User talk:Shakescene

Hello, Shakescene! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! BoL (Talk) 03:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I've been watching all of the great work you've been doing on the article on The Bronx-- I'm so glad people are taking an interest in this topic. You're updates to Planned shrinkage, have been great too. Just wanted to say thanks! futurebird (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: User Talk:Colfer2#Thanks for editing tips
Thanks, I probably didn't realize I was editing a footnote quote! -Colfer2 (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BrooklynBen notes that I'm sure this has been raised before, but the actual legal name of the borough is "The Bronx" and I don't think it should be called "Bronx" in a serious reference such as Wikipedia. "The Bronx" should have two capitals. —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC). --BrooklynBen (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your hard work on The Bronx. futurebird (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks. Shakescene (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shakes, I moved your note to me re Bronx lit onto the Talk:Bronx page and briefly replied to it. It seemed more appropriate to do a 2-way there. And congrats on the well-deserved Barnstar. Can I add an extra ribbon to it? Bellagio99 (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Would appreciate some clarification re film section. (Am concerned that the Bronx is all too often presented as a disease.) + I'm new to this realm. NYCfellow 00.20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, NYCfellow. I'll try to answer most of this on Talk:The Bronx, but basically I was wondering if you could weave your examples into the first half-dozen ones (from Marty to Fort Apache or Fuga del Bronx ), so they tell what the films show about the Bronx or about how the Bronx is viewed. This is certainly not personal, because it applies far more strongly to my own addition of Songs about the Bronx, which right now is a list of titles that by themselves say almost nothing about the Borough or how it's been seen over time. [And I've been on Wikipedia only since Spring 2008, starting with and concentrating on New York City mayoralty elections, so I'm no veteran who knows much of the internal processes and customs. Plus I may never have set foot in the Bronx.] Shakescene (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Still wrong. I was using the college relocation date to Ft Schuyler, not the museum's launch year. Thank you for catching this. NYCfellow 8/21/08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCfellow (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, fellow. If you did want to add anything about the college's founding, I added SUNY Maritime to The Bronx#Education with a reference to its museum and the mirror U.S. Merchant Marine Academy with its own museum in Kings Point, Long Island. (Like your item about Wave Hill, I didn't simply delete your earlier Maritime Museum entry; I just moved it where I thought it might fit better.)

By the way, Maritime Industry Museum is just a stub right now. Since you're interested and probably far closer to Fort Schuyler, maybe you'd be interested in fleshing out the entry a bit (or whatever it is one does with a stub). Shakescene (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good jobs on the Fairness Doctrine edits. If you oppose this like I do, there is a userbox I created that you might be interested. Just go to the userbox section of my user page and it will give you the link to it. Chris (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the compliment. I actually have reached no firm conclusions on this subject either way (and as with many other users and many other subjects) got drawn into this article because I visited out of curiosity or in search of clarification and needed to work out where it wasn't telling me enough clearly enough or with enough foundation. So my editing is more even-handed and detached here than it might be (despite some journalistic experience) with a subject where I had strong feelings. A particular edit might seem to be directed against one point of view on the underlying substance, but I've directed my edits both ways when I haven't been satisfied that the language properly explains what's supported by the documentation. Because of its tangled and contentious history of overlapping edits, Fairness Doctrine had, and still has, some redundancies, contradictions and illogical sequences that I made some attempt to sort out for my own benefit as much as anyone else's. Shakescene (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion moved to Talk:Bronx (disambiguation)

Regarding your contribution to the page, please keep in mind that the disambiguation page is for subjects that are associated with the same title (ie "Bronx" or "The Bronx"), not subjects that happen to have "Bronx" in the title. The page is not meant to be a glossary. Both "Bronx cheer" and "Bronx Bombers" redirect to other article titles as well. Feel free to contact me if you have any concerns. Just64helpin (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_29#Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit summary, please see WP:NOTCENSORED. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the debate to the Internet Portal discuss page--SasiSasi (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your commentary was very helpful. I was so confused as to why they kept deleting it, and figured it was because they just didn't read the blog and assumed it was spam. I wasn't trying in any way to spam -- I was just trying to help people decide on their move to NYC.  :-/ But I understand your rationale and really do appreciate your specificity in your comments to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.178.111 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an edit summary for MoS:date autoformatting you wrote:

(As of two years ago, of the millions of people that read Wikipedia, there were 151,934 user accounts total, 7,940 accounts with >5 edits, and 4,330 accounts with >100 edits, see http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm)

I actually went to your link, and it says that 7,940 is the number of New Accounts (column B), while over a quarter of the accounts (43,001) had over 5 edits (column C). This seems prima facie more plausible. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - I misread the columns, thanks for pointing out my error. Still, my point stands: comparatively few of our readers have and use accounts. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fully agree with your point, and just made a very similar one at Wikipedia Talk:Portal—— Shakescene (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a quick go at one, it should be able to replace those which are in existing articles (which looks pretty bad!). [1] I have not yet put it in any article... maybe you have suggestions for improvement.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here seems to be that people don't understand that Hispanic people are of any race. If you present racial and ethnic data in a hispanic vs. non-hispanic way, then you are not acknowledging to the racial diversity of the Hispanic group and you are basically telling hispanic whites they are not white, hispanic blacks, they are not black but something other which is not the case. That is why if you present the data by racial breakdown first, white american (includes white hispanic), african american ( includes black hispanic), asian american (includes asian hispanic), other race and then in addition show what percentage of the population is Hispanic in separation, then and only then have you presented the correct racial and ethnic breakdown of the population. 99% of articles on wikipedia present the racial and ethnic breakdown in the same way (the way I just described) and the other present the racial and ethnic breakdown the way it is done in the main article of The Bronx. I think the most proper way to show the racial and ethnic distribution of an area is to do the following: Miami Beach's racial breakdown: The racial makeup of the city was 86.74% White(40.9% were Non-Hispanic Whites,)[10] 4.03% African American, 0.23% Native American, 1.37% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 4.05% from other races, and 3.53% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 53.45% of the population.--Emigrant85 (talk) 2:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

-- Tinu Cherian - 11:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the revert. The editor who made that latest edit is a suspected sock puppet of Nimbley6 and was vandalizing a large number of pages, so I was just going through and reverting all of his/her edits. I might have reverted some things that weren't so clear-cut. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this type of thing happens allot, very frustrating. No need to reply, I'm just saying... 2legit2quit2 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shakescene: We’re addressing how much longer to run the MOSNUM RfC at the top, here. Greg L (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Ive have replied to your comment on my talk page here. Please reply if need be on my talk page or the article talk page. Also, please have a Happy New Year too ;) Regards Ijanderson (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the proper place to respond to your message or not, apologies if it isn't...

