Jump to content

User talk:Student7/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.159.6 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your page. Thanks for discussing this. Student7 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rhode Island Army National Guard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Lee (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) 08:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saint Martin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Order of Saint John (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) 08:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Occidental Vacation Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RCI (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, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Antalya citation needed tags

Hi. In these edits to the Antalya article you removed a (perfectly valid) {{Refimprove}} and replaced it with more than 50 {{citation needed}} ones. Was there any reason for this? (You might want to check out the "When not to use this template" section of {{citation needed}}) I'm reverting it anyways, just figured I'd give you a heads up. Cheers, Nikthestunned 16:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

16 is still too many, especially when the article has a tag stating that there are general referencing problems and all are in one section. I agreed with 3 of the placements so have removed the contentious uncited material. Cheers, Nikthestunned 08:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Bombus affinis

Hi Student 7, I don't feel that the source, Gresser, Joseph (April 2, 2014). "Pests likely to survive bitter winter, unfortunately". The Chronicle (Barton, Vermont). pp. 15A., is a reliable authority on whether Bombus affinis is extinct in Vermont. What source does Mr. Gresser cite? It would be better to use that. This site shows some spot searches for the bee and it does not appear to be in New England. The Chronicle source isn't accessible on line, therefore difficult to check. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 02:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No. But they are "pretty reliable" usually. He got this from some Vermont state scientist who hasn't written a paper or anything. Sorry for them not being online. They are a small paper. The state thinks they are extinct. I can appreciate that we want some better, funded analysis and all that. Could be some while before that happens. As far as Vermont is concerned, they're gone. Student7 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Student 7. I suggest that it's more appropriate to say that none have been detected in New England, since the data that I cite doesn't show any test sites in Vermont. If there's no data, just the opinion of an individual, unsupported by actual science, it's probably inappropriate to report it as "most likely extinct in the state of Vermont." Instead in the Bombus affinis article, one could say, using the citation, that ombus affinis has been found only in Illinois, Iowa, Maryland and Southern Ontario. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree.
Maybe the other NE states have more money. Poor Vermont is smaller than many large counties and just doesn't have the money for a WP:RS type study. Your paraphrasing gives us the best of both: doubt that they are a viable species in NE, but lacking scientific proof. Student7 (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

United States Border Patrol

Hi there. I noticed your recent edit and I'm hoping we can work together to rewrite it. I honestly can't remember if I wrote the "large force" part, but the intent was to convey the notion that one of the reasons this law enforcement agency has lost more officers in the line of duty than any other in the United States, is because it's also the second largest in the United States. As well, the officers often patrol alone in dangerous places. That's where the "large force" bit came from. I'll see if I can find a reference as well. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Right. I was just trying to convey the same thing. Just trying to make the paragraph agree in magnitude. I now understand what the material was trying to say about the large force. As you point out, a citation would be nice to convey that. Kind of needs another cite anyway. I don't think the chart conveys the types of danger which an officer is exposed to. But the danger of straying into subjective threats to life jeopardizes the objectivity (without a npov citation) of the article IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I remember seeing something somewhere about the increased degree of danger faced by the Border Patrol. I'll look for a reliable source. Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edits

Just curious why you keep changing the Naval Academy Preps page, when the information is helpful to prospective NAPS students as well as informational — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naps14 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI. This says (in part) "School articles should also specifically not include:....Trivia which is only of interest to pupils in the school (such as school timetables..." Thanks for communicating on this issue. Student7 (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Orleans County, Vermont may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
  • <ref>{{Cite news | first=Joseph | last=Gresser | title=A history of Vermont through architecture (review of ''Buildings of Vermont'' by Glenn M. Andres and Curtis B. Johnson | url=| work= |
  • book | author = |title = Rural Community Transportation Large Format Bus Schedule - The Highlander (Newport/Derby/Derby Line | publisher = | year = 2008}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Barton Academy (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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • "<ref>{{Cite news | first=Joseph | last=Gresser | title=A history of Vermont through architecture (review of ''Buildings of Vermont'' by Glenn M. Andres and Curtis B. Johnson | url=| work= |
  • * Robert Kinsey (1965?) state representative from Craftsbury (1970-2000

