User talk:Ɱ/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your rfecent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thunderbird School of Global Management, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Private (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) 09:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on Briarcliff Manor draft

Hey ɱ,

Just took a look at your Briarcliff Manor draft, and I must say, this is a huge improvement over the current article, and is really solid overall. I've left you a couple of comments below, but really, I feel like this is more than ready for primetime.

• I'd like to suggest that the "Early history" section be broken into two sections: "Prehistory", for the archaeology and Indian habitation stuff, and "Early history" for when we start to get dates and a European settlement.

• FWIW, this comes out of my experience working with Indian tribes. It seems to me that they might take issue with the land being listed as the "early history" of a later settlement, which in fact it had nothing to do with their habitation of the land; labeling it distinctly makes that more clear—see, e.g, History of Boston for a similar breakdown, and note that Boston doesn't actually mention anything before history of the current settlement.

• I feel like the "Neighborhoods" section is perhaps a bit too long for a town of less than 8,000 people.

• This is especially true regarding Chilmark—from how this is written, it seems to not even be a part of Braircliff Manor proper, but has it's history enumerated in this section. Maybe consider trimming this down a bit?

• The list under "Parks and recreation" is also seems a bit long for such a small area, especially given than some of the bullets don't have sources; I'd suggest those simply come out to make the section more manageable.

Hope this helps! And really, even if you're still working on this, I don't see any reason it can't be moved over into the mainspace. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 22:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. So, I typed all the above, and then saw your note at Talk:Thunderbird about working on the draft based on another editor's comments. If you want me to take another pass when you've finished with those, just let me know! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 22:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that 'prehistory' and 'early history' may be better, but the prehistory section would consist of five short sentences, and to my knowledge subsections shouldn't be split that short. So I'm rather divided on that one. Neighborhoods and parks&rec are long, but the article still doesn't go over the 60kb readable prose size that WP:SIZERULE advocates, and the information isn't independently notable or have enough reliable sources to constitute individual articles, unless there was an article solely on Parks&rec of Briarcliff Manor or for its neighborhoods. Neutralhomer made the same comment on the religious life section as well, but I think that good information with an RS that is relevant to the village and not relevant or appropriate anywhere else should stay largely in full form. The parks&rec section, as I noted in general at Talk:Thunderbird, is largely referenced from the citation at the end of the section's first paragraph. A few additional citations lie within the section.

Thank you for the compliments, and I'll note that I'm hoping to wait for a few more photographs and other details before I publish this to the main namespace. I never initially did because I had to experiment with several unfamiliar templates, which would look ugly in the main namespace. As well because I incorporated temporary images and text for reference from the Albany, Irvington, and Chadderton articles. If you look in the draft's history from about a month or two ago, you'll find several less-local images and paragraphs. As well, the seal and symbol images will be changed, right now they are fair use images here and here, and I hope to secure the images into Creative Commons or public domain licenses. In addition, I aspire to make this into a featured article, which should take a good deal more work, and I would like to polish the draft considerably before I make any attempt at a GAN and then FAR.--ɱ (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey ɱ, sorry I didn't get back to you about this yesterday. Regarding "Prehistory"—I do see what you mean about having a subsection that small, but I think that's okay in a circumstance like this. The prehistory of the area is, strictly speaking, not a part of the history of the settlement, really, so should probably be made into its own section, even if short. And I suppose the length is fine—you've obviously got citations for everything, so perhaps that isn't much of an issue. I'll be interested to see what sorts of images you're planning on getting still, and what happens with GA/FA status on this—I imagine it will fair quite well. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I tried out the additional subsection and it looks fine. Thanks again!--ɱ (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

blech

i don't know why you do a revert when you actually agree with getting rid of the old content. silly. you are right – b/c you reverted a valid deletion, I re-deleted without even reading what you wrote. i allowed combative style on your part to provoke me to do the same. that is my bad. the new content is fine. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, should've made it more clear. That's okay.--ɱ (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Juniper Ledge

