User talk:Student7

…

Email me.

"Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER[1]

Hello, Student7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdumelle13 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Melbourne, FL

I put the section back in, mainly because although a bit gaudy it was all true, and all seemed to be valid articles.

Perhaps get rid of the arrows, move to the back?

The Georgia Page

Actually, now that I think about it, I went to the Georgia page and went through the links of the major cities. When I went to each cities page I checked out there metro status and Macon came in third behind Atlanta and Augusta.

Dated cleanup tags

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 12:11 7 August 2007 (GMT).

Catholic Churches

You offered some comments last week about a proposed deletion of Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California). You correctly noted that the article was rough, as it had just been started. I have been preparing articles on some of the significant parishes in Los Angeles and wondered if you'd have a few minutes to take a look and make suggestions on format, content, info boxes, etc. One of your notes indicated that the number of members was key data, and I agree, but do you know of any verifiable source to determine membership for Catholic parishes? Examples of the parishes I have so far created articles for are: St. Andrew's Catholic Church, Pasadena, St. Robert Bellarmine Catholic Church, St. Charles Borromeo Church (North Hollywood), and St. Finbar Catholic Church and School (Burbank, California).

Brandywine

Brandywine is a general disambiguation page (which Brandywine Creek and Brandywine River) point to.

I went through all the Brandywine references and updated them to point to the appropriate articles. There were and are many pages referring to either "Brandywine Creek" or "Brandywine River" and not necessarily pointing to the correct one.

"Brandywine River" can refer to: "Brandywine Creek (Christina River)" or "Brandywine Creek (Cuyahoga River)". or the fictional (Hobbit/Rings Trilogy) Middle Earth river.

"Brandywine Creek" refers to at least 25 different ones in the U.S.

(5) Brandywine in British Columbia, (2) Brandywine in Nova Scotia, and more outside of North America ...

Rivers are officially disambiguated by their downstream_parent, for instance Brandywine (Christina River), only when that fails, then a reasonable civil sub-division. See WikiProject Rivers for more details.

If you undo my updates, you are on your own...

Charles Adams

I am not particularly familiar with Vermont but I try to edit pages with correct links, sources, etc. Adams' page says the town so it has been fixed to that. Any correction to my corrections can be made. Thanks for the thanks!

Florida template

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at Cuchullain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Causes of the us housing bubble

Thank you for your recommendation. I will work on it this weekend.

Causes of the us housing bubble

Thank you for your recommendation. I will work on it this weekend. Sguffanti

Talkback

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at Dkriegls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at SunCreator's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

message

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at VictorianMutant's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vandalism of articles

Please make a point of editing articles only when you are knowledgeable of the subject matter and exercise restraint in deleting relevant and valuable substantive content that has been contributed to articles by other editors who have donated their time and expertise to the expansion of knowledge through Wikipedia.

(from a newbie who never, ever, signs his posts! And who overwhelmed an article with a gallery of pictures despite having been told by two editors about WP:NOTIMAGE. Ah, well. )

Talkback

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corruption in the United States.
Message added 17:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Feezo's talk page. Hello. You have a new message at Feezo's talk page.

The School System

I actually attend one of the middle schools, so that is why. User:Atum World/Toast

Pavlovsk

One of the purposes of the set index articles on Russian inhabited localities is to list the entities for which an article is not yet created but should be. Having those links makes the sets complete, generates the backlinks which help prioritize the articles to be created, points out to the correct title under which the article needs to be created, and, by aggregating all links in one place, prevents the proliferation of countless useless stubs which are basically one line repeating the description in the set index. Furthermore, there is nothing confusing about a red link. Please continue on that set's talk page if you still disagree. The only real problem with that page is that it is currently unreferenced; I will have that fixed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2012; 14:22 (UTC)

Richard Hatch

Have you seen the page on Richard Hatch, especially the POV section on Tax Evasion written by his lawyers? Very interesting! Richard_Hatch_(Survivor_contestant)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter (June 2013)

ICHTHUS

June 2013

From the Editor

Since its formation in 2006, WikiProject Christianity has come a long way. A significant number of new articles have appeared on a wide range of topics, and the quality of some key articles has seen dramatic improvement. Yet, by the very nature of the open, crowd-sourced development environment in which we operate, as the number of pages in the project has increased at times our attention has been naturally diluted. We should of course strive for quality everywhere, but we should remember that this newsletter is called Ichthus.

