User talk:Jengod/Archive 10

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

:)

You are very welcome, and thanks for the kind words. Short Verses 16:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank You

Jengod, I would have my last act at Wikipedia to be a thank you for your enormous contributions here. After you first contacted me several months ago I always checked when I came here to see what you have been doing. I was never disappointed. I consider myself well versed on history and geography, but have always found something new and interesting from reading your contributions. I’m glad you finally forgave those of us living in the red states. You were greatly missed. Thank you and goodbye. CPret 11:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Kermit Roosevelt III, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

List of Capitals

Considering all the work you did revising that capitals list, I find it amusing that you thank me for a one word edit :). Thank You. Btw, if we could find pictures of the state capital buildings, I think that would be even better than the flags, considering this is a "capitals" list. NoSeptember ^(talk) 22:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

U.S. regions info boxes

WikiProject:U.S. regions will be discussing possible changes to the infoboxes. Since they were one of the leading reasons for leaving the project I'd appreciated it if you would participate in the discussion when it begins. As always, I ask you to reconsider leaving the project. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks. -JCarriker 19:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the Deep Throat talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Image title

Hi. See Image talk:Time-magazine-stupid-motherfucker.jpg. I understand the wish to insult someone so odious, but IMO the title is unencyclopedic and rather trivializes the subject. Would you particularly object to reuploading it under a different title? -- Infrogmation 05:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hollywood, Los Angeles, California

Someone pointed out that the Hollywood article should be titled "Hollywood, Los Angeles, California". I noticed that you had created a redirect of that title. Do you have an obection to the move? Cheers, -Willmcw 19:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?

It appears as though L.A. has never had a Wiki meetup. Would you be interested in attending such an event? If so, checkout User:Eric Shalov/Wikimeetup.

(By the way, your Quotable section on your User page left me ROFL. Thanks for that.) : )

- Eric 19:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's official! The first-ever L.A. Wiki Meetup will be occuring on July 25th, 2005. Are you coming? Would you like to help host? More details on the Meetup page. Be sure to check back regularly for updates! - Eric 30 June 2005 10:42 (UTC)

Comancheria

Didn't know if this (Comancheria) was a historical region or not. I'll leave it up to you? 12.74.168.100 30 June 2005 05:08 (UTC)

Jello Belt

Hi Jengod,

this is just to note that I've listed the article you created, Jello Belt, for VfD here, as I don't believe that it's a well-known term. Please feel free to vote and discuss at the voting page.

Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk 3 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)

File:First Gold Beam-Beam Collision Events at RHIC at 100 100 GeV c per beam recorded by STAR.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:First Gold Beam-Beam Collision Events at RHIC at 100 100 GeV c per beam recorded by STAR.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

Main page revert

I just wanted to point you towards this. Don't get me wrong - I definitely want the FP on the main page (I'm the one who suggested it), but it looked funky. →Raul654 04:32, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Coming to the Wiki Meetup?

It would be quite a pleasure to have someone of your Wiki experience (I am constantly impressed by how prolific you have been) at the 1st L.A. Wiki meetup. Are you coming? - Eric 03:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Meetup Reminder

Don't forget! L.A's first Wiki meetup is TONIGHT at 7:30 at Philippe's in Downtown. Check out the meetup page for details. See you there! (If you can't make it, come to the next one! - Eric 22:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Territory edit and revert

I thought that a single disambiguation page would be better rather than multiple mini disambiguation lists at the top of several articles because it would mean easier maintenance and less clutter for each article involved. Obviously you've put a lot of work into the article, so I was wondering what your reasoning was for preferring the previous state. —Tokek 19:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I'm aiming to write three Featured Articles so I can earn a Featured Article Medal, and I'm going to keep a-workin'. One day I might even earn a Barnstar of High Culture for history articles. Toothpaste 23:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Potuslists

I can understand why you removed Vice Presidents by time in office from this template (its not truly a list about U.S. Presidents), but the alternative is adding it to the See Also section of each of these articles, which would clutter them IMO. Your thoughts? NoSeptember 19:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is excellent. I am sure trivia buffs will often be interested in all related lists. NoSeptember 19:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois governors

When color coding the list of Illinois governors, you introduced a "bogus" governor (probably copied from Maine). Enoch Lincoln was never a governor of Illinois. Bond was #1. DS1953 20:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Black Hawk Purchase, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Martha Ballard