Thanks for adding the pictures! Of course, while I'm glad to have one in nice weather in the infobox, the one I took that you moved to the gallery was, in fact, newer than the one that's there now. Perhaps I'll have to go back down there in warmer weather and take the same angle. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome; I also have further interior and exterior shots that I may add to the Commons page. I don't particularly like any of the Juniper Ledge images, but I was planning to only retake ones from the street (in warmer weather). I live less than ten minutes away from the house, so you don't have to make the journey unless you want to.--ɱ (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor article

I read the other editor's comments (now archived), and primarily agree with them. The article is very good, except for its Chamber of Commerce-like tone and, possibly, an embarrassment of detail; are you by any chance the village historian or equivalent? I can certainly tone down the POV and (possibly) unencyclopedic content, keeping in mind that many FAs concern subjects considered arcane by some. The ideal article on Briarcliff would, I think, be somewhere between the present article and yours (but a lot closer to yours! :-)). Let me know if you'd like a formal copyedit; of course, you're free to revert any of my changes you don't like. All the best, Miniapolis 17:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I admit that some content may appear as 'wikipuffery'; I tried to cut out most of it as well as the boastful wording, but some of it was interesting enough for me to desire keeping it. Perhaps you can assist with all of that without too much content removal. I would like a formal copyedit; I know that sentences can be reworded or reordered for more clarity or readability. I should note that I am just a resident, although I plan to contact the BMSHS for historical images and further content (note that the history section has not one image). Thanks so much, I do appreciate it.--ɱ (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As soon as I finish up the GOCE January drive (I'm a Guild coordinator), I'll copyedit it (BTW, the park pictures are beautiful!). All the best, Miniapolis 23:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I plan to take photos in summer and autumn of all of the parks (as well as several other buildings and places), at least for the commons category if not for the article.--ɱ (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've done the lead and should be through the article in a few days (my "cruising speed" for copyediting is about 2,000 words a day :-)); it's very good! Will you be able to upload the village seal with a fair-use rationale for use in the infobox? All the best, Miniapolis 15:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I very much approve of all of your edits, although I'm not sure why you edited the caption; the public library in the village is the Briarcliff Manor Village Library, and the CBD (usually a generic term) is referred to in title case in documents like the Village's 2007 Comprehensive Plan (see ref 42). As well, the pool and clock are (to my knowledge from reading through the sources) always referred to in title case. The correct images for the village seal and symbol are the ones currently on the Briarcliff Manor, New York article (I just can't place them in a sandbox). Thanks again for your efforts so far. --ɱ (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to the "Toponymy" section are all very good, I should've worded the paragraph better. I should note that I believe you should remove two wikilinks, the one to "Smilax" (because "briar" is still a part of the layman's vocabulary, and more importantly because as shown on the Brier disambig page, "briar" may not always refer to Smilax), and the one to "Sing Sing" (which gives a false correlation to the penitentiary, while the real correlation here is to the village of Ossining). Thanks. --ɱ (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me repeat that you're free to revert any changes you don't like (within reason—I don't waste my time :-)), keeping in mind that similar issues may be raised by a GA or FA reviewer. I link words I'm uncertain about (and my vocabulary is pretty extensive); briar is a generic word linking, sure enough, to a dab page so I tried to be more specific. As for the capitalization, please see MOS:CAPS. Judging by your concerns, I still think you're too close to the subject for a NPOV; however, I didn't know that "Sing Sing" was also an early name for Ossining. All the best, Miniapolis 00:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing it up. That said, I'll remove the two wikilinks. On another note, another read-through of MOS:CAPS led me to believe the issue is discussed in WP:NAMECAPS, which seems to support items like "the Briarcliff Manor Village Library" being written in title case. I'm not sure which section of MOS:CAPS you are trying to direct me to. As well, perhaps I should specify that I had not yet added the village seal because of WP:NFCCP criterion #9. So it may be best to end up adding the correct village seal image once the draft is published. Thanks again for all of the help. --ɱ (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if you want me to continue the copyedit; I'm sensing WP:OWN (WP is a collaboration and frankly, I haven't had this much "supervision" even with FA candidates). It might be best to hold off on a full copyedit until (and if :-)) the page goes live; please see WP:VOLUNTEER. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 14:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Miniapolis, I apologize for any misconduct or miscommunication. Every time I have assisted others with reviews of their draft articles, I have tried to work with them on specific points much in the same manner as I had been doing with this draft. In all cases, my full intention is to create as good of a Wikipedia article as possible, not to glorify the subject in any way. If you want to stop the copyedit, feel free to. I have greatly appreciated your work so far, and will step back from commenting if that is an issue. --ɱ (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an unprecedented situation for me, an experienced copyeditor; I've never been asked for a detailed copyedit of a userspace draft, let alone been called upon to justify my edits this much. After I finish the article to which I've just committed, I'll continue the copyedit if you let me do my job. After I'm done, you can revert as much or as little as you want; I was tempted to add "it's your article", but that runs counter to WP:OWN. Keep in mind that it's no easier in mainspace :-). All the best, Miniapolis 18:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that, thank you. --ɱ (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