Starting this month we will start a "Focus on" series, where we will try to "bring Jesus back" and focus on him. For five consecutive issues we will focus on one aspect of the study of Jesus. The goal of this series is to inform our members of what the project contains and highlight those articles which have reached quality and stability.

From this month until November we will focus on the historical Jesus, a topic which has been the subject of much discussion on article talk pages, as well as the general media. This is an important topic, and we have a good set of well referenced articles on that now. Then, starting in December we will focus on Christ, and the spiritual and theological elements that the title entails. Following that the review of the life and ministry of Jesus in the New Testament, his miracles, and parables will take place. And each month the "Bookshelf" will mention a book that fits the theme of the month.

We hope you will enjoy this journey as we present a new aspect of Jesus each month. And given that as the number of project pages increases, the ratio of those watching the pages declines, we hope that more of you will watch some of these central pages that help define this project.

Church of the month

The current building of All Saints' Church, Winthorpe in Nottinghamshire, England which was completed in 1888, is at least the third version of the church, which dates back to at least the early 13th century.

Good articles and DYKs
The article Jesus received the good article mark last month, as did Cleeve Abbey. A number of churches were featured on the main page in the DYK section in May, namely St. Lamberti, Hildesheim, Karja church, Braaby Church, St Patrick's Liverpool, Vlah Church, Freerslev Church, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption, Mata-Utu, St. Michael's Cathedral (Sitka, Alaska), St. Lamberti, Hildesheim, Karja church, Braaby Church, St. Pierre Cathedral, Saint-Pierre, Mont Saint Michel Abbey, St Patrick's Church, Liverpool, Vlah Church, St Catherine of Siena Church, Cocking, Catedral Nuestra Señora de La Asunción, Roholte Church, Notre Dame Cathedral, Taiohae, Leicester Abbey, Caracas Cathedral, Caldey Abbey, King's Mead Priory, Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Hong Kong) andAll Saints' Church, Winthorpe, as well as the hymn What Wondrous Love Is This.

Focus on...

THE
HISTORICAL JESUS

Did Jesus exist? Did he walk the streets of Jerusalem? The Historicity of Jesus article answers these questions with a firm affirmative. Historicity does not discuss if Jesus walked on water, but if he walked at all. The issue was the subject of scholarly debate before the end of last century, but the academic debate is almost over now. As the article discusses, virtually all academic opposition to the existence of Jesus has evaporated away now and scholars see it as a concluded issue. The discussion is now just among mostly self-published non-academics.

In 2011 John Dickson tweeted that if anyone finds a professor of history who denies that Jesus lived,he would eat a page of his Bible (Matthew 1 he said). Dickson's Bible is still safe.

The article discusses the ancient sources that relate to Jesus and how they fit together to establish that he existed. The evidence for Jesus is not just based on the Christian gospels, but by inter-relating them with non-Christian sources, and the fact that they all "fit together". Moreover, the existence of Jesus is not supported just by Christian scholars and in recent years the detailed knowledge of Jewish scholars and their discoveries (e.g. Shlomo Pines' discovery of the Syriac Josephus) has proven highly beneficial. We encourage you to read and follow the article, for the existence of Jesus is central to the existence of Christianity.

From the bookshelf

Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence by Robert Van Voorst, 2000 ISBN 0-8028-4368-9

Just a few years after its publication, Van Voorst's book has become the standard comprehensive text for the discussion of ancient sources that relate to Jesus and his historicity. This detailed yet really readable book has received wide ranging endorsements - Blomberg and Harris separately referring to it as the most comprehensive treatment of the subject.

Did you know...

A Handel manuscript

• ... that Johann Sebastian Bach wrote the initials "S. D. G.", for Soli Deo Gloria, at the beginning and end of all his church compositions to give God credit for the work, and that Handel at times did the same?

Calendar
The coming month includes days dedicated to the honor of Beheading of John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, the Nativity of John the Baptist, and Saint Barnabas.

---

Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity.
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe remove yourself from the listhere

EdwardsBot (talk)

Talkback

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at Ansh666's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Politics

I just merged Politics of Florida into several articles, mainly Government of Florida. In response to your (Government of Florida) talk page comments, should budget sections go into the politics articles? What all does politics entail? Int21h (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, is politics a sub-article of government, is it vise versa, or are they at the same level? Should a summary of the politics article be included in the government and vice versa? (I am partial to yes.) Int21h (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"Politics" are on the same level as "Elections" and "Government." No more than you would include elections in politics or government in elections, should one be subordinate to the other. They "see also" each other.

