer[reply]

Hi Powers. Regarding the link for Norwich Cadets women's ice hockey, I am not sure how to link it to Norwich University. Adding a link there is a great initiative. If you can advise me what to do, I will gladly get it done. Cheers Maple Leaf (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. I have added the link. Thanks for the help Maple Leaf (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stella provided me this image for the purpose of putting it on wikipedia as a CC3.0. If he doesn't have authority to do that, than I don't know who does. Devmorgan ^(talk) 21:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - You recently participated in a move proposal discussion regarding articles about zombies and zombie pop culture archived at Talk:Zombie. That proposal was not approved, and a new discussion is taking place at Talk:Zombie (fictional) that is narrower in scope, and concerns only whether the older Voodoo and newer Romero zombie pop culture should be included in the same article or whether it should be separated. These are articles that receive a lot of hits, and should probably get more input than just the two editors having the current discussion. I'm flagging all old move discussion participants regarding the new discussion, and your input would be appreciated. LaTeeDa (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jerry Ragonese has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. joe decker^{talk to me} 02:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 10, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can explain the meaning of a title with and without ellipsis, then I might withdraw a nomination, but I must be convinced that removing "..." is not a good idea due to other reasons besides officiality and a "lousy" (as people called it) premise of treating things differently. --George Ho (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a page that may or may not be a guideline. This discusses naming a fictional character for a Wikipedia article, different from notability of a fictional character. --George Ho (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Powers, I just wanted to let you know that the indignation expressed in the "like" template TfD is really not about you. Quite the contrary. My first contact with you was early in my WP editing career (something like 33 months ago), and you were one of the logical editors who found a sound solution to a solvable problem. You were completely divorced from the emotions of the situation, and applied your personal knowledge and Wikipedia experience. I've admired your editing and admin work ever since.

In the current TfD, you're just forcefully advocating a position you support. I understand that. The problem is that you're late to the table. Four TfDs for the same template in the space of 11 or 12 months is preposterous; and that's not even counting the two Commons TfDs in the same time frame. Accepting for the sake of argument that the current TfD nomination has advanced a "new argument," it now appears that the opponents of the "like" template have exhausted any objection based on the TfD guidelines or policy. Unless something very unusual happens in the present TfD, it also appears that the overwhelming numerical majority will reject the new argument posited by the nominator. Four consecutive "keep" consensus TfD closes is a consensus, whether one agrees with it or not. And while consensus certainly can and will change over time, the community consensus in this particular case has not varied much in the last year. Opponents are left hoping that this will finally be the "lucky shot" where a different group of editors shows up at the latest TfD.

IMO, this pursuit of the white whale has reached a stopping point. Filing a new TfD every 90 days or so ignores the established consensus, is disruptive, abuses the TfD process, and is discourteous to fellow editors. Assuming this TfD ends in yet another consensus "keep" close, in the absence of a demonstrated change of applicable guidelines, policy, or other applicable community consensus, no further TfDs on topic should be accepted for at least 12 months. Established consensus should be respected, and further TfDs on topic should be summarily closed for some discrete period of time (absent evidence of changed circumstances). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, I'm still not sure what you want me to do. The way I see it, someone asked my opinion (not personally, but as a member of the community) on the merits of a proposal, and I expressed my opinion. I have expressed no complaint against those of you arguing that it should be speedily closed, nor have I threatened to raise the issue in the future. So I'm just not clear what you're trying to convince me of. Powers ^T 22:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My objection was that the link was red. Now that the page exists, that's not a problem. In fact, it's probably a good idea, since some people pick the wrong thing from the drop-down list when it gets autocomplete. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it took a bit more time than I thought to write the dab page. Have a little faith. =) Powers ^T 18:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LtPowers, we may not always agree, but you seem to be a pretty great Wikipedian. I noticed someone wanted to nominate you for adminship quite some time ago, and I wondered if you'd reconsidered. I think you'd be a good admin, and I'd be happy to nominate you. Best, BDD (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your kind words, but at this point I don't really have the time to devote to adminship tasks (if I did, I should be doing it on Commons where I'm already an admin). Thanks, though! Powers ^T 23:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The_Interloafer (talk · contribs) is requesting that “Triborough Bridge” be moved back to its old title of “Robert F. Kennedy Bridge”. (Again.) You voiced an opinion during the last move discussion (a few weeks ago, I know), so I wanted to bring it to your attention. This new discussion is at Talk:Triborough Bridge#This article needs to be renamed.

Hi. Let's discuss, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I see I should have given you a detailed explanation from the start, instead of links. You don't seem to have understood these two guidelines. I take it as a sign that these pages should be clarified, and made easier to understand. Improving these pages is my responsibility as an active member of the accessibility project, and as one of the main authors of Wikipedia:ACCESS. I would like to know how you understood these guidelines, so that I can improve them accordingly.

Now for the explanation. When inserting a blank line in a list, the list gets separated into two smaller lists. We group items that are related. It doesn't make sense anymore if we separate lists into random smaller lists. That is the main accessibility problem.