While trying to clarify the last paragraph of the "Post-Progressive Era" section (it's my understanding that an appellate court handles appeals, rather than an issue such as the annexation, but I'm not an attorney), I discovered that it was word-for-word from this newspaper story (the copyright for which is held by the paper). Please see WP:PLAG; basically, if you use a source word-for-word, you have to treat it as a quote with in-text attribution (not just a citation). If there's other text like that, please rewrite it in your own words (avoiding close paraphrasing of copyrighted material without in-text attribution). Let me know when you've done this, because further copyediting will just muddy the waters. All the best, Miniapolis 20:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was one case where the wording was technical, and it would be hard to have original writing while conveying the same information so condensely. I honestly think it applies as a form of Wikipedia:PLAG#What is not plagiarism, especially as the second bullet explains. I can attempt to rectify the problem anyway. Areas like "Media" and "Parks&rec" have close paraphrasing, unavoidable while being succinct. That is all that should resemble any other text. I'm sorry that I did not think to bring that up ahead of time. Thanks. --ɱ (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree; I see it as a pretty straightforward (albeit unintentional) example of WP:PLAG#Forms of plagiarism: "Copying from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution". In any case, I'll return to the copyedit when I finish the other article I'm working on. All the best, Miniapolis 00:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, and regardless of opinion, I'll plan to fix it tomorrow. Thanks for the notification and continued efforts.--ɱ (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Help with another education-related article?

Hey there ɱ, hope you're doing well. I'm wondering if you might be able to help me out with another small, education-related project—namely, making some updates to the article for Blackboard Inc. I posted a request over on the Talk page, but as of yet, it doesn't look like anyone has had time to take a look. Most of these edits are pretty small, just updating information, but I'd sure appreciate the help! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'd be happy to.--ɱ (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Walter Law