The problem is that American editors (particularly) confuse "Elections" with "Politics" because the media tells them that dozens of times every day. Elections are us casting our votes and someone tallying them and someone winning the election. Pretty much it for citizenry in a republic. The rest of government is performed in "Politics" in the nation's or state capitol. Legislators try to get around each other and the executive to get what they want, which is law enactment (and enforcement, presumably). The citizens have nothing to do with that, though the media tries to convince us otherwise.

The type of stuff that should go into Politics of Florida are statutes constructed by the government once it is elected. So Florida has no income tax (maybe not worth mentioning = non-action), a controversial "stand-your-ground" law. Under "History" in the Politics article, that Katherine Harris cast Florida's electoral votes for Bush, once the appeals were exhausted, thus casting the deciding votes in the 2000 election; a strong water monopoly by the government, term limits, an anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment which the voters retained during 2012, and differences from other states, as we run across them.

I admit that voter-passed initiatives like supporting the Blaine amendment language probably goes under "Elections" because the voters really did pass that one, not the government, per se.

Following this strictly, helps keep nearly all controversy out of "Government" articles, surprisingly little controversy under "Politics' - we know what is different about a state's government and can often agree on it and find reliable cites. This leaves "debaters" arguing over the language in "Elections." But the election results are in and really non-debatable with reliable cites. Trying to import material from "Government" and, particularly "Politics", brings about unnecessary arguments and edit wars. e.g. "They voted for/against him/her because of a strong/weak stance on abortion." S/he won. "Abortion" is usually a legislative task. Politicians can rarely enact their promises or failure to promise. "Elections" says the vote was x to y. Period. Can give arguments/grandstand in person's bio. But at least we confine arguments to one article and it doesn't messily spill out into the other two. Student7 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel this way (I feel the same, mostly). Another reason I ask is because the politics sidebars, you know, the ones that discuss the government of a jurisdiction, always link to politics articles. I fear that the politics article may be, de facto, the landing article for these subjects (government, elections, politics, law). The sidebars have been particularly worrisome for me in this regard, as they seem to impose politics as a landing article. That's why I was wondering about having an introductory/summary paragraph/section on the government. I also think it may be hard to understand the politics of a jurisdiction without understanding its government structure.

IMO it seems only recently that we have been consistently separating politics from government, and most national articles have done a poor job differentiating (See Politics of Russia for a particularly horrible example I've had to deal with) and separating the two. But I have, as a rule of thumb, tended to stay away from the politics articles because of their proneness to conflict, so I've not really had to deal with these problems.

There is also the problem with the British meaning of "government" to mean only the executive. I think there is a growing acceptance of the usage "Governance of", but it is still rare (I'm possibly the only one doing it, like with the Governance of Kosovo, LOL). This only reinforces the usage of politics as the master article. We need to decide this before we can separate e.g. Politics of Russia from its not-just-the-executive government.

I am also concerned with how to treat federal states. To what extent should a "government of" a federal state discuss subnational entities? (Assuming "federal" isn't in the article title.) Should the national article speak of the subject in general, inclusive terms, discussing issues that are integral to understanding the nation, but may not be of federal concern? (Same question for politics, law, and elections of articles.) Its easier to think about when considering the US or Germany, but what about countries like Russia, where much less is known about the relationship between the federal government and the constituent republics? This kinda ties into what to do about conflict states, where the government is not agreed upon, such as my article on the Governance of Kosovo. Int21h (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad you tend to agree. I think most people have gone along with this logic. It only gets a bit blurry with referendums and it seems to result in less warring (IMO).

There is a U.S. state article which had quite a few people working on it, and is a fair article, I think. Avoids elections separate from the fact that elections are held, and skips "politics, since there is no way one can generalize. Does this help answer the question? Might it help in (say) Mexico or Russia? I watch a couple of small states in Mexico. None in Russia. So the rule is (I think), that US states are pretty independent (theoretically). How would this pattern fit in, if at all, with French "departments" which are "homogenous," in theory? It would be nice to skip long explanations which are similar for each state. I suppose a subsection with a "main" link and a brief summary.

