User talk:Bkonrad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bkonrad (talk | contribs) at 16:01, 31 December 2005 (munged a table). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

User talk:Bkonrad/Archive1 February 2004 to 1 April 2004
User talk:Bkonrad/Archive2 May 2004 to June 2004
User talk:Bkonrad/Archive3 July 2004 to August 2004
User talk:Bkonrad/Archive4 September 2004 to October 2004
User talk:Bkonrad/Archive5 November 2004 to December 2004

User talk:Bkonrad/Archive6 January 2005 to February 2005
User talk:Bkonrad/Archive7 March 2005 to April 2005
User talk:Bkonrad/Archive8 May 2005 to June 2005

Please let me know if you want me to respond on your talk page. I prefer having discussions occur in one place, so I will generally respond to comments on this page, except for pithy chit-chit, where it's not so important to preserve the context of the comments.

This is my talk page and I reserve the right to remove abusive, bothersome, annoying, or inane comments without any response or regrets.

Also, please don't be offended it I don't reply to a comment. I'm often not inclined to chit-chat, and if I don't have anything to say (or at least anything constructive) I may simply not say anything. However, sometimes I may intend to reply later and simply forget, so go ahead and remind me if I seem to have dropped the ball. (BTW, more than one person in RL has made unfavorable comparisons between my conservational skills and that of a wall, so I'm quite used to being nudged to say something.)

Please see the new US regions maps

There is a proposal at WikiProject U.S. regions/Maps to replace the current grab bag of U.S. maps with a standardized style. The maps also remove the always, sometimes, and rare categories, in favor of a core area always in a region highlighted in red, while states that may or may not be included in a region are shown in pink. Please comment on the talk page. If approved or revised by participants, I'd like to make the transition within the next two weeks. Thanks. -JCarriker 19:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

NJ Townships

See Township (New Jersey): All municipalities in NJ have equal legal status. The form of government need not, and usually does not, derive from the name of the municipality; most municipalities operate under the Faulkner Act, and I believe the old Township form of government (which was not in any case unincorporated, as the term is used elsewhere) is in fact extinct. Beyond Wikipedia, I can only suggest the New Jersey Code or the NJ LWV. Having found this article, I will make sure Township links to it. Septentrionalis 02:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good way to look at it. Municipalities in NJ is a little too complicated for its own good. When you say "township" in New Jersey, it can either refer to the TYPE of municipality it is or the FORM. There are 5 types and 11 forms of government. The TYPER seems to generally refer to how the municipality was first chartered, but I may be wrong on that. Also, any municipality can choose any form of government they see fit, so you have abberations such as "The Township of South Orange Village" which has a Village type and a Township form. Anyway, the question is moot, since all municipalities were granted equal legal standing by the Home Rule act.... For the record, that means that NJ is 100% incorporated, which leads to other abberatrions like the two municipalities are nothing more than an airport (Teterboro, New Jersey) or golf course (Pine Valley, New Jersey). Roodog2k 14:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Everyone at one time makes an edit that another thinks is POV. Until I have needed to do a revert or 2, however, I have normally not accused others of it, even when I think it. I have not disagreed with your lastest edit, in fact, for many of your edits. So I would appreciate not facing a reactionary POV for nothing (I changed another's edit on the poll from "Note:" to "It is notable"). And, separately, I think I am getting tarred for defending Tloz, who defininately wants his POV. I am mostly defending him because he is brand new and hasn't a clue. I think it is better to help someone than chase them away. Thanks. --Noitall 03:03, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

If you are referring to this edit, I did not intend to describe your edit as POV--rather primarily the usage of the modifier "only" which you did not add and "notable" which you did. That whole sentence strikes me as a big "So What?" 47% is about exactly half, within the margin of errors for most polls of this type, so I really don't see what is so "notable" about the point. And it strikes me a silly to qualify it as "only", as if that implies that the poll is any less valid because of that. older≠wiser 23:17, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I admit, sometimes I make a POV edit, as I believe almost all do. You seem to be sort of reasonable, and I just don't like to get called for POV edit for a minor edit change. --Noitall 23:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln/Vote