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Irina Iordachescu

Hi Student7 . Thanks so much for trying to clean this up today, but I subsequently noticed that an editor with the same name as the subject had pasted in a massive copyvio from her website last June with this edit and in the process removed all your previous work, over-writing it with appalling unreferenced and ungrammatical puffery. I had to revert the article to the last clean version. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Too bad these subjects can't leave well-enough alone. Or at least point me to them. But WP:RS is important and I couldn't have done that (in Romanian, doubtless). Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm Logical Cowboy. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Deep frying, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please see WP:RS. That was not a reliable source. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. It is hard to find WP:RS on any food preparation topic. They are, after all, recipes, but I think I succeeded in finding three. Student7 (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Quoting pov sources

I hope that you didn't really mean that - of course we quote reliable sources that are pov, it is the article as a whole that needs to meet NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I meant that we don't paraphrase a pov portion of an otherwise npov/rs so we say that Group x are truly idiots. Nearly all large rs sources I read have, somewhere in them, povs that really don't belong in an npov encyclopedia.
I agree that "quote" may have been the wrong term. If Notable Politician A says that Notable President B is truly an idiot, (and the source is rs) I suppose it will wind up in at least two articles. Student7 (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Having said that, I think I would just confuse the issue at this point, by conceding your point on the talk page. You already corrected my wording in the succeeding edit summary. Student7 (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of marriage article

Why did you remove the quote from G B Shaw? You said it was POV. Well, of course it was POV - it was Shaw's own POV that is presented to readers. His views are not endorsed, they are simply explained in the article. The article is called 'Criticism of marriage' and as such it describes the ideas of authors who dissagree with marriage. It does not endorse these ideas, it just presents them in the article. That is the scope of that article - to describe the criticisms of marriage that were given by relevant commentators. When the article says "X argues that...", it does not endorse that view, just presents it. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:711D (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yancy and Yancey

Regarding your edits to anti-Christian sentiment:

George A. Yancey, sociologist: https://faculty.unt.edu/editprofile.php?pid=1525#6 Note on his publications he published the article/book "Atheists, Agnostics, Spirituals and Christians: Assessing Confirmation Bias within a Measure of Cognitive Ability"

George Yancy, philosophy: http://www.duq.edu/academics/faculty/george-yancy Different university, different discipline. He studies race philosophy rather than religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigeng (talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't make a whole lot of sense with my Yancy! Student7 (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle off Samar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harm's Way (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) 08:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Money changer 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:
  • [[File:CastingoutMoneyChangers.jpg|thumb|[[Jesus]] casting out the money changers at the [[Temple]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cinque Ports may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
  • on 2013-07-17.</ref>), [[Eastbourne]], Hydney (now Hampden Park, part of [[Eastbourne]]), Pebsham (small village between Bulverhythe and [[Bexhill-on-Sea]] (then as Bexhill), [[Pevensey]] and [[
  • from tax and [[tallage]], right of [[soc and sac]], [[toll and team|tol and team]], blodwit (the right to punish shedders of blood} and fledwit (the right to punish those who were seized in an attempt to escape from justice), [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

WP Cities in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Cities for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Debark (ship) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Debark (ship) 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/Debark (ship) 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. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • A Military History of the American Revolution|publisher=Quadrangle|year=1964 |location=Chicago}}</ref> 7 October 1780, where all the participants save for one British officer were colonists.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nursing home 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) 17:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Party</ref> which represents Kwajalein landowners and is led by [[Iroijlaplap|Paramount Chief]]) [[Imata Kabua]].{{Citation needed|date=December 2009}} This new government is actively pursuing a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please don't stop writing me. Who would if you didn't? Always nice to get mail. Even junk mail!  :) Student7 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Second Anglo-Afghan War may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ** Royal Artillery Col [de Brig Gen A. H. Cobbe

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Demographic history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas 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:
  • [[File:Seventh Cavalry Charging Black Kettle s Village 1868.jpg|thumb|right|Contemporary illustration

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Steamship 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:
  • Great Western}}, the first purpose-built transatlantic steamship, on its maiden voyage in 1838]].]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Nursing Home problem

Dear Student 7: Do you have a name and school affiliation, department, and responsible professor?

The entry on nursing homes is missing, and apparently dividing it up sounds great as long as you have already written all the other countries. What is on the page indicates some of "my approved facilities" (means on approval teams, and not happy with them particularly either) belong to someone else (e.g., nursing home industry which does not operate the services or manage the state system involved, intermediate care facilities) in this country. The old folks home also does not apply anywhere to services inspected quarterly in the US by the government (which are the new nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities), and which are homes designed for young adults, too.

