User talk:Markvs88/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive for User talk:Markvs88 from 24 August 2010 to 24 August 2011.

Proposed deletion of Harry B. Flood Middle School

The article Harry B. Flood Middle School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unnotable middle school; redirect to school system/district's page if possible

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to have improved the article, but it was deleted a whole 8 MINUTES after the tag was put on, so I've restored it. Markvs88 (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has deleted Harry B. Flood Middle School. What happened was that you created the article as "Harry B. Flood Middle School", with quotes around the name; that is not our style, so another user helpfully "moved" it to the correct title. What I deleted was the unnecessary redirect from the title with quotes which was left behind by the move. Separately from that, another user added a Proposed Deletion tag to the article: that would not have taken effect for seven days, and you were quite entitled to remove it, as you have. The article might still be nominated at WP:Articles for deletion: Middle schools are not automatically considered notable, so what you need to add are references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Harry B. Flood Middle School

Elementary and middle schools are not, by default, notable. Standard procedure is to redirect them to an article about the school district, but there doesn't seem to be one. Only if there is something unique about this school, can it stand as an independent article. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And you can, by default, put a delete tag up and wait the week to delete it. Standard procedure is to not redirect them without discussion. BTW, feel free to check out David Wooster Middle School. I'm sick and tired of folks going delete happy without going through standard practice. Markvs88 (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your claim is not correct. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an interesting read. Unless you can provide notability, I will list it for deletion, which is a ridiculous process since it will inevitably wind up being redirected. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

David Wooster Middle School is a superfund site. That gives it some notability. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And when did I add that little pearl of wisdom? You can do so, but you need to put up the tag and WAIT a week. Delete Nazis are getting to be all too common on wikipedia and I will keep reverting. This morning, by your logic Wooster would have been redirected too, so I suggest you wait. Markvs88 (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I won't put up with any more personal attacks, you know about WP:NPA. Continue down this path and you'll find yourself before the etiquette board. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• What* personal attacks? I'm complaining about people not following Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If you want to take it personally that's your perogative, but the etiquette board won't find anything on this talk page nor in the article that points at you whatsoever. Because there isn't anything, as I don't have anything against you per se. Again, feel free to put a delete tag on the article and if it's not notable in a week, it can go. However, it's a little hard when I add information to a few stub articles to improve them and suddenly they start getting redirected or deleted without so much as a notice. Markvs88 (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling me a Nazi is a personal attack. And I don't intend to put a delete tag on it because I don't think it should be deleted, it should be redirected. And once again, I will take it to AfD if you can't find notability. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to point out where I called you one, all I see is me complaining about there being too many Delete Nazis on Wikipedia. Redirection to the Stratford page is basically the same thing as speedy deletion: who's going to find the thing? Consider this: the article is a whole 29 hours old right now, and you're the 3rd user that has tried to redirect or delete it. I started today with 3 articles I need to work on to save, and so far I've managed to get one over the bar. Meanwhile, there are articles out there like Whitby School which have been around for years without even one citation. My point being that how can an article be written/improved if it never even gets feedback or a reasonable amount of time for improvement? The article is cited, it doesn't fall under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Is it any wonder why I want the time to improve it and keep reverting redirects? Markvs88 (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If three different people think your article isn't worth keeping, doesn't that tell you something about yourself and your editing? I'll give you till Monday to come up with notability. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it mostly tells me that three different people watch the new articles feed and like to delete stuff before it has a chance to evolve. Actually I have until next Friday if you put a delete tag on it right now, but I'm happy enough with Monday. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Harry B. Flood Middle School

An article that you have been involved in editing, Harry B. Flood Middle School, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry B. Flood Middle School. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Gryllida and Markvs88 sockpuppetry?

I may be initiating a sockpuppetry investigation into the accounts of Gryllida and Markvs88 due to their sudden intent to keep unfounded accusations on my talk page.

Knock yourself out. I've been on for 5 years and have never used another account. Markvs88 (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Gryllida has not been socking. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I just find it a bit strange the user would randomly leap to your defense out of thin air on a relatively new ip user's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.240.184 (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As strange as your IP coming on and going to Holy Land USA and doing the same edit as the sockpuppets? Hardly. Some editors watch newly created articles. Some watch frequently reverted articles. You really should create an account and try to improve articles rather than waste your time like this. I don't even know whom Diego Grez or Gryllida are, btw. But I thank them. Have a nice day. Markvs88 (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are a bit of a hypocrite in this case when you talk about wasting time since you seem to be wasting all your efforts to keep some silly accusation on a talk page. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.240.184 (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Milford Oyster Festival