Please look at the restructured choices on Talk:Lincoln/Vote and clarify your vote. Thanks! —Lowellian (talk) 08:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Would you duplicate your Choice 1 vote there under choice 2 also since you state that you "have no strong opinion about whether Lincoln should redirect to Lincoln (disambiguation) or should be the actual disambiguation page"? —Lowellian (talk) 03:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

The mop is mine!

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The bible

Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added another section for "verse-by-verse Biblical analysis should be transwikied to a WikiBible instead of left on Wikipedia with the possible exception of "notable" verses" as something that could take votes *in addition* to votes for other section, so if you support that idea go check it out. Thanks! — Phil Welch 22:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SimonP (the creator of the 100 or so gospel verse articles) has tried to claim that the votes for the "only notable verses" section would include most of the 30,000 verses of the bible because he sees them as notable. To avoid such a POV twisting of the votes, I have added a new section - [1] - for voting on whether the number of notable verses is more like 30,000, or more like 30. Would you care to vote there as well? ~~~~ 00:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


What do you think of a WikiPedia meetup in Ann Arbor this fall?

I'm posting messages with people that have identified themselves as Wikipedians in Michigan. Let me know if there's interest and I'll see what I can do to coordinate. If there is already a meeting and I'm not aware, please let me know. --Ronreed 00:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mulhern Graholm

Thanks for your advice and work on the Jennifer Granholm entry. I am still of the opinion that 'popular' names are arbitrary and at the very least that full, proper names are at least verifiable, provable, and can stand as encyclopedic information. Nonetheless, I don't feel like waging any battles, whether I use the 'move' feature or not -- but I would hope that if I do use the 'move' feature, in the future, I won't have to expect that you'll try to revert me, again. It's just an attempt to get things done properly -- not popularly. I would like some more advice from you: how would you suggest I license my wiki contributions? eyenot@hotmail.com 13:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am responding to your talk in my talkpage. The reason I ask about your licensing is because I was wondering which additional licenses you chose and why, what suitable use do you find in them? As far as the use of full, proper names for encyclopedia entries, it is just too bad that WikiPedia authors consider themselves authorities on popularity instead of just sticking to being a population of authorities on various subjects. When recording people in encyclopedia, you should use their full, complete, proper name. Period. If there is some 'popular' usage, then create a redirect to their actual entry ("Popular Name (See: Full, Proper Name)"). What is proper is not always popular and vis e versa, but if we're to have standards then we're supposed to stick by them. The lack of real scholastic standards at WikiPedia tends to drive me away from it. Gabriel Arthur Petrie 15:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've personally taken a hand to editing the appearance of her name to suit your whims, you can no longer authoritatively state that it is 'the more popular usage', as it's now actually just your arbitrary, stuck-up little preferance, toad. I will have this. Gabriel Arthur Petrie 14:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but did you just call me a "toad"? You might want to read about Civility. As for the rest, it was you who first systematically went through a host of articles applying your own peculiar preference regarding the Granholm/Mulhern names. "Common usage" refers to how the persons are known outside of Wikipedia, and can be fairly easily demonstrated via a web search with Google or Yahoo or whatever. "Jennifer Mulhern Granholm" has 243 hits (about 50 of which are Wikipedia or copies) while "Jennifer Granholm" has 130,000 -- there is ittle contest as to what is the more common usage. Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions and stop being petulant. older≠wiser 22:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Michigan article cuts

Looks like you accidentally deleted the last half of Michigan -- I guess accidentally, because it was useful info and you left a bracket hanging. :) I replaced it, but made sure to include your muslim edit. —dcclark (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I spilled water on my laptop, rendering it pretty much useless, and have been using my wife's old iMac with IE 5 as the browser. I'm still getting used to the limitations. older≠wiser 12:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Your atheism revert

I think you reverted to the wrong version - a lot of the content got cut off. Andre (talk) 01:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hey!