A collateral problem to the above, is the fact, which cannot be ignored, that all of this rolls up into a high level "Politics" category, thanks to Plato or somebody.

I am not about to argue in their article, but I would tend to disagree with the Brits separating the Commons from "Government." I've worked on more than one former European colony, which included parliament in "government. But I'm not about to beard the lion in his den!  :) Just the cabinet and monarchy seems a bit short-sighted to me. Student7 (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I have been mulling over this conversation, the issues involved, my response, and what exactly I'm going to do about it, for the last couple weeks.

I have always been a little weary of the "U.S. state" articles, to be frank. I understand their purpose, but I have been of the opinion for quite some time now that we, quite frankly, don't know very much about these governments, much less know enough to start making generalizations, although the solution to that problem has always been more articles and more information, not to attack those articles. As for foreign places, yes, I see the logic in generalizing, as much of the information we will initially discover will probably be generic in nature, and yes, I see how the same logic applies to the US. My main misgiving is that it adds yet another layer of indirection, and that those types of articles have not been properly integrated into the other articles (i.e. the specific sub-national unit articles.) But I think I'm coming 'round. Good point. I never really thought of it as a solution to the federal problem, and yes I think it may contribute towards non-federal sub-national entities as well. I will try and bare this in mind in my future editing.

So is it settled that these subjects are sub-categories of politics? Are you of this opinion? If so, how strongly do you feel about keeping stub sections for government and law out of the politics article? (Like I said, I'm still partial to having stub-sections in the top level category article, especially as it is a top level landing page.)

And as for the "government" as executive issue, this is enormously problematic that needs a solution immediately. Like I mentioned, I have settled on a "Governance of" naming scheme, but sooner or later we must integrate this with those articles which have chosen "Government of" to mean the same thing (everything not just the executive). Are we going to convert everything over to "Governance of" and "Government of" and have a hatnote explaining the difference, or are we going to have some articles use "Government of" and "Executive of" and some use the other (with or without hatnotes?)? Int21h (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I also assume that you agree that budget information should go into the politics article (not in government)? I intend on making an effort to push such information out of the government articles into the politics articles in the near future. I also am mulling over pushing out the politics sections out of the government articles; if government is a sub-category of politics, I think such information just clutters up the page. Int21h (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would rather keep all stub sections on article where we know where we are going, out of other allied articles. It makes it easier IMO, to "start off right" rather than trying to argue it somewhere down the line. I confess to having created a lot of idiotic "Politics" articles for just this reason. The articles are lame and often stub-y, but I don't have to argue separation later.

Haven't run into "Governance of." If it were the US, I would avoid it, or try to merge with "Government." Maybe some Brit countries would prefer it to "Government?" I realize there are real-life situations where this is "hard" to do. But why have too many articles on the Government. The US has ample high level structure, I think.

Yes, current (or even historical) budgets in "Politics." The fact that the legislature/parliament/congress is obliged by the constitution to produce an annual or biennial budget might be entered for general info under "Government of.."

"Government.." pages are so much cleaner and non-controversial without politics.

I think the "Government" is more than the executive in all countries, even tyrannies. The fix may be in for the judges, but they still appear to render judgements, and there are many judgements they make that the tyrant really doesn't care about, and is happy to have someone else make the decision! Student7 (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern about mixing politics with government and law, but I still think that if politics is a top level category article, that those subjects (government and law) should be mentioned in that article. If politics is indeed a higher level category, then those other articles (government and law in particular) are not "allied", but "subsidiary". There should be a path from a high level topic to a lower level, subsidiary, topic. This would also have an impact across the board, as I would think in that case government and law should be removed from the state infoboxes' "Topics" section, as they would be covered by the politics link in the "Society" section. Et cetera et cetera. This hierarchy, if it indeed it is agreed upon by the community, is important. It gives editors the ability to do fuzzy wikilinking; they can just wikilink the politics article, sure in their mind that readers will be able to navigate to articles about government, law, etc. And it would appear that, internationally, politics is the top level ("landing") article. I doubt it will be a point of contention in the politics articles. I should also note that practice, as I know it, is to mention lower level topics, not higher level topics; so politics articles would mention government and law, whereas the latter would not mention politics (and stay "clean"). I should mention most national articles are employing this solution, that government is mentioned in politics articles.