Thanks for your help with the new Milford Oyster Festival article. I noticed that you rated the article as of "low-importance" for wikiproject CT, though my sources say it is may be the largest one-day festival in the New England region and among is the top 10 annual events in Connecticut. Do you think the CT project rating should stay or not? —CodeHydro 22:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi CodeHydro! You're welcome, it was only a small addition. I'd really like to rate it higher, but right now the article is very new and doesn't really show that. However, a rating certainly isn't forever! If you're interested in how things are rated for the wikiproject, here is our assessment page Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Assessment. Right now I can only give it Low (which means it is of local importance... on par with Pepe's Pizza, non-Amtrak train stations, etc) since it needs to be fleshed out and shown to be important to a larger area. I know that a previous article for the MOF was deleted in the past, I hope this one fares much better! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that explains why the festival didn't have an article already! I wonder what the previous article said. —CodeHydro 23:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Decades?

You are correct. On the face of it.
Reviews in 1984 did use the term, which is why I first saw the movie yesterday, not in 1984.
But I don't have a pile of yellowing newspapers in my office.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks. I saw it in the theater, and while the movie hasn't IMO aged badly, it does suffer from the "Star Wars: A New Hope" effect of younger audiences not really getting it because of culture drift. I'm sure eventually it'll be like "The Four Feathers" -- an also ran for a work of its time. But I'm nostalgic for it, so I've done a lot with the Red Dawn page. There were a lot of different reviews at the time, and I do remember that TIME gave it a pretty fair shake but Newsweek being more critical. In any event, I wasn't about to delete a (your) very valid point. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't put a lot of trouble into what I wrote, because you know what WP is like. There is some self-appointed guardian of a page, who is conscientious to a degree, but can't abide any sort of contrarian opinion.

I was expecting my sentence to be outright deleted. So when you rewrote it to better reflect the information I actually provided, my reaction was, "What the fuck!? There's another rational person active in Wikipedia?! Who knew?"

Varlaam (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL!! Markvs88 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Co-workers

I notice that you have had "dealings" with "RJ". That guy is an idiot. He is my 2nd least favourite Wikipedian. There is only one person's opinion that actually matters and you have one guess who that might be. I wish WP had an arbitration panel for cases where rational folks (us) get confronted by doctrinaire, opinionated parasites. Varlaam (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

He backed off from "article ownership" (at least on Red Dawn) so I haven't given him a second thought. Markvs88 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk about wearing your point of view on your sleeve. Geez. There's another guy, GS, same story.

This place is supposed to be collaborative, not confrontational.

Varlaam (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The worst case I've ever seen is somebody deleting a fact with 4 citations on it. Varlaam (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot of POV out there. Markvs88 (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Connecticut Photo Contest

I thought I did upload 35 pictures for the contest. I checked the Upload log, and I did indeed upload 35 pictures. See below:

Compressed to save space on your talk page

1. 02:59, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Mystic Aquarium Penguin Feeding.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Feeding of the penguins at Mystic Aquarium & Institute for Exploration in Mystic, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 13, 2010 | author = –[[User talk)

   Used in: Mystic Aquarium & Institute for Exploration

2. 02:52, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Lake Pocotopaug.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Lake Pocotopaug in East Hampton, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 19, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission = License)

   Used in: Lake Pocotopaug

3. 02:46, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Second Church of Christ Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Second Church of Christ in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission = Lic)

   Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut, Second Church of Christ

4. 02:40, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Gateway to Ancient Burial Ground Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Gateway to the Ancient Burial Ground in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = [[User:Grondema)

   Used in: First Church of Christ and the Ancient Burying Ground

5. 02:34, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:First Church of Christ Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = First Church of Christ in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –[[U)

   Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut, First Church of Christ and the Ancient Burying Ground

6. 02:30, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Ann Street Historic District Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Ann Street Historic District in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission )

   Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut, Ann Street Historic District

7. 02:24, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Christ Church Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Christ Church (Hartford, Connecticut) in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | p)

   Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut, Christ Church (Hartford, Connecticut)

8. 02:18, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Municipal Building Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Municipal Building (Hartford, Connecticut) in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –Grondemar</i)

   Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut

9. 02:11, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Union Baptist Church Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Union Baptist Church (Hartford, Connecticut) in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –Grondemar<)

   Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut, Union Baptist Church (Hartford, Connecticut)

10. 02:06, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Metropolitan African Church Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –[[User talk:Grondemar|Grond)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut, Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church

11. 01:58, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Rensselaer at Hartford Building.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Rensselaer at Hartford building in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permissi)