Still, I'm afraid you might have been a little reckless here. Let me quote the first lines from Wikipedia:Lists#List_styles and Wikipedia:ACCESS#Lists:

"Line breaks : [...] This method is deprecated as it does not meet web standards and can cause accessibility problems."

"Lists : Do not separate items by leaving blank lines between them."

After reading these pages, at the very least you should have known you were going against the policy. Did you not?

I will let you revert your edit at Template:Flatlist/doc‎‎, as I don't want to engage in an edit war. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, neither page you list presents a policy; they are both guidelines, and the difference is significant. Even if I were to agree with your interpretation, I was in no way violating policy. Secondly, however, the passages you quote are referring explicitly to vertical lists, with well-considered advice that aims to avoid breaking the HTML that will be generated from the wikicode. When I said that "I don't see anything on those policy pages that prohibits line breaks to break up a long horizontal list," I meant it exactly as I said it -- referring only to horizontal lists, which are not the main thrust of either page.

That said, I can see the point. The technique I described in the documentation does indeed produce two independent HTML lists. I maintain, however, that that is sometimes desired behavior, is it not?

As well, if you could provide an alternate method of creating multi-line horizontal lists, I'd appreciate knowing about it.

-- Powers ^T 20:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are displayed horizontally or vertically trough CSS, but their underlying structure remains the same. Line breaks produces the same result in each and every kind of list. Maybe I should clarify this.

Yes, one might wish to create two lists with this syntax. But the syntax is going to confuse editors even further. It's not going to be easy to distinguish when line breaks are allowed or not.

Regardless, the example you wrote clearly shows the bad use of line breaks. The items of the list are intended to be grouped together, and you have separated them into two lists.

As for creating multi-line horizontal lists, it is currently impossible. I still have to see an example where such a feature would be needed though. Dodoïste (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hickok Belt#Revived belt. There's no need to extend the table all the way across the page, so I want the (will-be) twelve nominees listed in three rows of four. Powers ^T 00:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, without any line breaks. :-) Now could you revert your edit at Template:Flatlist/doc‎‎? Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20em ends up being too skinny on my screen, and it includes an unnecessary bullet at the end of the first line. Powers ^T 21:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. You can adjust the em values however you like. It's "do it yourself" from this point onwards. I do value aesthetics, but in a simple fashion. This is going too far on my opinion. See you ! Dodoïste (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did do it myself; you didn't like what I did, but the only alternative you offer doesn't actually do what I want. When I explain that, you wave cheerily and say I'm on my own? What's your problem? Powers ^T 13:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left because I felt your request was not reasonable. MediaWiki is made to edit actual content, it's no Photoshop pixel design. The place of the bullet is a trivial matter really, just bear with it.

Last solution I can offer is to forget the whole "list idea", and to separate each item by a simple coma. With this you can make line breaks, it won't cause problem to screen reader users. Now if you absolutely want bullets, I have nothing more to say. Dodoïste (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comments on the Talk page here and think that you might be interested in joining the discussion on capitalization here. Best regards. LittleBen (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was that on the article 2011–12 NCAA Division I women's ice hockey season, the year 2012 in the infobox (for NCAA Tournament) was showing up as red. I do not know how to change the infobox. By changing the name, I simply did it so that the red was gone. My apologies. Maple Leaf (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lt Powers,

I am asking you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Western New York, which will help improve articles regarding WNY. I believe that articles for WNY deserve a group of people who are willing to contribute to their upkeep, so I created the project. Currently we are still in development, but since I noticed on your talk page you are from Rochester I thought you may have some interest in the project.

Also, if you know anyone else interested in WNY on Wikipedia could you inform yhem on this project? They could be helpful in maintaining these articles, and helping Wikipedia's relevancy in general. Thank you for your consideration.

--Dekema2 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LtPowers. You have new messages at Talk:Vaio.
Message added 19:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons explained at Talk:Beverly_Hills,_California#Premature_close, I've opened a new RM request/discussion at Talk:Beverly Hills,_California#Requested move. You're receiving this notice because you participated in the last one. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That it alters the title for effect but not trully the actual title. Officially it is "Fun." We could say that the miniscule is stylization but not the period because it sughest that the name is "Fun" officially. And yes im aware of WP:OFFICIAL however that is only concerned for naming conventions. And yes it exist and i showed plenty of proof. Your comment is saying "oh i see what you mean but for some random reason it doesnt mean its true". Many bands add something to their name. I just showed you two bands that have an official name and a stylized one.Lucia Black (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, though, the key piece you're missing is some sort of proof that it's not stylization if it's "official". "fun." has apparently made their stylization (with the period) "official", but that doesn't make it not-stylization. It's still a stylization, it's just an official stylization. Powers ^T 22:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that has been clear from the very beginning. You can check the official website.Lucia Black (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