I'm not religious about which abbreviation is used, I guess, just as long as the periods are lost per the Wikipedia convention and modern use.

The party actually published a number of pamphlets as "Socialist Party of the United States" in the 1920s and afterwards without a formal name change. So I reckon that use of "SP" instead of "SPA" is a pretty easy sale to make... Although I'm using "SPA" on the various pages I create as a matter of consistency.

best,

-- Tim Davenport -- Corvallis, OR -- Carrite (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The issue of spelling 'gram' versus 'gramme' comes up from time to time. You may be interested in what was said at: Template_talk:Convert/Archive_October_2008#Request_.28moved_from_User_talk:TomTheHand.29. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy, next time you put something in the edit summary, try to actually do what you say instead of cutting stuff out and throwing it.
Either way, it did not belong in the History section as it is a recent quote from Fowler. Also, there were are no quotes from Levin in that section, so if that is the reason why you decided to throw it, bad on ya.
Mdandrea (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bolt on you like that, understandable mistake. I know there was too many things that I should have included but I figured anyone interested could listen to the mp3 of Fowler and decide for themselves. Fowler's input is valuable. Just started listening to Levin. I notice how he calls our President a dummy, and says other things that aren't very nice. I heard a buddy of mine say "we need the fairness doctrine to make the news have some accountability, give both sides, and equal time," so I started looking up information about the Fairness Doctrine. I am sort of for it in a way, but when I see how it is aimed at conservative talk radio, it doesn't sound fair at all. Maybe if they changed the rules of it, just maybe, it could be better. Like, if someone has an opposing view, the Fairness Doctrine could allow them to call the radio station and uninterruptedly say what they want to say. Or if a political candidate or knowledgeable person wants to go on the station, the station should not have to pay for anything. I think it would be unconstitutional for someone to have to pay for something that is their constitutional right. Our rights do not come with a price, the price has been paid on too many battlefields. Still sort of new on Wikipedia so my editing isn't very good. I will try to do better. Thanks for your contributions. Mdandrea (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, does everything on this article that I put up have to be uniform to your type of writing? Please explain this to me. Also, is it necessary to mention "conservative talk radio program" ? I think saying Levin is enough. No other quote mentions the name of the radio program or news channel, it is unnecessary, that is what cited sources is for... also, I don't believe it is a neutral point of view because many will reject the paragraph once they see "conservative talk".. and like I said before, it doesn't matter what show it is, the notable person said something and is worth quoting. Mdandrea (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looked fine to me; it seems to carry the point. Anything significant that could be improved (as with anyone's contributions, certainly including my own), I'm sure will come out in the normal course of editing.

I didn't know (or had forgotten) who Mark Levin was, so I needed to identify him, especially for foreigners who can't hear ABCRadio Networks. And I'm identifying Bill Press as a liberal talk show host. I'll certainly keep your concern (about readers' preconceptions) in mind, but I don't see much harm in showing tendencies so long as it's balanced (identifying the progressive FAIR, etc.) I often try to identify my sources in the text of this particular article (although not strictly necessary) because context seems important, and often the interviewer's significant; Levin and Fowler shared roots in the Reagan administration.

By the way, another editor excised a quotation I put in from Rush Limbaugh's response (in Friday's Wall St. Journal) to Obama's position of "No, but..." I'm thinking of starting a sub-sub-section or sections on different categories of opposition to accommodate both Obama's and Limbaugh's positions. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I understand your points. Good job on your work so far, that Suggested alternatives section is brilliant. I have been thinking that most of our liberal friends don't want the "fairness doctrine" but something more directed to talk radio. Matter of fact, I think BJ Clinton's quote said something like that. Thanks, Mdandrea (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. Now, if only WP:USER FORK weren't a redlink, I might know what action to take to prevent its dire consequences. :( Maybe you'll need to spoon-feed me that information, in order to prevent being put to the knife. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYelections template is too bulky to be put on the top right side of my state election articles, it conflicts in space with the election wikitable. I'm not sure if it is better to re-format it, or to add it somewhere below. We should find some practical solution.

Maybe you could look at a discussion I'm having with User:Muboshgu about a template (navbox) I am using for the creation of my articles (it is necessary to go forward and backward to check info, and copy/paste parts, and that guy keeps vandalizing it, giving some absurd reasons. Maybe you could tell me your opinion on this. Kraxler (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can understand the reasons on both sides, I'm not getting anywhere near that angry discussion until everyone cools down. And everyone basically wants the same ends; it's just a matter of figuring the best (or least-impractical) way of doing so.

As for the secondary problem (to which I was not referring in my first message), my solution (well before I had any idea of Moboshgu's involvement) for New York state election, 1848 was just to add the tag at the first section, rather than at the top where it would indeed conflict with the election results table. It doesn't exactly fit the typical NY elections style of starting right at the top, but then neither does that happen at the individual year pages for New York City mayoral elections (New York City mayoral election, 1917, 1977, 1997, 2001 & 2005) where we have a much bigger conflict with a huge new NYC election template that someone wants to add at the top. And it doesn't crowd or interfere with your paragraph of text. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also (I forgot) your template at the bottom should be narrowed a little bit so that it matches the average width of other New York state and New York City templates (it was for this reason that I deleted the flag from the template for Mayors of New York cities over 100,000 in population [Großstädter?]) —— Shakescene (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually never formatted a template, I just write them, and the width comes sort of automatic. Feel free to "narrow" it, if you think it best, provided the content is kept. Besides, I took another look at your ElectionsNY template, and it has now "Elections by year" somewhere and the Gubernatorial template farther down. Actually I am redoing this whole thing, and I intend to deactivate the "Gubernatorial" template later, leaving only the state election one. In the first place, I did not create the separate gubernatorial election articles, some funny guy just separated them from the main article (which I vastly expanded with all gubernatorial elections, it had about 10 elections out of 89 when I first saw it) without adding anything, just uselessly duplicating the info. Later I thought about what to do with this, and I thought I had a good idea, until that other funny guy came along and messed about in my navbox, without adding any info to the articles, "standardizing". Well, you have seen my opinion on that. The problem now is: How can I get rid of that guy, and return to WORK in peace? Any suggestions? And, I'm cool as a cucumber :D Kraxler (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the text of the articles, it is really not easy to explain the Barnburner and Hunker thing in a few words. That is what the blue links are for, ok, so far so good. To explain things again and again in every article (for people who would not or could not access the links), I'm confident that the articles grow later, maybe somebody who knows enough of the subject can do it, or I can do it, after completing the basic chore of creating the articles of the actual elections, and of the actually elected officers (look at my user page and you see what I'm talking about). That's the way to know something about it, and to know what to write about it. It is a question of time... Kraxler (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this template, I think its best to keep the order similar to Template:ElectionsCA, which has federal elections, state elections, then elections by year, and city elections. I think federal elections should be above state elections based on importance. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you a lot on his talk page, what the heck happened? Soxwon (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want jokes, I wanna know if you know why he left. Soxwon (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just before he left, a third party noted to him that, after deciding to quit AN/I discussions, he was still the most prolific poster there. My pure guess is that that prompted him to go cold turkey on wiki for a while. I hope he comes back too, especially if God does his job and we finally get a Cubs/Red Sox World Series. PhGustaf (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose after winning 2 we could be magnanimous and let the Cubbies win one. :P Soxwon (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did a good job on the Greater New York disambiguation, but I wanted to point out a guideline about disambiguation pages from MoS:DP:

To avoid confusing the reader, each bulleted entry should have only one navigable (blue) link. Do not wikilink any other words in the line

Another advantage of this is that if an editor is using Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups, there are only the choices that the disambiguator (my made up word) would likely select. Thanks --rogerd (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The poll is reopen for one more day so please take time to vote. just out of interest, how did you hear about the poll? Did someone contact you by email? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this edit. I can't even recall making this edit. Kinda weird haha, regards Ijanderson (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I moved your comment up to the authors section to make it a bit clearer. If you don't want this please undo or let me know and I'll undo. –M^T

For reverting your edits to BB's talk page. I initially saw it as removing messages, I hadn't realized he had left. I restored what you did/rv myself, etc, as the two added comments are that of a possible impersonator, and that of a possible sockpuppet, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Caden for more on that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was his, that's what I'm saying. I didn't see that that edit added by the harasser was what it was, I didn't see that it removed one of his edits. When I saw what I had done, after looking through the history, I reverted myself.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

I turned the IP in for 3RR violation. I recommend doing nothing further until they make a ruling. He might have a point, but arguing it in the edit summaries is not the right approach. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While sock puppets and personal abuse often call for sharp action, I've so far (so far as I can recall) succeeded in avoiding the disciplinary process for 3RR, because an edit war of this kind usually incriminates both sides. In this case, both I and the IP were doing slightly different things each time. (1) He blanked just the Opposition subsection without balancing it with the equally-uncited Support section (resulting in tangible damage to NPOV), which I reverted, (2) then he blanked both of them, but also took the adequately-cited Opening & Home Run Launchpad subsections with them, so I reverted again. (3) Then the penny finally dropped, and he blanked just the Opposition & Support subsections alone, which you reverted. Since the first reversion was mine, not his, he could in theory claim that that we're tag-teaming him (although we had no common conscious purpose or communication before our edits), with the third revert being in fact yours.

But there are already at least two sections dealing with this very question (poor sourcing and the need for such sections) on the Talk page so far, where he could make a credible case, instead of in the edit summaries. Some of the language about Opposition is poorly phrased, but there should be reasonably good sources about much of the substance (e.g. ESPN's long feature story and the NY Times story about the Bronx at New YS's opening), so the task is to produce something balanced with at least minimum sources for both sides. (As a New England Democrat, neither the Yankees organization nor Rudolph Giuliani are my personal favorites, and I happen to think that what happened to 30 acres of park in the part of the Bronx that doesn't have enough public open space is scandalous, but Wikipedia should be providing enough objective information on both sides so that readers can reach their own conclusions.) —— Shakescene (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He might get only a warning and an admonition, by an admin, to take it to talk. That would be the point. It reads like an editorial essay. But just reverting it with snide comments is not the way for that guy to handle it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're concerned I might have also pulled you into the same edit-warring vortex, I apologize. I doubt the admins will take severe action against anyone, but we'll see. However, his deletion is every bit the editorial comment that is the section he's trying to delete. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would rather just try to work this out on the talk page, then I could withdraw the 3RR complaint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the 3RR complaint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info I may well have been wrong there, then, I was trying to put into units taht were used in original recipes and had to back translate. As you say if it was `968 could well have been in mnetric and so not sure which way to jump there now. You can see I deliberately put this up as an aunt sally to show the difficulties so please don't hurt me too much!

I woyuld have to get the original source, the problem is of course that the original editor pays no interest in the article (I got there via caramel color and thence from caramel and I dunno how I got there) but you raise a good point; whether it was in metric or in imperial (the measures were so odd IO assumed they had been clumsily converted) if as you imply by omission the other two are imperial do we then put this in metric? If the source says so, I say so. If not, not.

I an glad thgis relatiuvely short article may be useful gto argue over as what should be done. I hav e eduted much longer articles and added convert template etc but if there's a nice short article that illusgtrates the point that is good.

Transfer this to the main discusssion if you wish. My best wishes AAAAAH can't find trilde on this keyboard SimonTrew 01.15am 0`jun-2009

please excuse my spelling Istill havenot got used to this keyboard yet and sgtill can't find the tilde simontrew 09`.125am 01-jun-2009

There's a tilde-inserting button (looks like a signature or handwriting script) above the edit box, next to the Bold, Italic, Wiklink, etc. buttons. Tilde is often an upper-shift character to the left of the number 1 above the letters on a standard Microsoft-family keyboard.