Books are certainly good sources, but if the reader of the Wikipedia article can not read them on-line, the info is not verifiable. I take your word for the accuracy, but I still don't know what's written there. Besides, you did state a wrong death date, and omitted the death place. The blog in question clears up the wrong statement in the New York Times about "Somerville, North Carolina" (an inexistent place). Although blogs are discouraged, and are in principle unreliable sources, it depends on the particular case whether it can be accepted. In this case (Walter W. Law) there's an article with no on-line sources at all, and a blog with (after review accepted as) correct info. For that reason my revert was justified. Kraxler (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Kraxler, I do not know where you found the idea about print sources being unacceptable; it's ridiculous. Please refer to specific text in a policy or guideline that states what you suggest, because otherwise your viewpoints are less than important. As well, the number and quality of sources is not relevant. That blog is written by a single individual, with no peer-review process or independent verification of the published information. It is completely unacceptable as a reliable source. --ɱ (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read carefully: I do not say that your printed sources are "unacceptable", I said that I (or any other user) can not read them, since they are not available on-line. Is that too difficult to understand? I quote from WP:V: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source..." If there's no link, nobody can check anything. Besides, I did not remove any of your sources, they are still there. I just added one more, for verifiability. I did the review, and found the statement to be correct. Kraxler (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Kraxler, I cannot read carefully when you condense statements in your edit summary; that is why I stated my confusion. Regardless, the blog source is unacceptable. I am working to improve the article and I have reliable sources for information on the death date and place. When I finish adding said information and sources, I will remove the blog source as unnecessary and less preferred in Wikipedia. I also will remove the NYT source because it conflicts with your opinion on available text. Most will find that source very unhelpful, and I will find better sources for the information the NYT article supports. I hope that is acceptable to you. --ɱ (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I will add that people reading and editing can check the sources; the book is freely and publicly available. Print sources standardly pass WP:V with flying colors. Any administrator will inform you that non-digitized print sources that qualify as RSs are verifiable.--ɱ (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Go right ahead improving the article, and try not to get het up when somebody else contributes to articles you created. It's difficult in the beginning, as I very well know. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yet you still believe that un-digitized books do not pass WP:V? I am upset at both sources that you added, and will replace them with more acceptable ones. --ɱ (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be upset. To get to the point: You omitted the death place, and stated a wrong death date. Since I can not read your off-line sources, I can not know what's written there. When I added the death date, I added a source, the New York Times. This source stated an inexistent place as death place, so I added another source (a blog) to correct that. By chance these two sources were the only ones I could find at the time. So far so good. Under the general rule for sources, one should use reliable sources. In the absence of reliable sources one may use questionable sources, if the info can be deemed correct. (This applies very often to genealogic info on sites like RootsWeb or Family Tree Maker. I personally rather leave info out altogether when it comes only from questionable sources.) If you can find better sources, substitute them, by all means. I hope that, understanding the sequence of my thoughts and actions, you get less upset. Wikipedia is a collborative effort. When another user challenges your contributions, it's not meant to attack you, but to improve the overall quality of articles. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Westchester County, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Enterprise (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) 09:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor too

I left some feedback on my talk page. Do you still want my help? Lightbreather (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the further suggestions, I'll work towards implementing them. If you would be okay with helping further, I would rather appreciate it, although I'd request that you hold off for a bit. Recently, the user Miniapolis has been copyediting the draft, and it might be best to hold off until he's finished (probably some time next week), just to prevent redundancies. I could send you a talk page message once Miniapolis is done, if you'd like. Thanks so much. --ɱ (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Upon brief view of all of your new comments, many are suggestions about changing things that Miniapolis implemented, and for most I am not sure if there is a standard or guideline to follow, especially regarding the conversions. Miniapolis requested that I hold off on changing his edits until he finishes, so I would rather work on these details after he finishes. --ɱ (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm (finally) done with the copyedit (she said :-)). Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 22:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. Realized, but poorly corrected. Thank you again for your hard work. --ɱ (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff Revisited

Clever, right? Anyway, I wanted to apologize for dropping the ball on reviewing your Briarcliff draft recently. I was traveling for a week in late January, lost the thread, and I've been swamped with IRL obligations since. Since I see that you haven't yet updated the entry (although I do believe your draft is far superior) I wonder if there is a way I can help short of having to read it in toto before giving feedback. Any specific sections or aspects you'd like input about? Got a checklist? I appreciate the help you've provided with article rewrites I have worked on previously, and I'd like to return the favor. If there's something smaller I can bite off, I'll chew it. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You're too kind. As for the draft, I'm only awaiting some pictures to put in the image-barren history section, but if you don't mind, I'll keep you in mind for future projects. And I'm always willing to help you or your colleagues out with articles. Ciao! --ɱ (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad to hear it's almost there! Yes, I'd be happy to help in the future, and for now I'll just offer the same advisory: the narrower the request, the more quickly I'll be able to follow through. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Some recent edits to Thunderbird School of Global Management—your thoughts?

Hey ɱ, hope you're doing well. Over the weekend, that were some edits to the Thunderbird School of Global Management that look problematic to me. Not only are they incorrect in places (for example, the introduction now reads as if the partnership with Laureate is distinct from the school itself), they also seem to introduce bias and, in some cases, weasely language (e.g., "For undisclosed reasons").