Stop by and let's talk more; all I have seen so far on community services is either not on or inaccurate. Please start with some reading, with new book at http://www.crcpress.com/authors. It is critical you identify yourself and your interests. First anonymous student on.JARacino (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)JARacinoJARacino (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The point of dividing them up was to ensure that material matched countries. Most seemed US-centric. I didn't invent any of the material but copied it from existing material in the combined article.
My interest/POV is that my family started and owned a nursing home for 50 years. They don't now. I really don't care what anybody writes as long as it is accurate and has reliable citations. WP:RS. I'm someplace where I can't get to a computer for a few weeks. Sorry. No squiggle on keyboard! ¨Student7
Finally remembered that some of the material was duplicated in US¨centric article, which I tried to remove. I don't claim the remainder represents a lucid concept of US nursing homes. You might ensure that your textbook does before trying to reenter it. Outline from textbook may not be suitable. We probably aren't trying to be a textbook anyway. See WP:NOT (no brackets on keyboard!). Not looking for too much detail. See WP:UNDUE. Not looking for a lot of detail on requirements for specialties. Belongs in their own (US¨centric) article, Like RNA, LNA, etc. STudent7

Renaissance Island Citation Request

In June 2014, you added a request for a citation in the Renaissance Island section of the Oranjestad, Aruba page. Since then, I've added some more material and references to this section. I didn't understand quite what you wanted a citation for so I'm not sure I've fulfilled your request. However, I did remove the tag because I couldn't find a suitable place to put it anymore. You might like to check out the section again and see if there's anything that you think would be improved by a citation. GalaxyHound (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@GalaxyHound:. Just got back online. One of the problems with the material is that it sounds like WP:SPAM for this private island. And also a bit WP:UNDUE since Aruba has a lot of beaches that aren't privately owned; and are attended by a lot more people. Student7 (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Domestic Pets

FYI. I think you missed the mark on the recent article re-naming. "Domestic Pets" is awkward, and I don't know of anyone who uses that term. "Companion animal" is the accepted, and broadly use, term. Gulbenk (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Raw Milk Claims

I wonder if you would consider restoring my original which stated:

Alongside the ongoing empirical debate, food freedom advocates cite libertarian arguments in claiming a basic civil right of each person to weigh the risks and benefits in choosing the food one eats.

You changed it to:

Alongside the ongoing empirical debate, food freedom advocates cite libertarian arguments in stating that a basic civil right of each person to weigh the risks and benefits in choosing the food one eats.

It appears it was swept up along with other instances of the word claim in your edit. The other corrections were appropriate because the word was used in the sense of "to state as a fact". But I used the word in the sense of "to demand as a right".

Thanks in advance, should you restore, or give me your blessing to restore, my original.

Danny Sprinkle (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Viera, Florida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page STEM Academy. 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, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Poland

I have removed your rewording. digitisation was probably Digital terrestrial television, unimportant.Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Xx236: I don't see 1)why digitisation is important at this level. 2) Why it shouldn't be linked, if it is important?, and 3) why the coincidence with Ukraine should be reported in an article which should be about Poland, not the Ukraine? Student7 (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about my poor English.
I believe that the conversion to the Digital terrestrial television doesn't deserve to be mentioned in a general article. Does any other country article contain such a detail?
The Championship was organized by Poland and Ukraine. I believe that the Championship shouldn't be mentioned in History section, maybe in Sport one. But when it's mentioned one has to mentioned Ukraine, too. Xx236 (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Steamship

Just to point out that I changed your edit on Steamship#Long Distance Commercial Steamships to Long Tons. The source is a British publication and Jarvis uses the Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects (1870) as his source. This is a very British institution (founded, if I remember correctly, when Brunel got into building iron ships).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Spotted your next edit to "tonnes" - but that is the metric ton, i.e. 1,000 kilograms. The "ton" in the source is 2240 pounds. The "tonne" is roughly 98.4% of the Imperial ton. Too late in the day here to go changing things and I have to do some calculations on concrete volumes once I've finished playing on Wikipedia - but I really think we need to leave "tonnes" out of this.
Of course, in the subject of shipping, we then have the volume measurement called "ton", of which there are several variants, depending on date, jurisdiction and the preferences of the user. How anyone in the 19th century (when all the different versions coexisted) ever knew what was going on, I cannot imagine. I think that has given some errors of interpretation in a few Wikipedia articles, but some of the sources are not really clear enough to justify a re-edit.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's forget shipping!
I had thought that long tons was indeed tonnes (which made no sense in the light of the 19th century, BWTH, I figured). I stand corrected.
I don't even want to remember how many articles I have put that in! (I'm just hoping that many of them were correct!  :(