I'm glad it was helpful, since help, and certainly not criticism, was all that I intended. I have nothing to go on myself except the edit-history of the article (I didn't even know there were three versions of Merchandise 7X), but it appears as if the first two were largely in customary (remember that U.S. pints, etc are 4/5 of Imperial ones) and the last one largely in metric. But I think you'd actually have to see the 1968 text to be 100% certain (unless the publisher, as some publishers are wont, mindlessly converted everything to metric willy-nilly). I just wanted to save you all that work and uncertainty of reverse-engineering the metrics in the first two formulae to customary. Best wishes. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shakes thanks for that very useful. I think it has been carelessly translated but of course I canbnot tell whether 8it is the Wikipedia editor or the original source, having access tpo neither (and no references). i hadn'r forgotten te US/UK pint distinction I have it on every measuring jug I own! I may have forgotten to say so. I am guessing yes that the publisher converted it but would that happen in 68 in the us? APOLLO was all metric. Was there much of an effort and kmetric was the new cool thing? This 8is not meant ironically, it is genuine difficulties like this that show yup why these things are not so done and dusted as others amy think, and as I said ifd a short article like that illustrates the problem then that's quite gopod I think.

tildes[edit]

Found the tilde. Hash and tilde are to the left of the z on the bottom row. Bastards. SimonTrew (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm new to Wikipedia. Can you explain how you get your name to show up after you make a comment on 'discussion' page? I'd appreciate it.

Thank you for the advice Shakescene :) DanielGlazer (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

back to Coke[edit]

shakes can you gi tve me a hand with this i really didn't know which way to go. the measures were so ridiculous i had assumed they were done clumsily from imperial (or us customary) into metric i added all the convert templates etc and back translated into imperial. As i said on mosnum i was not entirely happy with it though i think nicer now in tabes and stuff. On a larger subject i think recipes really suffer from the numbering system here but i am not sure what to do about that and am still not sure what to do about that, what to suggest. if you have any ideas pleas contact me either on MOSNUM or on my personal talk SimonTrew (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

shakes everything you said i agree with and makes sense. i made my best effort to make the measures sensible. i will go through history and ask your advice again if i may. SimonTrew (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

btw perhaps i should say for want of doubt this is a very minor article for me. I deliberately picked one that i have subbed and has lots of converts etc but it's not the end of the earth. SimonTrew (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks i read your talk on my page i think you are better off doing it than i would be. btw i have madwe a decision that capitals on i are awaste of time i know i wont win this one but will fight my own battle. best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've read your comments and I want to thank you. Regards, --Auslli (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you weighed in on the "display time since last edit on article" discussion at the Village pump. I have now started a straw poll on the subject at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Straw poll. Your opinion would be appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any material that is likely to be challenged needs a source. In particular, the source should be correctly formatted. Reference tags are not for footnotes. I'll do my best to re-format this information into proper references. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The information is not likely to be challenged. On the other hand, the curious are entitled to the supporting details, which would, we both agree, clutter up the lead with extraneous trivia. Footnotes seem like the best place for them. (2) There are so many reasonable ways of formatting references that I use what seems most useful to the purpose and to the reader, while making sure that the most important details are there. I'm a strong disbeliever in citation templates, which often don't fit the purpose and can sometimes confuse readers with jargon and ISO dating. (3) On the other hand, I was going to go back myself to review which of those facts about wild cards and Florida were most important to see if they could be consolidated together with footnotes that are essentially identical (the 2009 World Almanac, MLB.com's history pages and Wikipedia's own LDS, LCS and World Series pages).—— Shakescene (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the information was removed, it's likely to be challenged. I challenged it, which is why I provided a reference that people can verify without going to a library or buying a book. Your reference isn't available online; I checked Google Books while trying to verify these facts. I couldn't do it without using an online source. I would venture so far as to say that your "World Almanac", an agglomeration of facts about everything, is less reliable relating to baseball than Baseball-Reference, which focuses exclusively on sports. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) What I and Wikipedia both prefer is that information be available in both Internet and printed form. Which is why I gave both MLB.com and the World Almanac. (Similarly, in giving newspaper references, it's useful where possible to give the edition and page number, so people can look up the printed newspaper if the link expires or if they don't have Internet access.) Apart from the problem of expiring or unstable links, some people don't have easy access to the Internet (e.g. if they're reading a printout) and others don't have easy access to a library or bookstore. Now we have both, so everything should work out. (2) Why is it better, especially if (for some reason, I presume, other than WP:POINT) you're the one doing the challenging, to remove the supporting details and give all that work to the reader? —— Shakescene (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why Wikipedia "prefers" print sources. What it "prefers" (requires) is reliable sources, regardless of their medium. The details, which I considered excess, were removed because reference tags are not supposed to be used for footnotes. It seemed much simpler to point the reader to a single reference which verifies the stated fact than introduce a footnote with information that wasn't easily verifiable by the majority of readers, who are not, in fact, using printouts. Wikipedia isn't paper; not to imply that it cannot be made so, but simply to clarify that this is first and foremost an electronic medium. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed Manhattan for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my Catastrophe Code question on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shakescene, thank you for your references on Jordan L. Mott, who owned an iron works in the Bronx in the nineteenth century. I was surprised when my little footnote regarding Mr. Mott was deleted: I thought that Mr. Mott was so well known that he didn't need references to document who he was, but apparently some Wiki editors are obsessed with documentation. (Besides, it took me less than 10 minutes to find 2 references on Mott, so I guess some Wiki editors are lazy as well.) Again, thanks for your help. Cwkmail (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. User:Bellagio99 is one of the three editors (none of them currently living in the Bronx) who's actually done the most recently to maintain and expand the Bronx article (see the article's edit history or some of the earlier discussions on the Talk page), so he's not just some random know-it-all floating by. I'm familiar with the Motts, a famous Quaker family, but I didn't remember Jordan L. Mott specifically, so he's not someone like Peter Stuyvesant or Fiorello La Guardia who can be mentioned without supporting references. If you look at earlier versions of The Bronx from 2007 and before, you can see that unsupported assertions and next-to-nonexistent references were a huge problem that's now been somewhat abated, so there's a reason that Bellagio would be cautious of new ones creeping in. (The general disorganization of the article, and the fact that it wasn't telling me what I wanted to know, is what inspired me, who may never have set foot in the Bronx and has never lived in New York state, to start working on this article in the spring of 2008.) ¶ By the way, is it right to consider Jordan L. Mott, Sr. (born in New York to a prominent politician) an immigrant to the Bronx in the same way that Willa Cather (born in Nebraska) and Pierre Lorillard (born in Westchester, NY) were? Or should we rephrase that sentence? Regards —— Shakescene (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Jordan Mott wasn't born and raised in the Bronx, I think that he'd have to be considered an "immigrant". (And thanks for explaining the Wiki editors' problems. Between vandals and the well-intentioned, you must have your hands full.)Cwkmail (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry, I've been really unactive on Wiki this summer, just saw your message today! Glad there are people out there still battling these fools. I have no idea why they're so insistent. It's not like it isn't acknowledged elsewhere in on the page for its spire. Drumz0rz (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my Nazism vs. Fascism question on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Best ref desk answer I've read in ages. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise here: broad in scope yet pithy, and rich in relevant internal links. I couldn't have done nearly as well myself, and appreciate having good models for answers like yours that make the RefDesks so valuable. On behalf of us all, keep up the good work! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shakescene, sorry to have questioned your assertion on the Reference Desk, but I was concerned since I had personal experience in that case. Not only was I one of the editorial leads for Encarta Africana (and for the larger Africana project of which it was part), but I went on to do quite a bit of freelance writing for the main body of Encarta. Needless to say, I am sorry to see it disappear. I don't know whether it would be appropriate to query me about Encarta (due to WP:NOR). I think that there is a Salon article out there about Africana that could serve as a 3rd-party source. Also, I was never actually on the Encarta staff. Africana was produced by a separate company named "Afropedia" that had a contractual relationship with Microsoft. When I worked for the main Encarta, it was on a freelance, contract basis. I knew a few of the main people there and even spent a few days at the office in Redmond, Washington, but I can't testify to the inner workings. After taking this into consideration, let me know if I can be of any help. Best wishes, Marco polo (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know that the question of expanding the use of the YYYY-MM-DD format has arisen once again, at [3]--VMAsNYC (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much has been said there, about your original intention. Your clarification might be helpful, and I'm eagerly waiting for it. Thanks. HOOTmag (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct me here if you think I mispoke.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just saw your comment in the Revision history of 2008 World Series. GA is the abbreviation of "Games Ahead" and is opposite to "GB". So the champions have the "GA:X" over the second place teams--NullSpace (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and your kind words. I noticed that you are a New Yorker. I don't know if you are a Mets or Yankees fan. If the latter, please accept my congratulations -- as a Phillies fan -- for your team's resounding victory. The Yankees clearly were the better team, as well as the best team in baseball! Eagle4000 (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the incorrect assumption .... Glad to hear you were rooting for the Phillies in this year's Series! Pedro did help us win the division, with his several good starts in the latter part of the season. I think Charlie Manuel deserves Mgr of the Year, for the way he managed his shaky bullpen (and rotation) to get back to the World Series the year after winning it (not an easy feat). Eagle4000 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any confusion. That means that Montreal leads the series. If you want to edit it to make it clearer then feel free. --FPAtl AEC♥ T C 01:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened here, but I assume one of my fat fingers hit the wrong bit of my phone screen. It certainly wasn't intentional, so thank you for fixing my mess. --Dweller (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, in-depth, answer to the question about how to contribute. --SPhilbrickT 18:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At least some of the answer seems to have helped the enquirer, but we'll see what happens. Happy Holidays. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shakescene, with regard to History of the Jews in Greece, yeah we generally don't make threats in edit summaries, especially empty threats like blocking or banning an entire /16 IP range. My recommendation is that on the second or third go-round of reverting unexplained removal you drop a note on the article talk page with a brief explanation of why the text should remain (and adding a source is always ideal of course, although this editor clearly has an agenda). Then you can just use "rv - per talk page [link]" or "rv - pls discuss on talk [link]" in your edit summary and the onus is on the other editor to explain. This particular article is a candidate for short-term page protection (low-traffic, persistent edit-warring), if I see more activity there I'll consider protection. Not that it will do much good if they're really determined. The other article does indeed have enough IP editing that for now we'll have to tough it out. Dropping a source onto the relevant paragraphs would really help of course, "unexplained removal of sourced text" is a pretty easy revert rationale. Franamax (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, and came upon these pages more or less by accident. The sources for the paragraph are in the paragraph itself, but the whole Thessaloniki article is a long translation from the French (see Talk:History of the Jews of Thessaloniki). I'm just not competent to argue the merits, which is why I kept asking the IP to give some reasons. I could transfer the discussion to that article's talk page, which is what I was suggesting as I started composing the message on the assumption that BJB was a knowledgeable contributor the the page. (As I finished composing it, I realized his interest was closer to mine, in reducing vandalism.) I have no interest in becoming a general page-patroller, and try to stay away from most ANI-type discussions. This is the first time I've ever used (or felt the need to use) warning templates, since I usually compose my own advisories on the rare occasions it's become necessary. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used a warning template in my wiki-career, I have always felt that a personal message carries far more impact. Put yourself in the place of a kid on study break or in a library doing vandalism and they get a message "I know what you're up to, don't you think it's time to stop now" - you gotta figure the hair will stand up on the back of their neck and they'll look around to see if someone is looking at them. Unfortunately, the patrolling set often ignore those informal messages and place a milder warning after - I could go on about that... :)