look, if its officially spelled that way? then its not stylization. The only reason why we can't use "fun." is merely because it would cause confusion in sentence structure.Lucia Black (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And all stylization is official stylization. But the difference is stylization is for effect only. if its the actual name, then what?Lucia Black (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"look, if its officially spelled that way? then its not stylization." -- You've said this countless times but have yet to provide any evidence for it. I dispute the truth of this statement, because I am not aware of any definition of the word "stylization" that excludes "official" renderings. Powers ^T 20:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can just determine it by looking it up in the dictionary. But thays not even the point. Saying "stylized as" suggest that the name of the article is the actual name amd that it could be either thay or the other when actually were avoiding a name due to sentence structure issues.Lucia Black (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:stylization: "The process or result of designing or presenting in accordance with a style." Powers ^T 02:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

exactly. Do you see now? Of we were to say something was stylized it would be original research. It also suggests that the name is actually "Fun" not "fun."Lucia Black (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean. "fun.", as the name of a band, is designed in accordance with a particular style. It is a stylized name, deviant from traditional English orthography. Powers ^T 18:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Names dont habe to do with English ortography to be a stylized name. That alone shows original research.Lucia Black (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not making sense to me. Is English your native language? Powers ^T 22:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titles and names dont have to do with english ortography. To label something as stylization is original research and suggests that the bame being used is the actual name not the proper one.Lucia Black (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titles and names have everything to do with English orthography. Do you know what orthography means? Powers ^T 13:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the study of spelling amd how co.binaations make certain sounds. Again its irrelevamt as far as naming conventions and as far determining stylized. Becaise basimg it on english ortography is original research and bias.Lucia Black (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The application of a particular style -- which is how wiktionary defines "stylization" -- must be seen in relation to standard English orthography. If we did not take that view, then everything would be stylization, rendering the term meaningless. It only makes sense to read the guideline as indicating that deviations from standard English orthography should be avoided. Powers ^T 15:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False, if we didnt take account of english ortography, then none would be considered stylization. And its still a strong original research issue. Lucia Black (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:No original research applies to article content, not to discussions between Wikipedians. Powers ^T 15:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical content is what im talking about. It shows strong signs of original research to say a name is stylized based on english prtography.Lucia Black (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it did, that's not prohibited by any Wikipedia policy. Powers ^T 15:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you knew it was wrong from the beginning but now youre choosing to be a troll.Lucia Black (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to accuse me of trolling, you're no longer welcome to post here. Powers ^T 17:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youre saying original research isnt prohibited by wikipedia,s policy. What more can i say to that?Lucia Black (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using one's own researching skills to determine what correct English orthography is is not the original research prohibited by policy. The policy prohibits use of original research in stating facts within the content of an article, nothing more. Powers ^T 18:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is when your doing it to a title because even though titles may use english words within them doesnt mean they are bound by english ortography. Putting "stylized as" is original research. Its not a nuetral way of handling names.Lucia Black (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's my whole point. MOS:TM says that we should use English orthography when considering article titles. We are specifically instructed to choose titles that hew most closely to standard English orthography. Powers ^T 19:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That has gone and past. I already said i would let it slide, however if the name was addressed correctly in prose. This discussion is about avoiding "stylized as" and what using that in an article suggests. We need to find to work it out more bluntly. Like a tag saying "due to sentence structure issues we will be refering the subject to its least common name". Its original research to say "stylized as" because it shows more original research l. I can understand a name to avoid sentence structure confusion, however im concerned by what the article suggests in prose.Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you had indicated sooner that you were addressing how the stylization is presented in prose rather than re-arguing the article naming debate. We could have saved a lot of verbiage. On that note, then, "stylized as" is customary whenever we use an alternative orthography; it's standard. It's not original research to look at it and say "this is a stylization"; the word is a neutral term devoid of value judgements, and it's perfectly acceptable to use it to mean "this is how the entity itself styles their brand". Powers ^T 19:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt have said it any sooner. You just had a temporary loss of focus. Regardless you just proved my point. "This is how the entity itself styles in their brandb that suggest that "the alternate given here is merely for style and it is not the actual name". There needs to be a clearer way.Lucia Black (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it needs to be clearer, but if that's all you're saying, feel free to propose a change to our standard practice. Powers ^T 01:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for example we could put "properly written as" or so. Or add a tag on top of the article saying "due to sentence structure issues "only" we will be writing the entity as (add new name here)".Lucia Black (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be in the business of declaring what is "proper", and I strongly disagree that it is "only" due to "sentence structure issues". "Stylized as" is standard. Powers ^T 18:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Lets put standard aside especially when its not. Just a common accepted form that hasnt been properly looked into. There is no guideline or policy stating we should write it as such. And if we arent in the business of declaring proper then we are also not in the bussiness of declaring what is stylized.Lucia Black (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not; it's simple observation. And if you insist on a source, here's one: [2] (I found another at www.examiner.com/article/friday-freebies-fun-offers-download-of-its-debut-cd-and-preview-of-new-one). Powers ^T 19:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not an observation, its interpreting a name. Stylized nature doesnt mean its stylization. Again i fel like you forget the point. Using stylized suggests the name we use now is more acccepted than the trademarked one. Plus stylization should be done by alternate spellings that arent the actual name, not by personal deduction. Because personal deduction is...original research. Youre not seeing the names in a nuetral form.Lucia Black (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I gave you a source (two, actually) that describe the name as stylized. I don't know what else you want. If that's not enough for you, then please just leave me alone. Powers ^T 02:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this isnt just about just one article. You tend to lose focus.Lucia Black (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've never mentioned any other article in this entire discussion. You've come to my talk page, accused me of losing focus, accused me of trolling, all the while you continue writing sentences rife with misspellings and grammatical ambiguities that make it difficult to understand you. I've asked you twice to please leave me alone and you have ignored me; if you do it again, I am going to have to take more drastic measures. Stop. Bugging. Me. Powers ^T 13:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you have. I mentioned stylization only and only that. You bring up the band name. This is for more general. And you continue to change your opinion and point in which i still manage to work around.Lucia Black (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how you reconcile your positions on these two RMs. Why doesn't your eloquent CMS argument apply to Beverly Hills? I paraphrase:

We have, in the past, consistently found that when an undisambiguated ("base") name redirects to a disambiguated name, the redirection should be reversed. Examples are almost too numerous to count, and they are, indeed, generally considered "uncontroversial" at the Requested Moves page -- that is, the situation is so commonly encountered that in most cases no discussion is necessary to perform the move. Indeed, just a few days ago, a user moved the page to the undisambiguated title, presumably because this is indeed so routine an action.

But here, what is normally routine has been anything but. To acknowledge the point of those opposed, there certainly are other institutions places with which this one may be confused, by name. But none of those other institutions places happen to be sufficiently significant share the exact name "Catholic Memorial School" for this "Beverly Hills" to not be the primary topic. That makes disambiguation seem unnecessary, since (per WP:D) the only purpose of disambiguation is to obtain a unique title -- not a fully contextualized one, but simply unique. Remember, although this simple title seems "ambiguous" colloquially, it's important to understand that WP:D defines ambiguity specifically as "refer[ing] to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles" (emphasis added). "Catholic Memorial School" "Beverly Hills" refers to one, and only one, primary topic covered by a Wikipedia article: this one. (And that is evidenced by the fact that the undisambiguated title redirects here.) Certainly a hatnote pointing to appropriate other articles or disambiguation pages is in order, as it is now. That would not change. In fact, the way that a reader accesses this article would not change in any way, as a search or link to Catholic Memorial School Beverly Hills comes right here regardless. The addition of the place-name state-name context provides no improvement in access, and no improvement in disambiguation. The only possible improvement presented by opposers is to clarity: that it tells a reader immediately that this is an article on a school city in West Roxbury California, allowing them to know immediately whether or not it is the one they're looking for. While clarity is a laudable goal, it has never been the consensus of Wikipedia users that parenthetical disambiguation should be added for the sole purpose of enhancing said clarity. Article titles are intended to be unique identifiers, not fully contextualized descriptors. For example, we do not use Benjamin Harrison (U.S. president) Eggern, Lower Austria as our article title, even though many people outside the U.S. Austria may be unfamiliar with the name; instead we rely on the lede sentence and the infobox to inform readers as to who Benjamin Harrison was where Eggern in.

Considering all of these factors, it's clear that longstanding site consensus points toward avoiding parenthetical disambiguation when it's not necessary for purposes of creating a unique identifier. There is no, and has never been any, consensus for expanding the purpose of article titles to include full contextualization; as long as that consensus doesn't exist, we should treat this article's title as we would any other of its form, and reverse the current redirect direction.

So, I'm curious. Why is your own argument not compelling to you? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because, and I'm certain I've mentioned this before, adding states to placenames is not just WP:D but WP:COMMONNAME. There is no COMMONNAME argument to be had for Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts). Powers ^T 23:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone asks a Beverly Hills native where they are from, they are likely to reply "Beverly Hills, California", especially if the context is out of state or out of country. However, if they are asked, "what is the name of your hometown", I suggest the answer is much, much more likely to be just "Beverly Hills", and almost certainly not "Beverly Hills, California". The long version is not the name of the topic, so of course it is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Just like Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts) is not the name of that school.

It's the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce, not the "Beverly Hills, California Chamber of Commerce"; the City of Beverly Hills, not the "City of Beverly Hills, California"; the Beverly Hills Public Library, not the "Beverly Hills, California Public Library"; the Beverly Hills Police Department, not the "Beverly Hills, California Police Department".

