User talk:Castncoot/Archive 3

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lakandula, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tagalog. 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) 09:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Chinese in New York City...

...is ready for use on article talkpages now. Regards, epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks, keep up the great work! Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

China Daily

Please add reliable source that the entries were competitors of China Daily. Matthew_hk tc 03:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Matthew_hk: Why? The other entries there that are already listed in the see also section reflect intra-PRC competitors. These are competitors for the Chinese market outside the PRC. Do you have a reliable source that those other intra-PRC papers are competitors? Of course not. Castncoot (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

point out them i remove them all. Matthew_hk tc 03:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your English. Castncoot (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ming Pao also publish international version. Your edits were lack or RS. Do you want me to report you to admin noticeboard? Matthew_hk tc 03:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Report me to whomever you want! I don't think you know how collaboration on Wikipedia works! Castncoot (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

please read WP:RS and WP:original research. As i know Ming Pao also published international version. Your own kind of selection criteria on selecting Chinese newspaper that circulation outside China/Asia was an original research. Matthew_hk tc 03:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to add other publications, Matthew. The wikilinks substitute as the reliable source. Do you understand that concept? Castncoot (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

still original research to add Ming Pao and other entry to it as it it original research. (Ming Pao and Sing Tao were for diaspora of Hong Kong?) Please give an external reliable source that proving China Daily, Epo Times, Ming Pao, Sing Tao were actually read by overseas Chinese, as well as sub-group from Hong Kong and from mainland China. Matthew_hk tc 04:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Not necessary, Matthew_hk - I don't believe you understand how WP:See also works. It functions as a list of tangential related topics. The wikilinks lead to articles which are self-explanatory. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this concept? And you reverted your own edit on the page. Currently, the second listing, Newspapers of the People's Republic of China, actually leads to List of newspapers in China. Are you then telling me that would not be a spam list? We need to come to reasonable compromise here, especially when you reverted your own edit, flip-flopping, and changing your mind. Castncoot (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

either you have to create a separate list of newspaper with citation on number of circulation. The unknown (original research) selection criteria that not cover all major circulated newspaper for overseas Chinese, is not acceptable. Matthew_hk tc 04:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You're incorrect, Matthew_hk. That's adding an artificial layer which Wikipedia doesn't demand. Then otherwise, you will also have to remove Newspapers of the People's Republic of China from the See also section. Please read See also and tell me your interpretation over the next 24 hours. We'll go from there. Castncoot (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

List of newspapers in China did not have original research (or much less) as it was a list of newspaper by headquarter. For overseas newspaper circulation: Category:Chinese-language newspapers published in the United States is partially sufficient. Your claim on competitor of China Daily is original research. Matthew_hk tc 04:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"or much less"? "or much less", Matthew_hk? NO original research is tolerated. When I said "competitor", let me clarify that term, perhaps that was the incorrect term to use in my brief edit summary. The point I was trying to make is that all of the other papers clearly target overseas Chinese readers, it's described on their own Wikipages. So the intention was to give a list of publications that are aimed at the overseas Chinese market, that's all. And clearly that fits under the purview of WP:See also, if you've read it yet. Castncoot (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

the concern is on your original research, don't change the subject. Matthew_hk tc 04:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The concern is your misunderstanding of the See also section. And now that you've just admitted that List of newspapers in China (Newspapers of the People's Republic of China) has SOME original research, then that will also have to be removed, if you want to be consistent with a rule that you've just made up, Matthew_hk. Think about it for the next 24 hours and learn about how WP:See also works in the meantime. Castncoot (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

China Daily is published in China, so leaving List of newspapers in China as an entry of "see also" in China Daily is not an original research. The concern was still your original research of listing competitor of China Daily in the "see also" section. Matthew_hk tc 04:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I just noticed your new Category edits on the page. That should suffice for our compromise for now. Castncoot (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The only reliable source i found Media and the Chinese Diaspora: Community, Communications and Commerce (google book preview) only listing World Journal and NY-based China Press (may be namesake of China Press), Sao Tao and Ming Pao. It may biased to Taiwan/Malaysian/Hong Kong diaspora. Matthew_hk tc 04:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