The three of us all seem to have the same objective, maintaining quality in articles we really don't know much about. I have a few extra tabs at the top of the page to help with that now, is all. Roving-IP address editors with an agenda are tough to deal with, probably the toughest, so patience really helps. I can read a bit of French, maybe there's some way to pin down a specific source. Any ideas? Franamax (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your seeing both sides here, I would have given you a smiley, but since you love theatre, I think you'll appreciate these masks, which express that everything has two sides. — Sebastian 11:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at the Village Pump regarding using AWB to semi-automatically remove WP:Words to avoid. You got this notice because you have participated in a discussion regarding this in the recent past. Your input is welcomed. Gigs (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shakescene. You have new messages at Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I don't see any discussion at the talk page, but regardless. I'm fine with the color to differentiate leagues. Our table is basically the inverse of List of NBA champions. That list has the Eastern and Western champs in set columns and highlights the winners, we have the winner and loser in set columns and highlight the leagues. I'm fine with that (though I don't think expansion/WC/etc variants are needed), but the color needs to be visible as (I hope) it is now. As for the images, did my fix work? I just added a width restriction onto the table as I did in Major League Baseball All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award to let the images fit. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake, I was looking at Talk:List of World Series winners which you originally linked me to, not Talk:List of World Series champions. As far as your solution goes, I don't mind the idea of AL/NL columns highlighting a winner rather than Winner/Loser highlighting the league, but I don't like the overly complex winner and AL/NL win columns you've got in that suggestion. I think the table could look effectively identical to how it does now, just altering what the headers and order are. However, that solution will 1. Take a lot of time/effort and more importantly 2. Take away from the fundamental question of the list which is who won. I told KV5 I liked the NBA format, but the more I think about it the more this style makes more sense. The question is who won, that is the topic which should be controlling in terms of columns. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, as noted there, this list is per the style of List of Stanley Cup champions, so each style has precedent. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you used "< u >" and so on to illustrate the <u> tag in your recent contribution to the Reference Desk (then had to explain that the spaces were there to make the tag show up literally, not to be interpreted). Just FYI, anything enclosed in <nowiki>…</nowiki> tags is shown literally - this applies both to wikimarkup (so '''not''' bold, A signature looks like this: ~~~~ and {{footballbox }} work without the content being interpreted) and to HTML tags (<u>Nope, not underlined</u> or <big><big><big>Not too big</big></big></big>). Hope that comes in useful! Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 13:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried nowiki/nowiki, code/code and nocode/nocode and for some reason none of them seemed to work (perhaps I was missing something through sleepiness). "<u> and </u>" looks like this now, but didn't before (if it weren't me/I, maybe it was a transient glitch during maintenance in the system or my browser's transmission.) Have a good new year. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems due to sleepiness - yes, it's easily done. I managed (I'm still not quite sure how!) to delete about 50% of one of the RD pages once. Still not sure what happened... Good new year to you too. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to create Grandchildren of Christian IX and Louise? The article Royal descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX fails to acknowlegde all Christians descendants. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't really have the knowledge or reference works to attempt that. I have put out a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#Victoria's grandchildren & great-grandchildren, asking for proofreaders. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