Don't be silly, silly! You didn't have to invite me. I'm actually kind of wary of joining a "club" after a bad experience with another WikiProj, but hopefully I can help out here. Best, jengod 02:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my internal links on the Cleveland page. My bad, but I'm still learning. MARussellPESE 12:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the page on Pierre Dugua. What happened there?

POV?

your edit

I am okay with your edit except for the word "so-called". Many historians call those who supported the Philippine-American War Imperialists, imperialist newspapers, imperialist politicians etc.

To seperate and distinguish themselves from the Anti-imperialists, who were firmly against the war.

That may be insulting to yourself in 2005, but that is what many historians call those who supported the war.

I will change the text once again to emphasize this.Travb 22:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bkonrad, I am editing the posting as we speak. Please edit it as you see fit. I welcome feedback.
Sorry about forgetting to post my name. Is there anyway to do it automatically? I guess I will read the article and find out....
Thanks for your commentsTravb 22:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Notice your edits. I am embarrased about the shape of the wikisite Lodge Committee it is definatley a work-in-progress. I hope to get it up to as good of quality as these two wikiquote sites I made from scratch: Philippine-American War and Secretary Root's Record:"Marked Severities" in Philippine Warfare
It is really sad that there is not more information already available on the internet about these very important events in American history--it just shows the selctive way Americans learn our own history, white-washing many of the attrocities.Travb 23:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon IP and Hemlock

Sorry about earlier! I get a bit leery when I see an anonymous IP address turn up for edits. Regarding Hemlock, I'm seeing evidence that is quite muddled on the subject. [2] makes no claim that Hemlock is unincorporated -- and it derives its information from Wiki! Likewise, [3] gives a date for incorporation. I'll do some information digging and see what I can find, but since I live in Indiana now it may be a bit tougher and take awhile longer. Once again, my apologies! --Martin Osterman 20:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a lot of questions that are unanswered in that regard. It may actually require an on-site visit to their library or historical society to solve the mystery. At the very least I'll put in a call to my dad tonight -- he was a lawyer for over 10 years in St. Louis before moving to Alaska -- and if that doesn't solve anything, contact the Township office and see what they say. Would those be valid forms of evidence, however? --Martin Osterman 21:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

taking a degree

It could be that the term 'to take a degree' is british english, 'to complete a degree' is definitely correct, no need to apologise. --Isolani 06:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Field

Hi Bkonrad,

My bad for missing the sockpuppet votes for the abovementioned VFD. It's corrected. And I'm still a human anyway, so such advice's always welcomed. :)

Looks like I have to keep a closer lookout when closing VFD the next time round.

- Regards, Mailer Diablo 19:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Wiki Project

How do I sign up for this project? Do I just put my name on the project page? Whispering 03:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The understanding of unincorporated communities

Thanks for correcting me on the subject, but I did a little research and, if you look at any gazateer or Commercial Atlas by Rand McNally, you'll see that places like Drayton Plains are still listed as an "active" place (within Waterford Township, of course) and still listed on some current maps and atlases. In fact according to the Commercial Atlas (which you can find at your local library), Drayton Plains includes it's own active post office, ZIP Code 48330. Anyhoo, the subject on townships, unincorporated communities, and Census Designated Places can be very confusing. Some CDPs, especially here in Florida has names that don't concide with the community itself, which causes more confusion. If you have any questions about the subject or want to discuss the confusing subject further, feel free to utilize my talk page!! Thanks a lot for clearing the air in what is a confusing subject!! --Moreau36, 2139; 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting material on Compromise of 1850