Would you have time to take a look and, if these edits look problematic to you as well, revert them? Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw the edits come in as well, and was wondering how you'd want to tackle them. Some of the rewording seems good, while of course it's now misleading in stating an active partnership with Laureate. As for the "1990s and 2000s" section, I suppose those edits are fine, unless you see something that I'm missing.--ɱ (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! I see three problems in the "1990s and 2000s" section as it stands now:

• There's a typo—a sentence ends, and then the next begins "and".
• The new order, of hiring Cabrera and the name change with Garvin, is incorrect. According to the source, it's clear that the name change happened before Cabrera was hired, but as written, it seems like it might be the opposite.
• Finally, the fact that Thunderbird left the Garvin name behind is now mentioned twice, both at the end of the first mention, "...a name that was dropped three years later", and in the next paragraph.

Overall, I feel like these changes are pretty problematic as well, since there are now typos, wrong info, and repetition in the article. I think the shortening of the Hippocratic Oath part is probably fine, assuming we can get the typos and inaccuracies out, though. What do you think? Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So I ended up reverting almost all of the changes. Looks fine? --ɱ (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks so much, ɱ! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 23:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of The Faculty Lounge

I completely agree with you about the non-neutral tone of that edit you reverted. That IP's been making similar changes across broad swaths of law school articles recently, and I just haven't had the heart to deal with it. On the other hand, there's a strong case to be made that postgrad employment figures from The Faculty Lounge, which is a curated blog run by law school professors, are more reliable than those from either the ABA or the schools themselves. The profs who run the blog have put a lot of thought and work into figuring out accurate ways to measure these things, and this blog almost certainly falls under the exception to SPS about authors whose other work has been widely published by independent reliable third parties. Anyway, I just thought I'd drop you a line here, because there's nothing that special about this with regard to that one school. Cheers!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll be happy to correct those pages later today.--ɱ (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Briafcliff

Hello, Ɱ. You have new messages at WWB Too's talk page.
Message added 12:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And in fact I've left some suggestions at article Talk. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

A bit more help with Thunderbird?

Hey Ɱ, hope you're doing well. I recently posted a short note over at Talk:Thunderbird with some updates that I think should be made to the article (namely, updating the school's U.S. News and World Report ranks, and adding information about the Higher Learning Commission's decision about the proposed partnership with Laureate). Do you think you might have a chance to take a look? Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to help you out, and if I don't get to it today, I should be able to on Thursday. --ɱ (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much, Ɱ! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey again Ɱ, thanks for updating the rankings section. I'm curious if you had any thoughts about how to update the information about the Laureate proposal? It's a bit tricky, so definitely open to your thoughts there. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for the delay, I'll be sure to finish updating the content soon. --ɱ (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all! Let me know if you have questions or need anything! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sup

Wanna collaborate on an article sometime? I'm active on irc, #wikipedia-en-help ^connect, #wikipedia-en ^connect, and things like that. -Newyorkadam (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Newyorkadam – sure, sounds interesting.--ɱ (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Valhalla, New York

Thanks for your message. I added a few photos to the Valhalla article. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you mind if I re-added the collapsed fire department gallery also? The images would only be more useful on a page for the department itself, a page which doesn't yet exist.--ɱ (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

They're actually very nice photos. I won't revert your edit, but someone else may. They just don't seem to fit into the article, which really is about some other topic. Why don't you make a gallery on the Commons, and add a link? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for contacting me. Sorry to snap at you by deleting the gallery earlier. It looks great and it shows off something to be proud of. Thanks for your edits. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, well thanks!--ɱ (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sussex County in New Jersey is part of the Hudson Valley

Hi,

I found that Sussex County in New Jersey is part of the geographic region that makes up the Hudson Valley. The findings can be found in a study the Federal Parks department published in 2000. Here is the link: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/sustain/landscape_classif/hudson.pdf

Can you add this to the Hudson Valley Wiki page? If you feel this is not correct could you provide information to support? Thanks!

guypasadena206.71.252.18 (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Guypasadena, your reference does not make any correlation that the region is anywhere within the river valley of the Hudson. It merely indicates that one region of New Jersey is designated as the "Hudson Valley region" by the New Jersey Forest Service Ecomap Project. For that reason it cannot be used definitively as a source.--ɱ (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Good Articles

That sounds like a good plan. The list has gotten very long and anything to get it down is good. I'll start in the next couple of days – Peripitus (Talk) 02:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Peripitus: OK, I'll begin formulating comments for the Hagley article tomorrow. Thanks!--ɱ (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Briarcliff Manor, New York