mynameinc (t|c) 22:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The upcoming 1 March 2010 issue of the Wikipedia Signpost contains an article that touches on the controversy over victors/vanquished in the War of 1812. Could you quickly review the Signpost article for accuracy? Thanks - Draeco (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My personal taste would be to include the exact convention dates for each (or at least the month) and to make the full CP names into a footnote to clean up the table.

Now, as for the specifics, I'm no help to you since I concentrate on the 1920s and 1930s. I'm not aware of a list of SWP conventions anywhere in print. I know that the CPUSA has a party history that they put out in the 1980s that has all their conventions listed in the back (some with wrong dates) that would probably be of help, but my copy is with my books downtown and it'd be a couple days before I could look it up for you.

The current SWP doesn't seem to give a damn about the early SWP and they have always been extremely unfriendly, snippy, and rude when I have had the displeasure of corresponding with them. But one might be able to find out a few things about their later conventions from the horse's mouth...

Sorry I can't help more. —Tim Carrite (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a query to MIA, there are a few neo-Trots there that might know something. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about doing the SWP conventions in the back of my mind, but am "concentrating" right now on the CP conventions. One way to find out more is to look though the worlcat listings to find pamphlets of the resolutions and proceedings, that worked well with the socialist and communist conventions. I don't think the either convention list could should be intergrated into the larger articles, as they are all ready long enough.

--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, worldcat lists The workers and the Second World War: speech to the tenth National Convention of the Socialist Workers Party, Oct. 2-4, 1942 : with the political resolution adopted by the Convention. You should also remember that the SWP counted the CLA conventions in their numbering.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Thanks for the tips. Right now, I'm just trying to make a couple of columns to integrate into the already-existing United States presidential nominating conventions, rather than to create a new stand-alone list (or a new list for existing SWP and CP articles). So my current needs are fairly limited: just identifying the conventions which did indeed nominate presidential candidates, and the cities where they met.

At the moment, I'm toying with adding links to the major party platforms (from the American Presidency project at UC Santa Barbara) and wondering if there's some convenient, uncrowded way of squeezing in months, see User:Shakescene/conventions3. In the rather more distant future, I may look into doing the same for minor parties, although that would entail much more work (for example the UCSB site only gives platforms for parties that received votes in the Electoral College: something no Marxist or socialist party has yet achieved.)

[As for identity, I'm reticent on a retrievable public page like this because I know that the Internet never forgets, so why not send an e-mail to the link on my userpage? It's not an e-mail account I check as regularly as I once did, but I'll try to look it up soon.] —— Shakescene (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominating convention list[edit]

I've retrieved the 1979 official CPUSA history, Highlights of a Fighting History, which has a list of CP conventions on pp. 491-492. I think you're pretty much complete for that organization...

May 1944 - Convention of the Communist Political Association (revised name during Browder period), but no candidate that I recall. NYC.

August 1948 -- 14th NYC

1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968 -- no conventions held in those years.

February 1972 -- 20th NYC

None held in 1976.

I don't think they ran cadidates after 1984, or in any years blanked on the table. Carrite (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per:

As you can see, I cut out about half the "Prominent Members" from the SP of A article, because it was becoming far too long and obscure for the average reader. I created List of prominent members of the Socialist Party of America to take the whole list, both as a summary list that can be seen in one screen, and as a longer, annotated single-column list, ready for selective annotations and possibly dates of birth & death. I also briefly annotated the names that I'd left in the SP of A article, but I think you'd be better at annotating (briefly) the Annotated List names, since you wrote or significantly edited most of the biographical articles and know what's most important about (say) James Maurer, Rose Pastor Stokes, Job Harriman or Maynard Krueger. (In general, not the internal factional stuff.)

Of course, that also applies to the members I took away from the SP of A article: if you think that William F. Kruse is more important than James Oneal, or Adolph Gerber than Nikolai Bukharin, replace the less-important member. But we should keep the SP of A article's list manageably short. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple issues. I reckon we need to take this to the discussion page:Talk:Socialist_Party_of_America. Carrite (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your adds today to The Bronx and all your effort in the past on this. I will figure out how to get a Barnstar for you. Mebbe copy/adapt one of my own. I read the Jewish Community stuff with interest, as I was once there. How the mighty have fallen, such as Concourse Center of Israel! Bellagio99 (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You have long deserved this, for your smart, careful and continuing approach to the editing of articles, especially those connected with The Bronx and other New York boroughs. Thonx! Bellagio99 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bellagio. All I remember doing today was tweaking and updating some of the population estimates; I haven't done much substantial to The Bronx since February (when I took a Wikibreak after some overenthusiast started undoing my formatting of tables that I was foolish enough to mention on an MoS talk page.) I think much of the more recent work has been done by User:Rjensen and User:Mynameinc. And of course, you and User:Jd2718 shared a lot of the earlier work with me. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you haven't done so already, read Seymour Perlin's web-page (listed in External Links) about the lost synagogues of the Bronx; it's fascinating. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My awarding of the Barnstar was for the cumulative body of work: just sparked by your demographic update today. Others may well deserve one too, but you have consistently hung in there. And thanks for the synagogoue headsup. I'll look at the web-page.Bellagio99 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the 1790-1890 NYC census figures: I don't have access to your source, but are you certain those figures cover the current boundaries of NYC? I was never able to get good figures for the Bronx and Queens. Don't forget town and county borders were not exactly the same for the entire period. Station1 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, it's a good question I've certainly asked myself and it prompted me to check again with a more recent and accessible source which you might also be able to consult: page 923 of The Encyclopedia of New York City (Yale 1995), edited by Kenneth T. Jackson (see New York City#Further reading), which has the same numbers. This table ["Population of Boroughs of New York City (as defined by Consolidation of 1898), 1790—1890"], cites