The claim that "Beverly Hills, California" is the name (much less a WP:COMMONNAME) of this topic is totally unsupported by actual usage in reliable sources. You are conflating location information given in an address with a name. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit it's not black and white. U.S. placenames occupy a strange little niche where WP:D and WP:CN overlap. Basically it boils down to the state name being such a COMMON way to DISAMBIGUATE that the DISAMBIGUATION itself becomes part of the COMMONNAME. I understand you disagree, but I and many others see the distinction here between the comma-convention placename issue and other forms of disambiguation. It would behoove you to be a little more understanding on that point, and a little less dogmatic. Powers ^T 15:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We agree much, actually. I certainly see a distinction between , state disambiguation and parenthetical disambiguation - the former being much more common in standard usage. There is no doubt that the , state disambiguation for US states is commonly used in reliable sources... but it's still disambiguation of the actual name of the topic. This usage doesn't make it the name of the topic, much less a commonly used name.

I suggest a close analogy is specifying one's profession when referring to someone, as in "Lawrence J. Burke, owner of Outside magazine"[3], "Timothy D. Cook, Apple's chief executive"[4], etc. That is, when referring to people, sources often indicate the person's profession. Similarly, when referring to US cities, sources often indicate the state the city is in. But in neither case the additional information - profession or state - becomes part of the name of the subject. They are disambiguation, but not only disambiguation. They are also additional identifying information about the topic, subject (not name) matter that is usually left out of WP titles... instead we normally rely on the lede sentence and the infobox to inform readers as to what the person's profession was... or where the city is.

I mean, it's used so often to refer to the topic it seems like its name is not a very strong argument. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like "it's used so often to refer to the topic that it functions as its name". Since so many placenames in the U.S. are duplicated, it just makes sense to maintain consistency and avoid the endless naming controversies you detest so much. =) Powers ^T 12:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that argument fails too, since we're only talking about those cities for which the city name already currently redirects to the overly-long title disambiguated by state (e.g., Beverly Hills redirects to Beverly Hills, California), just like Catholic Memorial School redirects to Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts). So, to fix all those, there should be very few if any controversies whatsoever, much less endless ones.

Note that your CMS proposal is currently getting unanimous support. If folks like you would just realize that the same argument applies to Beverly Hills and all other US city articles where the city is the established primary topic for the city name, proposals to bring those titles into alignment with other WP titles per your argument should get unanimous support too. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you caught me there; just trying to appeal to your usual bailiwick. =) But my broader point stands; the consistency with which U.S. placenames are associated with their state in both popular and professional discourse is overwhelming, to the point that it becomes the best way of satisfying our naming criteria. I don't expect everyone to agree that that's the case, but I do expect others to understand that it's not an unreasonable position to take. Powers ^T 15:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The strong association has never been disputed. The disagreement is about whether the association constitutes a name - and ultimately a WP:COMMONNAME. Apparently the frequency with which the form is used makes it common to mistakenly see it as a name, but it's still a mistake. But it is an understandable mistake; I'll give you that. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a name, except what people call something? Powers ^T 15:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, yes, it's the word or words by which something is known. Yet "President Obama" is how he is frequently called, but that does make that his name (pop quiz: what is the name of the president of the USA? What is the name of your home town?). So the answer to your question depends on the subject.

In this case the subject is cities in general, and US cities in particular. For US cities, the name is just the name of the city. Because it is a confusing issue, I think it makes it particularly important to get it right, and not leave the wrong impression that the name is "Beverly Hills, California". In fact, that is exactly why I have long supported not even using the comma convention for disambiguation (so Paris (Texas) rather than Paris, Texas), to avoid the confusion even when disambiguation is necessary, but I have backed away from that because consensus is clearly against that. I have accepted that the comma convention is the standard form used for disambiguating place names in WP titles. But I still think we would be much less misleading on the name issue if we used it only when necessary, like with all other cases of disambiguating names. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know the difference between "President Obama" and "Chittenango, New York" is that the former is generally used after the full name has been established; the latter is used on first use. That's one (of several) significant difference between the two use cases. In addition, the fact that we use the comma convention should have been instructive: we use it precisely because it's more than just disambiguation. If it were just disambiguation, you're quite right that we probably should use a parenthetical. But rather than see this state of affairs as cause for reevaluating your position, you instead see it as misleading other people away from your position. Maybe, just maybe, you're wrong and everyone else is right. Or if not right, at least reasonable? Powers ^T 17:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not unreasonable to say adding the state is more than just disambiguation; it's informative qualification, if you will. But, whatever you call it, that's also Noetica's argument about adding more information to titles like Catholic Memorial School, and it's not always information in parentheses. But you rightfully reject his arguments. We reject them not because they're unreasonable, but because they're inconsistent with how we title articles on WP.

Similarly, I reject the claim that Chittenango, New York (and all similar forms for US cities) is so commonly used that it's a de-facto name. At least as common is "Chittenango, NY". Further, if the context of New York is already established, then it's never qualified with the state, not even in the first use. Examples: There's No Place Like Chittenango, THE CHITTENANGO POISONING, MOVEMENT AT CHITTENANGO, etc., etc. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not telling me anything I don't already know. I realize you reject that claim, but you seem to think everyone else should too. We don't. Powers ^T 21:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You acknowledge that ", state" is usually not added in reliable sources when referencing a US city in a context where the state is already known? Not even for "first use"? That the state is normally only specified (with the comma convention or some other means) in order to inform the reader what state the city is in?