As for the Government issue... This difference causes major headaches. Sooner or later a naming scheme will need to be agreed upon. Otherwise it will be hard to link between articles. (Imagine an infobox that links "Government of" articles.) And its not just a Brit issue; its a European issue, effecting also those nations dominated by European countries and/or British English (on pretty much every continent except the Americas, where US domination is key). This is a major issue which will need major Wikipedia editors involved for a satisfactory solution. And it is related to this issue of government being a sub-category of politics. Int21h (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I always "see also" Politics of, Elections in, Government of, in all three articles. This way, they fit nicely into the national matrix of the US. Template for each state article (which kind of governed my thinking as well. Someone else came up with this organization long before I did!).

As far as "rolling up" goes, it's kind of like "rolling up" goat into (eventually) multi-celled creatures. I may not need this at the low level. Linking mammal may do the job in the article about goats. I hear what you are saying about "law", which is interesting. But it would mean a universal name change. Some Mickey Mouse in the legislature might not result in any law. Impeachment, for example. Constitutional, but not a new statute. Resolution against member x. Maybe outside the constitution, but they are just annoyed, for some reason, by member x. I would hate to create too narrow an article that would, in turn, spawn another article, called "Politics in..!" So far, having Politics at the low level, involving only the legislature (or large city council, I suppose), has been relatively pain-free. So I am inclined to support the original layout. So what I have presented as "my" idea/layout was really someone else's (probably many someones) idea/layout.

It's the Greek philosophers, Plato (supposedly recording Socrates) and Aristotle, that have mapped out the field of knowledge. As you are aware, English is sometimes inadequate for expressing exactly what is meant. The Greeks had three names for the English word "love", for example. I do not know how to outline rhetoric, art, literature, epistemology, justice, virtue, politics, education, family, militarism, Physics, Metaphysics, Poetry, Theatre, Music, Rhetoric, Government, Ethics, Biology, and Zoology. But these tend to be at the "top of the chain" regardless of what word English employs for whatever the "bottom" article is named. The names may seem ambiguous, because English is ambiguous. That does not mean that we should employ both meanings at the lowest level. It may mean that we don't have another easily understood word to separately describe both the entire scope of government, and the interaction between politicians. Student7 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walsh University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springfield Township, Ohio (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) 09:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed this before I linked it. There are half-dozen Springfield Townships in Ohio! Someone Else will have to figure that one out! Student7 (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Will cite. Thank you for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.159.6 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERA

Don't know if you saw my reply, but it doesn't say anything about the original state, it uses the word established which is very different. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if I can remember. As you say, judging "established" can cause arguments. I was hoping to avoid that. I've been meticulously labeling "Brit" (and other non-US dialects, AND American) wherever I can. Just to avoid edit changes over mistaken "spelling errors." Too bad it doesn't work here. Student7 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Human trafficking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Slavery (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) 09:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Antalya

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Antalya&curid=361527&diff=587764566&oldid=587695331 You asked for a source and I provided one. A respected publication used the very nickname the original editor offered. So then you changed your rationale to suit the desire to impose your will. That is edit warring. This is not the first time I have seen you do this. Next time take it to the talk page. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The citation http://www.europeanbusinessreview.eu/page.asp?pid=754 states that "it is well known as the “tourism capital” of the country." It does not suggest that the name is a "nickname" but simply furnishing information about the city. The article Antalya is often hyped to promote the city as a tourist destination, which is not the objective of Wikipedia. Student7 (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The statement is hardly overhyped given numerous sources on the internet placing it 4th in the world. That Antalya is a tourism capital does reveal interesting information about the city and that is what the articles are supposed to do. Your derogatory comments about the article are not supported in the text. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization of Politics of Vermont

Hi Student 7, I have drafted a reorganization of Politics of Vermont with additional, more pertinent material in my sandbox. I plan to move that material across to this article after 1 January 2014, pending input about the advisability of doing so. Please leave your comments at this link to the article's talk page. I have moved most of the content of the existing article into appropriate locations. Even so, it is my opinion that the content is poorly written. I'm contacting you because you have been a dedicated contributor to articles pertaining to Vermont. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 03:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The Monsters in the Morning for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Monsters in the Morning is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monsters in the Morning (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Levdr1lp / talk 09:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Isaac log cabin picture