Thanks for weighing in on Martha Ballard. I'd like to point out that the change of category might be more appropriate for people born after Maine became a state. Martha was born in Massachusetts and then lived and worked in the area of Massachusetts that later became Maine. I should probably update the article to reflect that fact. In dealing with these types of problems in US History, a couple of other history types and I are considering coming up with 8 to 12 regions as categories. The "History of New England" is one of the first to be created, as it is a well known and well defined region where new states were created from older ones. Other areas of the country, like the Great Basin, have similar patterns as states were created. If this category scheme is of interest, I'd appreciate your ideas as well. Comments welcome. WBardwin 09:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the suggestions for a base category and the list in progress. Nothing set in stone. Your expertise would be helpful. Thanks for the interest. WBardwin 06:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States history by region

"History of New England."
"History of the Coastal Piedmont" or "History of the Mid Atlantic Region."
"History of the Coastal South."
"History of the Upland South."
"History of the Ohio Valley."
"History of the Great Lakes Region."
"History of the Western Plains."
"History of the Rocky Mountain Area."
"History of the Great Basin."
"History of the American Southwest."
"History of the American Northwest."
"History of California."
"History of Hawaii."
"History of Alaska."

stars on the flag

j~God: Given your interest in historic USA [if I say "America" all sorts of folks will throw hisssy fits] do you know what the origin of the 5 pointed star used on the flag is? Also, was it used on colonial flags [if they existed] before the Revolution? Carptrash 14:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well you had me reaching for my dictionary - which I keep close by [and you only missed by one "o"] but now I know who I am looing for. Thanks. Carptrash 14:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erie Triangle

Your article on the Erie Triangle is excellent, as is the map. That's not a real well-known aspect of history except to locals. Are you from the Erie area originally, mayhap? - Sensor 01:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the tip about wiki syntax for links to images! I had been wondering if there was a better way to do that. --JW1805 18:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erie Triangle, take 2

Please see Talk:Andrew Ellicott. BTW, Erie Triangle is a fine article, but could use some references. Lupo 07:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Declaration-of-independence-broadside-cropped.jpg

The image Image:Declaration-of-independence-broadside-cropped.jpg has been tagged as {{unverified}} This image links to many pages, so it would be a shame to get it deleted. Isn't this in the public domain? It is after all a cropped image of the Declaration of Independence. --Mb1000 14:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice about the Dec. It is P.D. and is now labelled as such. jengod 20:09, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

You're very welcome! But you forgot to removed the UNVERIFIED notice! Don't worry I'll do that for you. I see on "Kate's user edit counter" that you have over 31,000 edits, WOW! How long has it taken you to do all that? --Mb1000 00:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Senators from [State]

Thanks for the help with splitting up the massive U.S. Senator category into subcats by state. Was hoping someone would jump on board with the idea. :) --tomf688^<TALK> 01:58, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

No objections from me going out of alphabetical order. As long as they get done. :)

However, I'm not looking forward to having to do the Congressmen pages at all. Way too freakin' many! ;) --tomf688^<TALK> 14:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh and one more note. When adding articles to the subcategories, be sure to add the List of United States Senators from [state] and U.S. Congressional Delegations from [State] articles to the categories. --tomf688^<TALK> 00:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Just in case you were wondering, I finished off the Category:United States Senators recategorization after a power session yesterday evening. Thus, I'm about to move to Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to get that mess sorted out. I'm thinking of using the format Category:U.S. Representatives from [State] when recategorizing, as well.

If you are willing to help, it would be very much appreciated. Also, if you know anyone else who doesn't mind hours of tedious labor, let me know. ;)

Thanks in advance. --tomf688^<TALK> 15:41, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Template:13colonies

I have nominated this for deletion. This is now what categories are for; and Template:otherarticles makes visible links to a category. Constructions like Pennsylvania Colony - and, yes, it was occasionally used - should probably not appear in article space without caveats. Septentrionalis 02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