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Briarcliff Manor, New York you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peripitus -- Peripitus (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I finally torn myself away from the World Cup for long enough to finish the review (see Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York/GA1). I'll go through your notes on the Hagley article in the next day thanks – Peripitus (Talk) 11:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I'll review your notes later today or tomorrow. (Here nobody's been watching the World Cup. Who's winning?)--ɱ (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Briarcliff Manor, New York

The article Briarcliff Manor, New York you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peripitus -- Peripitus (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Help desk

I'm not sure what your intention was, but your edit to the Help desk removed other editors' comments. I reverted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Userpage

Hey man! I was impressed by your userpage design and was wondering how you did it. It would be amazing to know, I'm really curious. Specially putting all thise boxes transparent inside the picture. URDNEXT (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

URDNEXT: Well, you can't give all the credit to me; I stole most of the code off someone else's page and later added and took out bits, and also grabbed other pieces from other people's pages to create what suits me best. The code to my page can be found on at this page: User:Ɱ/u. Try pasting it into a sandbox page and customize it for your own username and photos. If you have questions or anything, don't hesitate to ask.--ɱ (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! My page now has true class. What do you think? URDNEXT (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, thank you for helping my user page! I truly appreciate it. URDNEXT (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding User talk:142.197.84.109 adding fast food to every major food outlet across the United States

Can you block this IP or at least revert all his edits. I checked this IP's entire edit history, see Special:Contributions/142.197.84.109, it keeps adding fast food chain to every one of the articles without providing any reliable third party source nor drawing support from the article itself. Backendgaming (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Backendgaming: I can't directly block him. I was going to submit him to the "Administrator intervention against vandalism" page but I see you already have done that. Therefore we should wait for a result from it.--ɱ (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Reversion

Why did you revert my edit in New York Subway? That section was relatively out of place; there is no mention of any type of service in the lead, and adding in some for only two lines seems a bit out of place. Leave a message on My talk page. Thanks!Staglit (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding :) I will put a message on their talk page. Staglit (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Scarborough Day School

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scarborough Day School you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Walter W. Law

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Walter W. Law you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CorporateM -- CorporateM (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Broken markup in your signature

Minor thing, but for what it's worth the syntax highlighter gadget (which I recommend) is confused by the markup in your signature; the fact that you've got a span that starts in the middle of your username link and is closed in the middle of your talk page link. When this is unpacked in a browser, replacing the wikilinks with <a href=...>, it ends up a bit confused, and maybe not how you intended it to look (your source suggests that both your username and talk link should be drop-shadowed, but in practice it's only applied to your username). The syntax highlighter looks at all this and just sees an unclosed tag, so all content for the rest of the talk page is highlighted in pink.

(For some reason the syntax highlighter doesn't like you closing a font tag with </font >, either – it prefers it without the space.)

Here's a version that it's happier with, and which renders the same as your current signature, for what it's worth: [[User:Ɱ|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="darkgreen">'''ɱ'''</font></span>]] [[User talk:Ɱ|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font>]] --McGeddon (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Walter W. Law

The article Walter W. Law you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Walter W. Law for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CorporateM -- CorporateM (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, congratulations on the GA. I have nominated it for DYK here. Any alternative hooks are welcome. Thanks, Matty.007 15:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Now there's no source saying that he had little knowledge of farming, although you could put "...that Law went from being a carpet salesman to shipping...", or you could say "...that Law owned the village of Briarcliff Manor?", or "..that Law went from carpet dealership to establishing the first hotel in Westchester County?". There should be more possible DYKs...--ɱ (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for that mistake, added all your suggestions and a few of mine. Thanks, Matty.007 17:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, looks good. Thanks.--ɱ (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hawthorne vs. Eastview

Yes, I've noticed that too. I'm going to add something to the effect that (I suspect) the NPS used the ZIP Code of the house when assigning its location (Hawthorne actually is about the closest settlement, but Valhalla gives it a good run for that title). Also consider that the area wasn't as developed as it is now when it was listed.