How is it consistent with title policy, then, to specify the state in the title? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things are called differently depending on context; we tend toward a general, though not universal, context when choosing names. Powers ^T 23:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to moving all of the comet articles from endash to hyphen? Out of 40 books at Google books (using preview only) produces 36 using a hyphen and 4 an endash. 32 used Comet and 8 used comet. Apteva (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely I object. Even if I believed we should determine our own punctuation style by reference to sources (which I don't), I don't trust Google Books' OCR. Powers ^T 12:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Mexican-American War". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 November 2012. 

FYI, it is never "forum shopping" to bump the issue up a step, for example, to go from talk page discussion to RfC, or RfC to mediation, etc. Apteva (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC) This can all be explained in the mediation, but as I see it a couple of people a few years ago without realizing the unintended consequences thought that it would logically make more sense to use Mexican American War with an endash instead of with a hyhen. One of the clues that was the wrong choice is the megabytes of discussion that it created. Apteva (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Mexican-American War, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 

Thanks for adding the hatnote. "Wegmans" already redirected to the article, so it should have been included either way. —David Levy 20:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might have, but I wasn't sure and couldn't tell from the edit histories. Powers ^T 20:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notation "over redirect" in the move summary is something to look for.

But note that its absence doesn't necessarily indicate that the title didn't redirect to the article. MediaWiki permits an automatic move to a title that redirects to the page, but only if the redirect's creation is the sole revision in its page's history. If any other revisions (e.g. prior usage of the title or the subsequent addition of a category) exist, an administrator must manually delete the target page (and the "over redirect" notation won't appear).

A workaround, which I employed in this instance, is to delete the redirect's page and restore (or recreate) only the most recent revision. The resultant redirect is then recognized by MediaWiki in the manner described above.

In 2004, someone accidentally created a duplicate article about the supermarket chain, which was redirected to the existing article a few weeks later. —David Levy 20:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, missed those two words somehow. =) Powers ^T 20:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some fixings here, hope they're ok for you! (just a great logo, btw! :-) --Lucas (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re [5]: I probably won't start that request (cf. [6]). If you could spare a moment, would you mind doing so? It should probably be filed as a multiple move request, including all the pages at the disambiguation page. --195.14.223.59 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a move request active at Talk:Bridge over Troubled Water. I'd be reluctant to start another one addressing the capitalization of "Over" until that one (and Talk:Love over Gold, for that matter) is resolved. If those are decided in favor of the current MOS wording, then I believe a request for moving Cuckoo's Nest will have a stronger basis. 15:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, there's resistance at those RMs, and this will remain a controversial matter. At some point, a centralized discussion will probably be required to determine if WP:NCCAPS/MOS:CT should be amended. Right now, basically all of the people supporting application of the current wording are pointing to the current wording, which they apparently like. --195.14.223.59 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because we value having a consistent editorial style. If someone wants to propose that we change the rule to words of five letters or more instead of four, that'd be one thing. But instead people are making spurious arguments about "following the sources", which, if done throughout the encyclopedia, would result in an inconsistent mishmash of styles. Powers ^T 15:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like hypercorrection to me. How is it a "mishmash" rather than a higher-level order when e.g. some page titles are repeated in boldface, and others are not? (Just using that as an example case where it took some time to get people to stop mindlessly applying made-up rules and keep them from creating their own private CREEPy cargo cults.) How is it a mishmash to format titles the same way they are always found outside of Wikipedia? All that is required is an addition to NCCAPS/MOS:CT along the lines of "If a title is exclusively or near-exclusively represented (by the producers as well as independent sources) in a style of capitalization that differs from MOS:CT, we should follow the principle of least astonishment and use the style the reader would most likely expect." --195.14.223.59 (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's far more parsimonious to have a consistent house style that can easily be applied to any article without having to do extensive research on how other sources format their language. Powers ^T 18:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So someone could put in the effort and sift through sources and make a compelling case that all or almost all sources capitalize a title the same way, but you'd just ignore his work because it's too much work? Don't get me wrong, it's good to have MOS:CT as a fallback position when in doubt. But when and where we're not doubt, it remains entirely nonsensical to insist on ignoring the real world out there, the one we're pretending to write about. --195.14.223.59 (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you're just here to rehash the argument, this isn't the place for it. I have no personal control over the manual of style. But there is great value in maintaining a consistent style, and our MOS allows us to do that if it's followed correctly. If you can garner a consensus to change it, more power to you. But right now, it says -- and years of consensus backs this up -- that the style should be followed consistently. I don't see any reason to make an exception because other sources use different styles; that's rather the point, isn't it? Powers ^T 19:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You voted "oppose" on move proposal. However, if you would like to change your vote, do so before the discussion closes. There have been two 'support's, but you can still stick with "oppose" if you want. Nevertheless, I'm using the "Precious (film)" because I like to be concise. --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled why you wrote this. I appreciate your offer to let me "stick with 'oppose' if [I] want", but I don't need your permission. Powers ^T 23:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make sure about your confidence. Well, WP:move review still exists, but it always endorses closers' decisions. I've made reply to your post. --George Ho (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am notifying all participants in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