    Used in: Rensselaer at Hartford

12. 01:51, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:SNET Building Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Southern New England Telephone Company Building in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –[[User talk:Grondemar|Grondemar])

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut, Southern New England Telephone Company Building

13. 01:44, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Engine Co 2 Fire Station Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Engine Company 2 Fire Station in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut, Engine Company 2 Fire Station

14. 01:36, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Good Shepherd Parish House Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Good Shepherd Parish House in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 29, 2010 | author = –[[User t)

    Used in: Church of the Good Shepherd and Parish House

15. 01:31, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Church of the Good Shepherd Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Church of the Good Shepherd in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 29, 2010 | author = –[[User )

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut, Church of the Good Shepherd and Parish House

16. 01:12, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Engine Co 1 Fire Station Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Engine Company 1 Fire Station in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 29, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut, Engine Company 1 Fire Station

17. 01:04, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Abraham Ribicoff Federal Building Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Abraham A. Ribicoff Federal Building in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 29, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | per)

    Used in: List of United States federal courthouses, List of United States federal courthouses in Connecticut

18. 00:58, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Temple Beth Israel Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Temple Beth Israel (Hartford, Connecticut) in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 29, 2010 | author = –Grondemar</i)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut, Temple Beth Israel (Hartford, Connecticut)

19. 00:51, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Engine Co 6 Fire Station Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Engine Company 6 Fire Station in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 29, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut, Engine Company 6 Fire Station

20. 00:34, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Engine Co 15 Fire Station Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Engine Company 15 Fire Station in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 29, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permissio)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut, Engine Company 15 Fire Station

21. 00:30, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Engine Co 9 Fire Station Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Engine Company 9 Fire Station in Hartford, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 29, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut, Engine Company 9 Fire Station

22. 00:19, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Rocky Hill Congregational Church Rocky Hill CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Rocky Hill Congregational Church in Rocky Hill, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 29, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permi)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut, Rocky Hill Congregational Church

23. 00:08, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Dr Elizur Hale House Glastonbury CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Dr. Elizur Hale House in Glastonbury, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 29, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission = Li)

    Used in: Dr. Elizur Hale House

24. 00:05, 31 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Academy Hall Rocky Hill CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Academy Hall (Rocky Hill, Connecticut) in Rocky Hill, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 29, 2010 | author = –Grondemar )

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut

25. 23:53, 30 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Marlborough Congregational Church Marlborough CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Marlborough Congregational Church in Marlborough, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 29, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | per)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut, Marlborough Congregational Church

26. 23:48, 30 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Marlborough Tavern Marlborough CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Marlborough Tavern in Marlborough, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 29, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission = Licen)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut

27. 23:41, 30 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Glastonbury Historical District Glastonbury CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Glastonbury Historical District in Glastonbury, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 29, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permi)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut

28. 23:35, 30 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:William H Harvey House Windsor CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = William H. Harvey House in Windsor, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission = Lice)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut

29. 23:31, 30 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Grace Church Rectory Windsor CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Grace Church Rectory in Windsor, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission = License)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut, Grace Church Rectory

30. 12:43, 30 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Hezekiah Chaffee House Windsor CT.jpg" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Hezekiah Chaffee House in Windsor, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission = Licen)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut, Hezekiah Chaffee House

31. 12:36, 30 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:First Church Parsonage Windsor CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = First Church Parsonage (Windsor, Connecticut) in Windsor, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –Grondemar<)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut, First Church Parsonage (Windsor, Connecticut)

32. 12:22, 30 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:St Johns Episcopal Church East Windsor CT.jpg" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = St. John's Episcopal Church (Warehouse Point, Connecticut) in East Windsor, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –[[User talk:Gron)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut, St. John's Episcopal Church (Warehouse Point, Connecticut)

33. 12:11, 30 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Ebenezer Grant House South Windsor CT.jpg" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = Ebenezer Grant House in South Windsor, CT. | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission = L)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut

34. 02:04, 30 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:St Johns Episcopal Church East Hartford CT.JPG" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = St. Johns Episcopal Church in East Hartford, CT | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission = Lic)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut, St. John's Episcopal Church (East Hartford, Connecticut)

35. 01:50, 30 August 2010 Grondemar (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:First Congregational Church of East Hartford CT.jpg" ‎ (== Summary == {{Information | description = First Congregational Church of East Hartford | source = Self-made | date = August 28, 2010 | author = –Grondemar | permission = License)

    Used in: National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut, First Congregational Church of East Hartford and Parsonage