It's not the first time this sort of thing has happened with a Westchester NRHP ... as you know, the Catt House is in New Castle but has a Briarcliff Manor mailing address. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Daniel – Yeah, border lines can be confusing, especially when postal zones, school districts, municipal boundaries, and people's conceptions don't match up. I suppose I'll mention the Hammond House in the Eastview article, even if you'd rather keep the house described as in the hamlet of Hawthorne than the section/area of Eastview.--ɱ (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh no ... go ahead; that's geographically where it is. (Another source of this confusion: fire/fire protection district boundaries). Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, I knew I was forgetting something in that list...--ɱ (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

To elaborate on the reasons I gave for undoing your edit: First, however head-scratching it is, the NPS has used Hawthorne as the location, so we'll stick with that in the article (and the note should explain it to the reader who rolls over it .. I'll add one in the lede). Second, unless the listing name actually includes the address (surprisingly, there aren't any among the 200+ NRHP listings in Westchester, but in Putnam, with maybe one-fifth that, there's House at 3 Crown Street and House at 249 Main Street), I prefer not to give it in the article. A lot of times with single-property listings, (and it's true with this listing) it's someone's house, and although you can get the address from other sources online I don't think it's really necessary to impinge on their privacy this way, with something that will come up so high on search results. And frankly the actual address is really not encyclopedic information. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense, although I always have looked for street addresses in articles – it tells me right away what community a place is part of and the postal zone. And I know that listing addresses of private homes might seem somewhat intrusive, but hey, we provide GPS coordinates right to their location, and how's that any more respectful of privacy than a street address?--ɱ (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Which are you more likely to type into Google or Bing maps's search field—an address or coordinates? Which do you use to address snail mail? Look up a phone number? Privacy is about more than people wanting to go over and look at the house. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We're discussing the location issue at WT:NRHP. Consensus is coming down that at least Hawthorne is out, but as a native of the area your input on the question of Eastview vs. Valhalla might be valuable. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Third opinions

For future reference, WP:3O is useful if you ever hit a two-person stalemate on a talk page again. It's often better to bring in an entirely uninvolved party to help resolve a dispute. --McGeddon (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew there was a system for outside opinions, but I didn't even want to look for it; I've had bad experiences with ANI or RFC, I forget which, it's been a while. I'll implement the signature code; I've been using wikEd, so I wouldn't have seen the issue. Do you prefer User:Remember the dot's software to it? If so, I'll try it out. Thanks again--ɱ (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

3O is painless and drama-free, you just put a one-line request up and someone will drop by the talk page to offer their thoughts. I think wikEd seemed a bit excessive when I tried it; Remember the Dot's one just uses pastel coloured backgrounds to otherwise regular text. --McGeddon (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try 3O next time, thanks for the suggestion. And, yeah, I suppose wikEd has more and perhaps excessive features, but I find a few of them to be useful, so I'm okay with it.--ɱ (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Since we've now hit the unedifying spectacle of one editor reverting two others and telling them to seek consensus, I've raised this at WP:NPOVN to get further input. --McGeddon (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

McGeddon – yeah, I found that rather funny. Thanks for your assistance.--ɱ (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sleepy Hollow Country Club

QPQ?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sleepy Hollow Country Club

The DYK project (nominate) 02:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Dellwood

The article isn't completely devoid of content and it does verify that it's an actual hamlet, so I applied the long-standing AfD precedent that such places shouldn't be deleted. That said, the article's so short that it probably could be merged to the town article until/unless someone expands it, and I wouldn't object if you did that. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sanford Bernstein

I redirected this rather than deleting it. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

James Speyer

Check out the recent additions to the James Speyer article -- you will find references there to the Waldheim estate. BTW -- I worked at Philips at that very location for twelve years, hence my curiosity. algocu (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

algocu: Did you know Joe Lalak? Anyway, I looked at them, and they need reliable sources; I'm in the midst of looking for some. But thanks for bringing Speyer to my attention again, I didn't know he had a Wikipedia article.--ɱ (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

James Speyer

Check out the recent additions to the James Speyer article -- you will find references there to the Waldheim estate. BTW -- I worked at Philips at that very location for twelve years, hence my curiosity. algocu (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

algocu: Did you know Joe Lalak? Anyway, I looked at them, and they need reliable sources; I'm in the midst of looking for some. But thanks for bringing Speyer to my attention again, I didn't know he had a Wikipedia article.--ɱ (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