• Link to the move to close

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 04:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per AP RM, I was beginning to think that if I ever wanted to be certain that an RfA etc. was to fail, all I had to do was support it... Apteva (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Toy Hall of Fame inductees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, regarding Dot the i and the request to move, it appears that the film's official title is "dot the i". Do you want to keep the article at its present location or move to "dot the i"? Link back to discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for tagging this for notability, back in 2008. The tag's still there; you may want to take it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you'd like to know that her DYK is now in a queue awaiting submission. See her talk page. Thanks for helping out with getting her included! — Wyliepedia 04:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rochester International Jazz Festival logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of an inconclusive discussion that you participated in (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 8#Apparent conflict of guidelines) has been brought up again at WT:MOSCAPS#Contradiction and divergence at MOS:MUSIC. You may (or may not) want to express an opinion at the new discussion. Deor (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the back & forth on naming this article a bit strange. This storm is what *made* the Buffalo area's national reputation as a place that regularly gets dumped on with insane amounts of snow (even though that isn't really true - Syracuse is the *snow capital* of NY going by annual accumulation), so much so that mere mention of a big storm heading in WNYs direction gets immediate media hype & starts comedians cracking all the old chestnuts. The Blizzard of '77 got a total media rehash during the course of the October Surprise ice storm (2006) that once again saw most of the same WNY counties declared federal disaster areas. Buffalo=lots of snow because of the Blizzard of '77.

I've never heard it called *The Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977* in my life - which doesn't pinpoint geography rather well, either, as there are 5 of them sprawling across several states. For all our friends across the pond know of American geography, it could've occurred anywhere (no offense meant; lots of people don't know where places outside their own country are located). I've also never heard the *19* appended to the *77* before, either. It's the Blizzard of '77, period. If there were any other blizzards that year, they were doomed to obscurity by the sheer size of this sucker crippling a major metropolitan area of nearly 2 million people. Americans who are old enough to remember it know exactly what it means when referred to in conversation. It was national news for 2 weeks, for Pete's sake. This was one of those *once in a lifetime* storms & unprecedented in collective memory.

I'd hazard the main issue with this back & forth is that those who insist otherwise were likely not even born at the time, have no memory of it, & believe if Jim Cantore wasn't there to give it a name, it should have one anyway. It doesn't. It is what it is. (And as a name, it beats the heck out of *Lake Storm "Aphid"* as WP terms the October Surprise...oy.) ScarletRibbons (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baffling, isn't it? I should probably try to get it moved to Blizzard of '77, but I fear it would backfire and it'd get moved back to the "Great Lakes" name. Powers ^T 00:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would invite you to reconsider your opposition, based on the significant evidence I have collected that the common name of the national park has no period. This article is not about Truman, it is about a national park, and both the official and common use of the national park name does not include the period. Using the period in reference to the park would put Wikipedia in a distinct minority. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't think COMMONNAME is the operative guideline. Our use of punctuation is subject to our manual of style, with sources merely informing the usage, not determining it. Powers ^T 22:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but thanks for taking a second look. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these couple of edits I found are judged as improvements, especially if you have contributed to these muppet pages. I feel they are augmentary and needed to improve the article but I could be wrong. I am newer here but I have done pages and edits for a few weeks now. Thanks for your contributions Oh I wanted to ask should I contact the Puppet center in Georgia to see if they have information regarding the citation of the creation of Kermit I may try the chat help to ask --Phaedrx (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you comment at this POV dispute? It involves whether material from a source should be included in an article. Dan56 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I lack the background knowledge necessary to evaluate the quality of the sources involved. Powers ^T 02:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For this commendable comment, I award you the Barnstar of Diplomacy. Thank you for being a thoughtful voice of reason in a simple conversation that most would have just overlooked.   — C M B J   10:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That was me you were talking to I guess[7]. I thought he was normally a sensible debater, but I hadn't noted the number of previous discussions that were essentially the same discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this has been hashed over multiple times already; I don't see any cause to open another RM so quickly after a Move Review was closed. Powers ^T 13:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Deadmaus#Requested_move_3_.28to_.22Joel_Zimmerman.22.29. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_June#Hillary_Clinton. Since you participated in this discussion on the rename of Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, you are invited to offer your opinion at the move review. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you at User_talk:EdJohnston#Talk:Hollywood.23Requested_move. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'll use RIT from now on. If you want the previous pages I've made/edited altered to reflect that I'll leave it up to you. User:PensRule11385 User talk:PensRule11385 19:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. I don't suppose you could at least provide a list of the pages on which you made the error so I don't have to check every page you've edited in the last year? Powers ^T 19:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP, in a discussion you participated. Note there was a discussion of PDAB at WT:D the last weeks (everything is explained in the RFC). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've added a "survey" section at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Commas_in_metro_areas, in case you want to be counted one way or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Powers ^T 21:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - you participated in the RM at Talk:Rochester, New York metropolitan area. There is a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Commas_in_metro_areas which may interest you. If you have not done so, please consider contributing to the survey or discussion. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wcha newlogo men.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be very very careful indeed. Someone has alerted me to your defamatory statement, calling me "a jerk", apparently. You will find that there are ramifications beyond, on WM sites more generally, if you persist with your breaches of the WMF's terms of use.