Student7 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

usaa

so why do you think the military history of ceo and coo is not germane for a company whose BoD is loaded with general officers? you do know that usaa is not public, that the board picks its replacements, and that the board is loaded with general officers. right? i mean, the military background was important enough that it is one of the few things you will find in the linkedIn profiles of the coo and ceo... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.24.150 (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I actually agree with the IP, and I have restored the information. USAA is unique, open only to military service people and veterans and their families. It is important to them and their members to know that the company's leaders did military service. --MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thank you both. Just about the only dispute that I think has been handled with civilty and an open mind... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.24.150 (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * Garmchashma in Tajikistan<ref>[[http://www.traveltajikistan.net/gosee/garm_chashma/ Garmchashma in Tajikistan]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[File:jec frontview.jpg|thumbnail|Main building of Jorhat Engineering College>]]
  • ], is a destination for higher education for students of the north-eastern region. [Cotton College]], [[Guwahati]], dates from the 19th century. Assam has several institutions for tertiary education

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • NC]]. Summer/early fall thunderstorms and tropical systems are much more frequent in the latter two).{{cn|reason=this asks the reader to draw a conclusion that MUST be made by a secondary source.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [Universal Primary Education]] is one of the eight international [[Millennium Development Goals]], towards which progress has

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Citrus County, Florida may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
  • Sheriff's Office|Broward Sheriff/Fire Rescue]].{{cn}} The incumbent sheriff is Jeff J. Dawsy.{{cn]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
  • success in attracting parishes away from the UOC of the USA, due to his more moderate views.[[cn}}
  • John (Mstyslav (Skrypnyk) and Christopher (Contogeorge), exarch for the Patriarchate of Alexandria)) were themselves considered dubious by some.{{Citation needed|date=September 2008}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessor (law) Comment

I don't understand why you reverted my edit to the Assessor (law) article. My change was adding a link to clarify that notary in the context of that paragraph referred to civil-law notaries and not the very different common-law notaries. Your reversion comment "The subjects of this article actually sit with the presiding judge on the bench. They may or may not know law!" is not relevant to my changes.

If you think that the section I was editing (about German Rechtsassessors) did not belong in the article, you should remove that entire paragraph, not just my addition to it. ABehrens (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@ABehrens:. Hope this is something new. Been away for awhile.
The article was about (as I stated and you restated) about people who sit on the bench, alongside the actual judge. They vote on facts. They don't make law rulings, which are unambiguously left in the hands of the single judge. So they do not require law training of any sort. In one place, Vermont, these were very deliberately established years ago because Vermonters did not trust judges to mete out correct judgements of guilty or not guilty, nor establish a punishment if the accused were guilty. For American courts, side judges are less useful when there is a jury impaneled. Today, juries are rarely selected by attorneys and their clients.
So the article has nothing to do with notaries, no matter how super qualified they may be. Notaries are not normally judge-assistants. They are "highly qualified notaries" and belong in articles which apply to notaries. Student7 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * Jorhat College, [[Jorhat]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ** Orlando Arena (now the [[Amway Arena]] opened

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under Religion in Haiti

Your stated reason for deleting the text about the Church of Jesus Christ is that it has an insufficient membership to merit mention. I disagree with that reasoning.

First, I believe that I provided a sufficient body of information about the Church's history and state in Haiti to merit inclusion.

Second, the 5% bar that you have set for inclusion is arbitrary and is not in force on similar articles discussing other countries' religions (e.g. Religion in Armenia, Religion in Ecuador).

Third, there are other sections (e.g. Islam, Bahá'í, Judaism) in the article that do not reach the bar that you have set, yet you did not delete them. That's a good thing, though, as I think that those sections also merit inclusion.

Please consider whether you would support restoring the text that you deleted. Mèsi anpil.

Mkpaquette (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Cordwainer Smith

I'm not going to revert your edit, but Cordwainer Smith and E.E. "Doc" Smith belonged to completely different science fiction generations in terms of publishing heyday and writing style. Anyone who mistakes one for the other is very very confused. AnonMoos (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your restraint. I have not read a lot of Doc Smith, as you say, a different genre, enough of Cordwainer to appreciate the difference. Nevertheless, I've read that the names were confusing. Others may have the same opinion as yours. It's not the genres, it's the names. Normally I know editors by their last name only. Niven, Campbell, Turtledove, I concede "Orson Scott", not "Scott," and HG Wells, since Orson's broadcast, Connie Willis, not Willis, Poul Anderson to distinguish from Frederick Pohl. But still confused by Smith alone. We'll see...Student7 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Student7/Archive_13&oldid=1139367730"