test

Jengod | talk 06:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I would hope you would be willing to explain your comment that tagging the insertion of two screens worth of copyrighted text, without an acknowledgment of the direct quotation, as a copyright violation was "nonsense." When I worked as a teaching assistant (both at the undergraduate and graduate levels), such an uncredited appropriation of text would have been treated as plagiarism resulting in both a failing grade on the written project involved and the initiation of an academic disciplinary review. The level of personal abuse that's been directed at me for pointing out a clear breach of applicable Wikipedia guidelines is ridiculous, and an admin should certainly not engage in it. Monicasdude 17:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the excerpts I've pointed out at the bottom of my talk page, in response to comments by another user. I noted a copyright violation not because the article presented the same "bald facts" in the same order, but because the article appropriated the exact text from the linked site, without any acknowledgment, changing the tense and, in one case, reversing the order of two items. User: Toothpaste did not comply with the applicable Wikiguideline concerning such quotations, which required her to identify the source of the material and place an appropriate notice either on the talk page or, in "hidden text," on the page itself. As for a "dramatic reaction" to my "dramatic act," the personal abuse did not begin with the copyvio notice. As for the quality of work, I think this is not a good article. And I will refer to the particular comment which led me to identify her plagiarism, the statement that "In 1992, Arizona became the first state to have voter approval of a paid Martin Luther King Jr. state holiday." This is a bizarre misstatement of history. I can understand why the State of Arizona papers over the events, but no one who in good faith writes about them should do so. Arizona was the 49th state to approve a King holiday. Its legislature refused to do so for years. In the mid-1980s, then-governor Bruce Babbitt created one by executive order, but that order was repealed by later governor Evan Meachum (whose impeachment should also have been discussed, as impeached governors are much rarer than female governors.) Despite a boycott campaign that ran the better part of a decade, including the loss of a scheduled Super Bowl, the state did not establish the holiday until the hotel/tourism industry forced the issue to a popular vote in 1992. To present this history, as the article does, with the implication that there is something laudable about its course of action, is to falsify history. It also shows exceptionally poor research. I think that featured articles should be well-researched. And I think that pointing out bad research is appropriate. I don't care about your "hurting my feelings" or making things "hard" for me. I think you behaved irresponsibly and let your opinions regarding user:Toothpaste override the criteria and guidelines that should have been applied. Monicasdude 19:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this is cooling off, I'd like to say that I think your view of the role of objectors to FACs is badly flawed. The FAC guidelines say "If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." They don't call on editors who object to a candidacy to devote any of their time and efforts to improving it. I think most editors who object to particular points either give enough information in their objections to enable the nominator to repair the article or repair it themselves. But I don't think it's reasonable to require or expect those who make general, substantive objections to spend considerable amounts of time researching and repairing articles. With regard to the history of Arizona article, I thought it was clear that the recent history sections were too superficial and omitted important events. And I don't think it's fair to expect me, or any other objecting editor, to do the extensive research and repair work that's required to do the job right in those circumstances. I don't think it's policy here, and I don't think it would be an appropriate policy, to say that FACs with serious flaws should be promoted unless those who point out the flaws shoulder the affirmative burden of improving the articles. I'd rather write about subjects about which I'm relatively well-informed. Monicasdude 14:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on User talk:Monicasdude

I think you are not looking at the larger picture here. You don't see to notice that User:A Link to the Past has made a series of uncivil remarks to User:Monicasdude ("Troll much?", "Get the Hell over it.") which seems to me clearer incidents of gratuitous head-butting than any others in this series of events. That's not to say that I think Monicasdude is providing feedback in the most frictionless of fashions, but I think this is partly because of a lack of understanding of process and partly because there's no clear indication that serious responses are being taken seriously and given fora accordingly. On the other hand, I'd also point out that you may not be giving User:Toothpaste the best incentives to create the highest quality articles by handing out medals, a practise I've never particularly understood in any case. Toothpaste may be well-intended in trying to improve articles, but I tend to think that medals are incidental and may be counter-productive. If FA articles are high-quality, they don't end up with serious questions hanging over them immediately after promotion. There are open questions about the SC article, and the AZ article research seems to me to lack credibility given the concerns Monicasdude has raised. I think Toothpaste perfectly capable of producing excellent articles but that she is getting feedback that encourages her to go way too fast at the expense of quality. The result appears to be far too great a reliance on Internet research and minimal use of scholarly sources (I see only two sources cited in the AZ article and no references for particular claims). I believe you are responsible for encouraging this behaviour. If this Monicasdude is raising another case where research appears wholly insufficient for an article submitted for FAC, I think you should be asking whether you are setting the bar too low. That being said, I think it is important to encourage Monicasdude to provide feedback in a calm and productive manner, as she clearly does her diligence and does have something to contribute. Buffyg 20:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Riviera

Thank you. If school didn't start soon, I'd get to more L.A.-area golf-related articles as well. --fpo 02:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)