China Press seem refer to http://www.uschinapress.com/about/index.shtml, still no rs for China Daily. Matthew_hk tc 04:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It's actually called US China Press. Castncoot (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"The" China Press. I stand corrected. Castncoot (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

New move request for New York

In case you are still unaware of this discussion, there is a new discussion for renaming New York to New York (state). As you participated in the previous discussion on this topic, you may want to express your opinion in the new disussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

International Transgender Day of Remembrance

Hi, Castncoot,

Things were getting pretty confused at Talk:International Transgender Day of Remembrance in the discussion thread "Article move without consensus", where we seemed to be discussing everything but that, including the use of a sidebar, notions of parallelism and consistency in related articles, and what links were appropriate in the "See also" section at a different article. I've tried to resolve this confusion by creating a couple of new talk sections, for a total of three, now; they are:

• #Article move without consensus (at Talk:TDoR; the long and confused one)
• #Use of transgender sidebar (at Talk:TDoR)
• #See also (at Talk:TDoV; new)

If we can try and keep the discussions about each topic in the right section, that would help, as the first one is getting very long and filled with all sorts of off-topic stuff and its hard to even find the parts about the page move. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

OK! Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

"Respected"???

Who respects Niche? I only see it come up on Daily Voice and the local Patch, not exactly The New York Times or anything... It doesn't state much methodology and seems to be subjective/flawed, taking into account (maybe even mostly) whatever users post about a community, like Yelp/IMDb/wikias. Not a reliable source, sorry. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The point is MJ that it's not being spoken in Wikivoice. Do you get that? And yes, Niche does thorough research on this matter. Castncoot (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Um, what on earth is Wikivoice. did you just make that up now ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I will take this up on WP:RSN. It uses public internet poll comments/data. It's not respected by anyone respectable. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

And regardless, bragging that one year's poll by one site seems to say most of the schools in the county are good isn't leadworthy, sorry. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

MJ, it's absolutely ledeworthy because it informs the reader that Westchester schools are generally regarded to be of a high standard, which is an extremely noteworthy feature of Westchester - its schools. Did you see the link I sent to your Talk page? Niche really does a thorough job with its research and uses government sources among others to compile its statistics. Castncoot (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Wikivoice would be to say, "Westchester has 28 of the 100 best schools in New York". It's a now-and-then used term in the project. By the way, the 2017 rankings had 26 of the top 100 schools in New York being in Westchester. So it's not a "one-off" situation. Castncoot (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok great but you're not countering: 'It uses public internet poll comments/data, like Yelp/IMDb/wikias. It's not respected by anyone respectable.' ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you even talking about the same website? Castncoot (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. You're not thinking critically here. Read about their "real reviews", read an actual school/district page, where it says how student/parent reviews determine the grading system. Then there's also a link where you can submit your own review, like this one here. I just did it for Irvington High School, pretending to be a student there, and it went through. $300 says it'll end up going live. The website's a trashy Yelp for schools; do the actual investigating. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, for example, look at the Rankings link. It states, "Compare the best private schools [and there's a similar statement for public schools] in America based on key statistics from the U.S. Department of Education and millions of reviews." It's transparent, and reviews are just one component. So the reviews could be applied all over New York State, and yet Westchester consistently comes out with a disproportionately high number of highly rated school districts, consistent with its reputation for high educational standards. Is that simply a coincidence, or the result of some sort of malicious hacking? I think not. The vast majority of the reviews are meant to be genuine. And are genuine first-hand reviews by concerned parents not a legitimate determinant of quality? Your point about being critical is well-taken, however – and that'w why it's important not to use Wikivoice in this instance, but to be transparent about the source in the actual statement – and then let the reader decide. I don't believe that there is another major source that ranks school districts on the verifiable scale that Niche does. Castncoot (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