I edited the intro to Compromise of 1850 because it erroneously implied, among other things, that Calhoun and Taylor supported the Compromise (they did not) and that Clay and Webster led the Senate passage of the Compromise (actually Douglas was the more important figure; Clay's proposals were not adopted though he erroneously claimed credit for drafting the whole thing). Just thought I'd let you know. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

Manual of Style cite

Yopu queried my cite of the manual of style in a category renaming debate. I have responded there, and apologise for the delay, I only just noticed the comment. The exact MoS quote is : When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the United States. As categories ar basically an extension of lists, and display as lists when looking at them, this policy has been carried over to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), which is also policy, and the speedy renbame criterium you also mentioned. Steve block talk 13:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Norse mythology

Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology). A couple of editors are trying to force a guideline tag on it, even though it clearly did not reach consensus and violates existing guidelines. CDThieme 01:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#References.2Fexternal_links_name-change_proposal. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Completely without announcement, an article was moved from its common English name Nidhogg to the old Norse version Níðhöggr, even though a proposal to move mythology articles to non-English spellings failed to gain consensus. You have expressed interest in simular page moves in the past. Please take a minute to look at this one. CDThieme 18:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to reduce the permutations of articles

There is a discussion about merging United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland into United Kingdom. If you would like to contribute, please do so at: Talk:United_Kingdom. Regards Bobblewik 03:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

You may want to actually read some of my comments to other users before assuming I have no say on the issue, or that I am the only one supporting what I am doing. Indeed I talked with members of Arbcom and Wikimedia yesterday about doing this and found only support. It just happens that I am the only one of us that is actually doing the tedious work involved. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 17:59

Township

Hi - with reference to your edit of Latrobe Valley about the linking of township. I also don't understand why the robot delinked it. However, we tend not to have townships in Australia. I note the township article refers to a specific meaning and does not include Australia in that meaning. We have towns, but also different meaning to the US. I will change the link to town and think about how that article needs to reflect Australian thoughts. Regards--A Y Arktos 23:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (from Australia)[reply]

City, State

Why? If it's the primary meaning, I see no point in having, for example, Los Angeles redirect to Los Angeles, California. Is it because people can't tell what state it's in? If so, they can read the article... Answar 23:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking to debate, I'm just curious what the logic is, because it seems, well, pointless. Especially considering every other country's cities are named the normal way. Answar 23:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Frank Fitzgerald

Hello, good work on Frank Fitzgerald, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Frank Fitzgerald? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET if you wish to review some of the different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 00:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KTVX

You have received this message because you have edited a Salt Lake City media article in the past. We have recently had an edit war regarding the wording and inclusion of a paragraph on the KTVX article. In hopes of resolving this I have put together an informal survey. If you are interested, please stop by Talk:KTVX and add a vote. Thanks, A 09:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. regions

Please review and commetn on the example of the new maps and display on the project talk page. Thanks. -JCarriker 13:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump Regarding Stubs

Sorry, Bkonrad, you misunderstood me. I'm talking about things that look like this {{Whatever-stub}}, not actual articles. karmafist 01:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New US regional maps

The new maps are now available on the map page. Please review them and my post on its talk page. Suggestions and comments are highly encouraged. -JCarriker 17:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ingersoll

From what I can tell from the tracking on this site, you added community information on Ingersoll township, Midland County, Michigan.

Please contact me if possible, jgrosteffon@mdn.net

Mr konrad, I am writing an article about wikipedia for the newspaper here in michigan, and Im trying to talk to soem of the people who have added information about Midland. please contact me via email, jgrosteffon@mdn.net

References for Edwin C. Denby

Hi. Do you remember the references you used when you added to Edwin C. Denby? If you could add them in, I think it'd improve the article. Thanks in advance, Lupin|talk|popups 22:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Green Mountain College

You were the last person to edit the page. Do you have any affiliation with the school? I'm curious, being a student there myself. Magicjewel 05:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I apologize for my misattributed accusation on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). I have corrected it there. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bkonrad&oldid=33384825"