You should become familiar with them unless you want to risk action being taken against you. Tony (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said you acted like a jerk. There's a difference. Your above statements, on the other hand, closely resemble a legal threat, so tread carefully. Powers ^T 14:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue about semantic subtleties as you might try to construct them to save yourself. I'll take action at a higher level if you breach the terms of use. In particular, "Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation" represents a serious breach. I will take action if you continue to libel me. Tony (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud. There is nothing libelous about my statement, which involved a factual assessment of the community opinion of your behavior. I have little interest in escalating this "dispute", but neither will I stand by while you make legal threats against me. Powers ^T 15:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to behave properly towards other editors, and that includes not abusing them—especially behind their back. The terms of use are quite clear, and there is a procedure outlined where I take the matter to the Wikimedia Foundation as a complaint. I will complain to the Foundation, as anyone else would, unless you stop the abusive behaviour. Tony (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, could you clarify precisely which statement of mine you feel is libelous and/or abusive? Powers ^T 17:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates for further discussion. —sroc 💬 08:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have renewed the proposal to move Minesweeper (ship) to Minesweeper, due to hundreds of links to Minesweeper referring to the ship. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Since you commented on the redesign project for the "Welcome to Wikipedia" brochure, I wanted to let you know that we've got a draft PDF now. Any feedback you have at this point will be much appreciated. You can let us know what you think draft talk page.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANFI is *THE* National Association for Cattery and it is recognized by the Italian Government whicj also delegated to that association to manage the genealogical book of every recognized feline breed. It is part of FIFè Fédération Internationale Féline. In Wikipedia there are already other associations as ANFI, for example, The International Cat Association, Fédération Internationale Féline, Cat Aficionado Association. You can find them in the category for Cat_registry. If you delete ANFI you should delete all of them, otherwise it would be a geographical discrimination. --Dejudicibus (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS ANFI exists from 1934 and is one of the FIRST Feline Associations in Europe. It founded FIFè, the European Association, in 1949 with the French and Swiss associations. You can find its story here. You may want to use Google Translate to read it in your language.--Dejudicibus (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Whiteside, Barnett and Co. Agricultural Works may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• revitalized the business district of [[Mount Morris (village), New York|Mount Morris, New York]] (, has expressed an interest in the property, feeling that it can spark a similar revitalization in

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whiteside, Barnett and Co. Agricultural Works, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Hook (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Worldwide Olympic sponsors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	This DiBella's picture warmed my heart; I have good memories of getting delicious food from that very shop. I'm sad to hear it's closed, but it's good to know there's a larger one awaiting me nearby should I return. BDD (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Certainly there's some nostalgia about the old plaza location but trust me, no one who's been to their new flagship location just down the street misses this old one. =) It's really something. Powers ^T 02:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I'm pushing to try and get a closure date field added to Video Game Infobox for many MMOs that have closed, and I think I could use your help. I asked for it to be done here and a friendly Wikipedian referred me back to an old talk page discussion, and I see that you tried for the same thing. Could we bring this up again and try to get it done? Kringe1 (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you had a minor dispute with another editor on Guardians of the Galaxy (film) on whether the whole is comprised of the parts.

I'd like to point you to my User:Giraffedata/comprised_of essay, which has a lot of information on that particular point of grammar. When I refer to this page in edit summaries of "comprised of" fixes, I hardly ever get objections to the edit.

"Check the dictionary" doesn't really work, by the way. Dictionaries usually acknowledge that misuse and many people have argued just the opposite with me - that the dictionary gives them permission to use "comprise" to mean "compose".

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:First Niagara Bank - logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in previous related discussion. There is an ongoing move discussion, and I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The talk at sexually transmitted disease closed. You made me understand that regardless of which term is correct, I was unable to provided evidence of the use of the term "STI" in activism, and that I was unable to provide an explanation for why I thought that term was more used. I still think it is the more used term, but I recognize now that I am unable to say why the shift happened. Thanks for challenging me. The only response that I can give to your questions is that I am less sure now than I was before and that I will have to think more about what you asked, because the article should give information about the different terms and it does not do that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts and your diligence in improving Wikipedia! Powers ^T 15:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently another vote taking place on the talk page of Cuban missile crisis whether to recapitalize the name or keep it in lowercase. You participated in the 2012 vote, and may want to voice an opinion or comment on this one. I'm writing this to the voters from 2012 who may not know about this vote. Randy Kryn 18:57 13 January, 2015 (UTC)

I have started another move discussion; join in. --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[