Twice you've removed the Thomas Isaac log cabin picture from the Ellicott City, Maryland article saying that it doesn't exist. I don't know why you can't see it but let me assure you that it does exist. I'm able to access it as File:Cjd P7160326.JPG or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cjd_P7160326.JPG. I've no idea why you can't see it but others can so please leave it be. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how you were actually seeing the picture since format contained an extra parameter. I've since rm extra parameter. I agree it looks nice. Caption needed shortening. Inserted remainder of paragraph under tourism. Student7 (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Browser differences perhaps. -- Pemilligan (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably. I'm using Mozilla Firefox. I may leave a message at the talk page for the template File. But my browser is used sufficiently, I don't see how it would have been overlooked before. Student7 (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Can't find where to leave/search for comments. The parameter "CJD" doesn't have something to do with it, do you suppose? The files CJD are treated specially, if would appear. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CJD_logo.jpg. But this wouldn't explain why you were able to see it and not me. While I am not a great picture expert, I don't remember encountering cjd files before.

I think we need to tell someone about this to prevent possible future problems. If you don't come up with something in the next day or so, maybe I should enquire at the Village Pump. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure: I did run a less-than friendly "computer clean-up" a few weeks ago and lost capability (but did gain speed!). I might have lost some Wikipedia (or browser) add-on. Student7 (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Caching problems at my end. Sorry for the mixup. Need to find out what I can do permanently. Student7 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Immigration , criminal record, CI issue

There is a source, on same section, describing the problem of immigration bigger than both 'US and UK.' Yes there are pakistani immigrants with criminal records, but i am not yet able to consider that how they will be clarified, you tell.. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, I added 1 source that explains a bit about the pakistanis being jailed, it includes the immigration cases as well. You read, 20 million illegal immigrants from Bangladesh alone? I guess thats larger for any country, even if you just count "immigrants", but that would be original research if I had added. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sex worker

1. You have made a generalization that all sex workers are coerced. You need to restate using more specific terms ("The majority of..." "Most sex workers...").

I don't know how women become sex workers. I know for pornography, there's an application and audition process similar to regular film.

2. Not all of them are coerced. Some see it as a legitimate career. After all, what could be easier than getting paid for something that comes naturally to us all? True, those who think that are in the minority, but they do exist.

3. They don't have to be doing this before to start doing it.

The fallacies and generalizations here are yours. To say that all sex workers are in some way forced into it is not only a gross generalization, but it takes the power of free will away from those women who chose this line of work of their own volition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowrunner340 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Imagine having a job that entails someone paying you to insert a partially rotted parsnip in your mouth for 10 minutes or so. Different someones over the course of an hour.

For more money, they can pay to insert a broomstick at your nether end. Several times an hour. For the better part of the working day. While you enjoy neither of these experiences, you will be paid more if you pretend to enjoy them. If you are good at your job, you will have become good at pretending. Occasionally, you will bleed from these assaults on your body. No one will care unless the bleeding is copious. Then someone might drop you at an ER and take off, telling you to "keep your mouth shut.'

This is not an "independent operator" type of business. Another person will appear who will "collect" from people unwilling to pay you. He will also take the bulk of the cash. He will also be much bigger and much meaner than you. He also claims to direct business in your direction, which you want because you are addicted. If you manage to tuck money aside, he will find out and he will beat you!

Your life outside of this occupation is fairly circumscribed. After basics, you receive the drug of your choice. If you have been cooperative. Neither your co-workers nor patrons are intellectuals. If you had your druthers, you would not choose to associate with any of them. They discuss the foibles of the entertainment world, when they are not watching television. You go where and when your "minder" tells you. Usually not far or for very long.

Your employment terminates at about age 45 or so, but you are still an addict. You are unlikely to see 80. There is no "retirement plan," no IRA/401, and no medical plan. No dental plan either, which may cut your career short if you should lose a few teeth somehow.