(←) US News & World Report and Newsweek are actually reputable and used for high schools/colleges across the nation. Middles schools and elementary schools usually aren't worth judgement, in my opinion, and clearly in theirs. The gov't stats just factor in for SAT/ACT/AP/graduation % etc. The health & safety, diversity, and clubs and activities seems to be entirely based on online reviews, which are not a reliable source, regardless of how you cut it. It's why we don't use Wikia or IMDb as generally reliable sources. Failing resolution after this comment, we should agree to disagree, and I will begin work on a RSN post and/or RfC for this issue. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way of rewording the sentence that would be satisfactory to you which makes a statement about education in Westchester? U.S. News and Newsweek don't rank school districts. The statement here is meant to convey a particular facet about a locality, in this case, the value placed on education and its outcomes in Westchester. And yes, that includes the elementary and middle school experience as well. Castncoot (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, elementary/middle are hard & kinda useless to judge; so nobody else does. And as for value, school districts often have very different boundaries from municipalities, and very often a municipality (like mine) will hold 2 or more totally separate school districts. One with the name of a town may lie almost entirely outside of the town. So as a measure for ranking municipalities, it's among the poorest. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't so much object to you putting in the Education section alone: "According to Niche's 2018 ranking, taking into account public comments, 28 of the top 100 school districts in the state of New York were located in Westchester County." This is entirely fair, neutral, and accurate. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Castncoot (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Castncoot. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New York City

Please see my comments on the NYC talk page. Thanks. Avatar317 (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Avatar317

Please review WP:RSPRIMARY prior to posting. Thanks, Matt72986 (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Korean Americans in New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

San Francisco article

I do not understand your edit summary here, stating " duplicative of lede and infobox".[1] Please review WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which states that "the purpose of an infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article." Thus the infobox is SUPPOSE to duplicate what is in the text, whether in the article body or the lede. Thanks.

Furthermore, I do not see other city articles across the United States linking to the "City of [state]" article in the "settlement_type" paramater. For example, I was copying what the Denver article is currently using. I'm more concerned about consistency here, and what the wider current consensus it. You seemed to only target the top 10 or so populous cities in California but no other such articles. Which does not look like there is such a wide consensus for. If there is a wider consensus to link to the "City of [state]" article, could you please provide me a link to the discussion? Otherwise, it looks like you are going against the consensus. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to write something in ALL CAPS, then at least get your grammar correct. And finish your thought on someone's Talk page in one edit if possible, so that they can edit back without edit conflicts. The word you're trying to express is "SUPPOSED". But not in this case. It's merely duplicative (and actually triplicative) to say "Consolidated city-county" immediately above stating in the infobox (itself!) that the official name is "City and county of San Francisco" (which does in fact need to be stated), and also in the lede. Categorically, the top ten cities in California have much more in common with each other by far than San Francisco has through an obscure category such as consolidated city-county with others such as Philadelphia, for example. Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that's what you mean. Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Glad you understood.Castncoot (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Manhattan

Manhattan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Concourse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Asian Americans content proposals

As an editor who has contributed to Asian Americans in recent months, I'd like you to know I've been posting a number of proposals on the talk page. I have been slow-walking the proposals since late April, but few others have contributed to the discussion. Your participation in establishing a consensus for or against the proposals would help the article. Thanks! --Ishu (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've replied on the article talk page. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Restructuring of Cherry Hill

This edit to the article for Cherry Hill, New Jersey was part of a major reorganization of the article with the edit summary "reloc", in which content was extensively rearranged and something (I can't figure out what) was deleted. For whatever it's worth, WP:USCITY provides an order that matches the previous sequence nor am I sure that "Human Resources" is the appropriate heading for the grouping you created. In order to better match the consensus order of sections and to restore whatever was deleted in that edit, I reverted your changes.

I'm sure that this article would benefit from changes, but may I suggest that we discuss anything of this magnitude in advance as a community. Alansohn (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. I have made a small tweak subsequently. Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)