James Speyer

Check out the recent additions to the James Speyer article -- you will find references there to the Waldheim estate. BTW -- I worked at Philips at that very location for twelve years, hence my curiosity. algocu (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

algocu: Did you know Joe Lalak? Anyway, I looked at them, and they need reliable sources; I'm in the midst of looking for some. But thanks for bringing Speyer to my attention again, I didn't know he had a Wikipedia article.--ɱ (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

ISIS

Please look more carefully. There is plenty of discussion about the name change on the Talk page. I forebear to say any more at this stage. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9

Do not add non-free images to User:Ɱ/Thomas Peterffy. Doing so is a violation of WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of the policies. I put it there temporarily. Now I don't need it there.--ɱ (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I just added some comments to the FA. I'm curreently working on a draft for an article, but I'll try to get some more comments tomorrow. Is that ok? URDNEXT (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

URDNEXT: Yeah no that's perfectly fine. Thanks for your comments so far.--ɱ (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem! URDNEXT (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Briarcliff Manor Fire Department

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Briarcliff Manor Fire Department you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice

Your recent comment against a disruptive editor earlier today on the Wikipedia page seems to be part of his/her extended vandalism to the Wikipedia page over the last 6 weeks. The same user apparently had the objective of spurring someone else to initiate the delisting of Wikipedia from GA status by a pattern of removing cites from the Page and then marking the Page with citation request templates. This was done before I could complete the investigation with admin:GFoley4 who felt it was more properly referred to as direct Vandalism. My report and diffs for this are on Talk:GFoley4 who has been on Wikibreak since last week. Prior to that, I reported the matter to admin:Eustress with a long list of diffs, and Eustress seemed to feel it looked like an ANI issue against the same disruptive editor (the prelim report is on Talk:Eustress under my name). I mention this in case you did not see these reports and because the tag bombing appears to be on the verge of delisting Wikipedia from GA status. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

LawrencePrincipe, thanks for bringing this to my attention; are there any further steps I should be involved in?--ɱ (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

ɱ (talk), From last night, I noticed that about one hour after your fair warning to that editor to stop disruptive editing, that he/she resumed the pattern of further deleting citations and text from the article, and then tagging the article as uncited. This process seems to have been on a "slow-boil" incremental approach used by that editor over 6 weeks to having the article delisted. I imagine that the choice has come down to whether to allow that editor to continue with his/her clever "slow-boil" delisting of the article. You might try to reason further with that editor to stop inserting superfluous tags as you tried to do yesterday. Since I am supportive of your edits on that article, I would tend to support your version of the editing conduct at this time. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll formulate some replies tomorrow or the day after, unfortunately I've been rather busy recently.--ɱ (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Briarcliff Manor Fire Department

The article Briarcliff Manor Fire Department you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Briarcliff Manor Fire Department for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ɱ. You have new messages at Epicgenius's talk page.
Message added 02:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Westchester

Hi. Good move on creating the history page... are you working on the summary for the main article? If so, I won't... Onel5969 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not yet working on one, feel free to.--ɱ (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Onel5969: Did you mean to add references to your history summary? There are several published history volumes on the county, some of which are on Google Books. I suppose I'll add an 'unreferenced section' tag to that summary until we add a good amount.--ɱ (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi... Yes, I would get around to it... in the interim, I simply used the data that was on the History page, and condensed it. If there was a citation there, I would have moved it over. By all means, add a ref needed tag, maybe someone else can get to it before I do. Onel5969 (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Videos

I initially wasn't able to find any licensing info for the videos; finally saw it at the very end of the actual video. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie: OK, also if you go to the YouTube page and click "Show more" (right above "ALL COMMENTS"), it says that the video is licensed under CC Attribution. That's what I was trying to direct you towards.--ɱ (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hammond House pic

You have pictures of the other sides? Where are they? We might be able to use one or two in the description section. Daniel Case (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

On the commonscat: Commons:Category:Hammond House (Eastview, New York).--ɱ (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)