I've probably erred by making it seem like too much fun. Student7 (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Nytten

Thanks for the note. I'm confused by your wording, though: the idea that An unregistered user uses "Nytten" for his name, in my mind, says that User:127.0.0.1 is making edits but signing as [[User:Nytten|Nytten]] ~~~~~ instead of signing as ~~~~. Given the radical differences between our subjects and styles of writing (example for both), I don't see anyone getting us confused, unlike pairs of editors such as User:N2e and User:NE2; and I don't think he's trying to impersonate me at all, either. Nyttend (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Not successfully, anyway!  :) Student7 (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Central Florida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Avenues (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) 09:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frelinghuysen (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) 09:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

World population articles

Hi, you responded to a post I made at WP:Cities. A discussion is now occurring at [2] regarding the merging of one article into another. Further input would be useful, so please post there if you have any comments to add. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the leadership here! Student7 (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chibly Langlois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican (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) 09:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Songs of The Monsters in the Morning for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Songs of The Monsters in the Morning is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs of The Monsters in the Morning until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Levdr1lp / talk 20:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

San Diego article

Hi, Student7! Long time no talk to. I was wondering if I could ask you to keep an eye on the San Diego article for the next couple of weeks? I am about to go on a Wikivacation. But I am in the middle of a debate with another user, who wants to add information about the street lights in San Diego to the Neighborhoods section. I have modified their additions so that the article currently has just the information that can be documented (namely, the fact that the city upgraded its street lights, when, and how). They wanted to insert comments about the dangers of these new street lights, and I kept deleting those comments, because they couldn't seem to find Reliable Sources to back up their claims. It's not an edit-war situation; they have stopped unilaterally adding stuff and are now engaging in a cordial discussion on the talk page. I hate to walk out on that discussion and I wondered if you could monitor or reply as needed while I am unavailable? If not, that's fine. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It's not a matter of vandalism or anything like that - just a well meaning newbie who has a POV, or more accurately a point he wants to make, and is having trouble understanding the need for Reliable Source support for it. I see my goal as educating/retaining the newbie (kind of like you did for me when I was a newbie) while defending the article. I'll appreciate your help while I'm gone. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm back! Somebody else jumped in and did a very nice job of working out an acceptable way of trimming, sourcing, and including the information. San Diego is a Good Article and I'm glad to see it is staying that way. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Judaism: Bigio should have article." (February 4, 2014)

I agree with you 100% that he should. I am planing on creating one soon. If you would like to help out or even take the first step, that would be great and much appreciated. Happy editing! Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not capable of creating this article. Just wanted to point out that he shouldn't be in brackets until the article is actually written. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay, no problem. Thanks for the edit. Savvyjack23 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zora Neale Hurston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pan American (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) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited T. D. Allman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (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) 09:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thetford, Vermont may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• Member, [[Florida House of Representatives]]<ref>[http://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.2.1/9VMN-86S]] "International Genealogical Index (IGI)," database, FamilySearch: accessed 2014-02-17, entry for
• Index (IGI)," database, FamilySearch: accessed 2014-02-17, entry for Mills Olcott Burnham]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tourism in Paris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chimera (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) 09:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thetford, Vermont 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Brevard County, Florida page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Government and politics links

Do you think Project Vote Smart, Ballotpedia, Judgepedia and Sunshine Review links should generically be in government articles, or should they be moved to the politics and elections articles and removed? They strike me as being political and electoral oriented topics by nature, but at the same time, they are related to government. Int21h (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC) I should note they are usually leftovers on articles that were combined with politics and articles that needed major politics-removal cleanup. Int21h (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I would vote no, since they are, like the media, just "pressure" organizations and incapable of "governing" per se.

Since they aren't "sister" projects, I would not care to see them sprinkled throughout all government/politics/elections articles.

They seem fairly high up their own scale which is "non-profit", "advocacy", "media" -type organizations designed to pressure government. IMO.

Without "Judicial," Legislature & Executive would be up the creek with no place to turn. Same with eliminating the others. No Elections/no response, no change, etc. But we did without those above organizations for a long time and the government still functioned. Student7 (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Again I think we're mostly in agreement. But I think I'm going to move them to the politics articles where I see them in the government articles. I think it is a priori reasonable/arguable that the links might be proper on, at least, the politics articles. I think, at the very least, any editors on those articles should at least see them and have a chance to debate any removal. I understand this might be interpreted as an advocacy on my part, that the links should be in those articles; I do not advocate as such. I do not make any argument that they should be there, and if *anyone should remove them* or revert my edits I would not oppose. But I just don't think they are appropriate on the government articles, and I just don't think, at this point, I myself should decide it for the other articles. Int21h (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr Student 7

Thank you for you devotion to wiki, we are all much better people with your help. I disagree with your stance. Michael is a notable Alumni. Please stop removing him from the page. It is not vandalism. This is your first warning.