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population 1960 (vol.1, part A, table 28), 1970, 1980, 1990

—— Shakescene (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good enough for me. Thanks for checking. Station1 (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that:File:Usgs photo New York five boroughs.jpg, is a cool map. The colors underneath, I would just tone down just a bit they're a little "loud". 7mike5000 (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but I'm no whiz at Photoshop (I have an old Adobe Photoshop 5.0 Limited Edition that I haven't used in years). I can do some simple things in Microsoft Paint (for Windows Vista) and Microsoft Photo Editor (for Office 2000) with monotones like the "old" map's, but I'm not sure I could fiddle with the overlays required to change the tints in the USGS map without messing up the photographs underneath. (The designer of the map, User:Decumanus, hasn't made any mark on Wikipedia since 2006, so it's hard to ask for his help.) Want to experiment yourself to see what you can come up with? By the way, what browser do you use? —— Shakescene (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While checking for more information about the USGS map, I ran across this archived discussion from 2005 (!), giving the rationale for favoring the other map: Talk:New York City/Archive 6#Too many photos, Poorly placed photos. (If you glance over the other discussions on that page, you can see that some issues on this much-visited Featured Article change very little.) My own opinion is that most readers aren't coming for or expecting precise boundaries between the boroughs, and the fuzziness of some lines is outweighed by avoiding all those tiny numbers and color-key confusions. (As for being language-neutral, most European languages in Roman alphabets use the same names for New York boroughs -- as vs. "New York" itself -- as does English, while those that use different alphabets or names are certainly free to make good use of the other map.) —— Shakescene (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going the table you made looks great, for the New York City article, do you think putting it in a collapsible box like this

New Netherland series
Exploration
Fortifications:
Fort Amsterdam Fort Nassau (North) Fort Orange Fort Nassau (South) Fort Goede Hoop De Wal Fort Casimir Fort Altena Fort Wilhelmus Fort Beversreede Fort Nya Korsholm De Rondout
Settlements:
Noten Eylandt Nieuw Amsterdam Rensselaerswijck Nieuw Haarlem Beverwijck Wiltwijk Bergen Pavonia Vriessendael Achter Col Vlissingen Oude Dorpe Colen Donck Greenwich Heemstede Rustdorp Gravesende Breuckelen Nieuw Amersfoort Midwout Nieuw Utrecht Boswijk Swaanendael Nieuw Amstel Nieuw Dorp
The Patroon System
Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions
Cornelius Jacobsen May (1620–25) Willem Verhulst (1625–26) Peter Minuit (1626–32) Sebastiaen Jansen Krol (1632–33) Wouter van Twiller (1633–38) Willem Kieft (1638–47) Peter Stuyvesant (1647–64)
People of New Netherland
New Netherlander Twelve Men Eight Men Nine Men
Flushing Remonstrance
v t e

would look neater figuratively and literally for the individual articles on the boroughs? The table is still accesible, doesn't interfere with the formatting and everybody likes to click on a box, (I do, but I'm also retarded so...) it makes the webpage a bit interactive.

7mike5000 (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for attorneys general or attorney generals and your note “So there are certainly good strong sources for that usage, although I have not the slightest doubt that you can also find some utterly-respectable sources that use "attorney generals.", the explanation might be that the persons in question are semantically not attorneys but generals designates (attorney generals). Any further thought? Mr.Bitpart (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was just speculating on the drift that changed majors general to major generals (as far back as Oliver Cromwell's time). Attorneys-general designate and Attorneys-general elect are actually clearer formulations, as are heirs presumptive and Vicars General. ¶ But you may be using the word "designate" in a technical linguistic sense that I don't know because I'm no linguist. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Then a similar problem is that the plurals of ‘governor general’ in which the ‘general’ serves as a postpositive adjective; only the noun goes for inflection. In other cases, however, they are like a compound of like nouns, e.g., composer-director. So should the plural inflection is to be on the prominence or importance of a noun of a compound as such the other noun is to be an adjective noun unless, for example, the compound is a two like nouns?

Or is the term ‘general’ to be meant as ‘at large’, rather than referring of a person who is in command? The former case is then a prepositional phrase in subtle for ‘governor in general’. Mr.Bitpart (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least in their present form, General is an adjective that modifies Attorney[s], Governor[s], Secretary/ies, Vicar[s], Inspectors etc., just as Apparent and Presumptive modify Heir[s] and Martial modifies Court[s]. Some states have an Attorney General and a General Treasurer; in each case but in different relative positions, General is an adjective. However, long usage has turned General[s] into a noun modified by such words as Major, Brigadier and Lieutenant (and in other countries, Colonel and Captain). I'm not sure about the origin of Sergeant Major, almost always pluralized as Sergeant Majors rather than Sergeants Major. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that it has historically not been semantically equivalence of ‘military general’ but of the term ‘public’ equivalence?

Also, the classification of those words as Post-positive adjective seems little bit blur for my understanding, but examples like ‘junior, senior, emeritus’ seem alright. Mr.Bitpart (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What were talking about? I didn't add any link to Lennart Bernadotte; I was adding his ancestry box that was all. Also are you sure you should be creating a page about the Grandchildren of Lennart Bernadotte? I don't think they are that notable.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a current, and new (14 hours old) discussion on WT:RD that you archived, which I have un-archived. It's not fair to shuffle a discussion involving the community and evaluating the sanction of an editor to a subpage where it won't be seen, particularly since the editor in question hasn't gotten around to posting any responses. Please don't re-archive until the sanction discussion is closed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shakescene,

About your reversion at Talk:Bronx:

The change may be "unnecessary" in terms of the article's talk page, but I assure you that some change is quite necessary to get your five-paragraph-long set of instructions off of the bot-maintained list of RFC questions. If the discussion has moved on to some other question, then please feel free to substitute the new question, but the RFC page needs a real question ("a brief, neutral statement" per the WP:RFC directions) with a timestamp immediately under the RFC tag, rather than five paragraphs of instructions about what to read before commenting.

I don't, of course, care what the question is, but I do care that people looking at the central RFC pages be able to find a question rather than orders to read previous discussions and to follow a particular format in their replies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression with the necessarily brief wording of an edit summary. What you did wasn't unnecessary in itself (I wrote the introduction for the Bronx talk page to suit that page and a long preceding discussion; another editor, after a brief further discussion, added the RfC/hist tag on top). However, I went ahead and edited the RfC/History and geography page directly, by replacing those five paragraphs with a one-line question very similar to your own (leaving the timestamp untouched) in order to leave a clean page at Talk:Bronx. This (I hope) rendered your own edit of Talk:Bronx unnecessary and revertible. But if my actions have caused any kind of technical or archival problem, please feel free to go back again and repeat your earlier edit to the Talk:Bronx page. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual changes to that page don't persist. The bot just reverts you on its next run. (Oddly, at the moment, it doesn't seem to be listed at all.)

The only effective choices are to convert the whole thing to a manual RFC, or to change the text immediately underneath the RFC tag on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP requires the "cite web" (or equivalent format). This format does not call for editorial comment. WP is against book-report links with editor summaries of the link. Your reversion of this link created duplicate links. I am reverting that. In the future please use proper link format. Thank you.Dave (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I probably should give you the theory so you will not think there is anything personal about it. As I understand it, the considerations are mainly of copyright. In many of our links the author's title for the link was altered to what the editor thought it should be. Maybe the editor was right, maybe the editor's title would have been a better one! However, you can't alter someone else's material in any way, or use it without permission or base something else on it. If you will note most of the sites have the copyright mark and a date. Some of them demand that they be cited in a particular way. The WP template:cite web format and its family are designed to take all these things into consideration. Also, I understand what you are trying to do by summarizing the link. I used to try to do that too. It is just that WP decided not to do that. Your or my summary after all is your or my opinion. According to WP, links shall not be book reviews. So, it isn't a matter of your opinion versus mine and the best man win. Not all. I happen to be an autoreviewer though not an admin. So, unless I am clearly wrong - and sometimes I am - I wish you would try to play along with the clean-up. Don't you think it is time it got cleaned up? The links are always a bone of contention because they are a target for advertisers. If and when WP ever decides to advertise, they wil have get money for it, like everyone else. Meanwhile, we do not plug or sponsor organizations who have something for sale, be it a tourist trip or membership in their organization. No need to answer. Good luck in your WP editing. I am sure you will learn a great deal.Dave (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Greater New York has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Common and modern usage should take precedence by redirecting to Greater New York instead, and replacing the disambiguation page with a disambiguation hatnote:

"Greater New York" redirects here. For the consolidation of New York City in 1897-98, see City of Greater New York.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bxj (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give your opinion on Talk:Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias#Move.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did "check your changes one by one", considering there was only one change, and it was pretty poor. If you don't agree, the talk page of the article is the best place to discuss. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 00:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might be interested in this discussion regarding "percent" versus "per cent" in the manual of style, since you previously edited this part of the manual. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Shakescene: You might want to check out this discussion regarding issues concerning WP:PAIC and MOS:REFPUNC. I would welcome your contribution to the discussion here; see also here and here. The newest proposal seems to be to update the MOS and REFPUNC to reflect the 16th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, which would address the Kim Jong Un issue by placing the reference mark inside the parentheses. A clarifying update to the text of the MOS is also on the table. I welcome your valuable input into this discussion. Best regards. Saebvn (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you ask someone else to close the discussion on the ancestry box discussion? The administrator doesn't seem like he'll come back anytime soon and this discussion been going on for at least five months.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was misled by the "I'm back" statement on his talk page, which wasn't posted, as it first appeared to me, some time in November, but at the end of August, which is also his last recorded contribution to Wikipedia. He may well be doing some technical stuff with 'bots that isn't recorded here (but, say, at Wikimedia), but it doesn't look like he'll be active again soon, and if he is, his first priority will be archiving things that expire at the end of the year (like free, unmetered access to The New York Times archives).

Do you have any thoughts about a technically-competent, fair-minded administrator who (unlike Thumperward) hasn't been previously involved with Ahnentafels or genealogy?

Happy Holidays (you can catch the Queen's Christmas Message on the BBC website). —— Shakescene (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I post something on the Help desk. And Happy Holidays to you too!--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My hidden page is so well hidden that even *I* lost track of it for awhile. Like 3 months. Excellent addition here:[4] And I decided to keep the Big Al mugshot, in a slightly altered context.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

--Kumioko (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime in the past you expressed an interest in getting WebCiteBOT running again or replaced. WebCiteBOT was a bot that submitted links to WebCitation.org in order to combat WP:LINKROT. I have recently started a WebCiteBOT Replacement Task Force to help coordinate an effort to do just that. I am cordially inviting you to express your opinion on the matter if you are interested. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 15:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored the final 2010 U.S. Census population in the article "New York City": 8,175,133. Although this figure has been disputed by Mayor Bloomberg and others, this is the official population for New York until the dispute is resolved with the Census Bureau. Until then, the final 2010 U.S. Census figure or later Census Bureau estimate should be used. Other figures (2009 estimate, City Council "disputed" figures, Chamber of Commerce estimates, etc.) aren't considered valid in Wikipedia.Mason.Jones (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with all those other sources and estimates (other than last year's estimates for 1 July 2009). I just used what appeared to me to be the latest (March 2011) U.S. Census figures at the county level for the 1 April 2010 decennial census, which I found at the U.S. Census web-site (as cited). I deliberately refrained from using their estimate for 1 July 2010, and used the census number they gave for 1 April 2010, although I'm not sure why those borough-level numbers are presented as estimates, rather than final. Any clarification or references you could give would be most helpful, since I spent a lot of time last night updating in several articles as best I could various numbers from 2009, 2008, etc., as well as 2010 numbers given without any official U.S. census reference (perhaps numbers used by City Hall or the Chamber of Commerce). Thanks. You can see my own arithmetic and sources at Template:NYC boroughs. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)