I'll double-check the articles to make sure I didn't miss listing one. –Grondemar 18:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I went over them all twice but I kept coming up with 34 somehow... maybe one didn't get added to an article? Markvs88 (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, one or two is not a material difference, as all other contenders for top prize were well behind; it looks like 35 documented here! Markvs, i'll give award due for u after Grondemar's is done by you. FYI, normal practice is to give an award at a user's Talk page and allow them to copy/move it to their User page or an awards page like Grondemar has, on their own. Among other reasons that lets readers who follow the Talk page see and chime in with other comments if they like. Anyhow i'll watch Grondemar's talk page. Cheers. --doncram (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave G's star with 34 pictures, I just keep coming up with that number (3 times now)... IDK if one didn't get put on a page or if I just can't find it. If it really matters I'll edit it up. (Maybe next time we should add (#) per page in opt in!) Great, thanks. Markvs88 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I checked each of the pictures and added where each was used; the only discrepancy I could find is that I forgot to add File:Dr Elizur Hale House Glastonbury CT.JPG to National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut. However, since the file is still in the article Dr. Elizur Hale House, and because I only counted the five pictures in National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut that were not used in any other article due to the contest rules, I still count 35 pictures. It isn't really a big deal for me whether the final number is 34 or 35; I was just curious if I forgot to attach a picture to an article. –Grondemar 22:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ct photo contest barnstar!

<moved to User Page>

Red Dawn

Hi, Mark - please see and comment at Talk:Red Dawn#Reception section before doing further reverting - thanks! Kelly ^hi! 18:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've responded, thanks. Markvs88 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Rating of Acela Express

Hey

I noticed you rated Acela Express today for Connecticut, in future you may as well rate it the same for any other project without a rating (or with a different rating). Its highly doubtful anyone would object and it keeps them up to date :). Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind! Markvs88 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Hartford CT Flag.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hartford CT Flag.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Permission: "Town flag, fair for use as flags cannot be copyrighted". Markvs88 (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Hartford CT Flag.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hartford CT Flag.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Permission: "Town flag, fair for use as flags cannot be copyrighted". Markvs88 (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

cities in town categories

Hi, I removed the Town category from Ansonia because Ansonia is the only city that is also in a town category. We should be consistent in applying the category: either all consolidated cities also get put in the town category or all are not in the category. Which do you prefer? In the meantime, since only Ansonia doesn't conform to the category pattern of other cities, I'll remove the town category again until there is a decision on whether to include all or exclude all. --Polaron | Talk 04:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Polaron, I restored the tag thinking that Ansonia is both a town and a city. [1], section 2,19 but as I read more of the charter I realized that it is really a city that supplanted the town. I'm fine with the removal. Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Pomptons

The territory of the Wappingers ran from "Manhattan Island to Poughkeepsie eastward to the lower Connecticut Valley." http:// www.accessgenealogy.com/native/newyork/newyork4.htm. The Pomptons were part of the Wappingers. Ramapoughnative (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have over 5000 articles on my watchlist and I really don't know what this is about. Could you tell me which specific article you're referring to? Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've found it. Thank you for adding that citation! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Publicly funded schools in Connecticut

When I redirected the category, it was not a mistake. The page sections linked in my edit summary explain my reasons. There is more information at User:Wavelength/About English/Punctuation/Hyphens and adverbs. (I am adding your talk page to my watchlist.)
—Wavelength (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wavelength! I really don't understand what you're referring to.... redirecting Category:Publicly-funded schools in Connecticut to Category:Publicly funded health care in Connecticut just doesn't make any sense to me. Can you explain your rationale please? Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about that aspect of the change. In that aspect, it was a mistake, and I apologize. I intended to change it to Category:Publicly funded schools in Connecticut. Apart from that, my change was in harmony with WP:HYPHEN, subsection 3, point 4, and with Help:Category#Moving and redirecting category pages.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with the hypen change you want to make, just the category mis-match. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories in Connecticut

I'm trying to organize things better by county, so that residents and visitors can find things more easily. There are so many listings in each county category that it's hard to go through, so organizing like items may help people find it more easily, like universities and colleges, churches, libraries, hospitals, etc. Some of these categories also fall under visitor attractions. Jllm06 (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. But then what of pages like David, Jr. Mallett House‎ where something was removed but not added? Markvs88 (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see what you're doing. If you wouldn't mind, could you please tag all the new categories on their talk pages with {{WikiProject Connecticut}}? I've done a few already. Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion categories

On Wikipedia a person must self-identify with a particular denomination before being categorized; and the only way to know if they self-identify is a source indicating that the person is currently Catholic (or Baptist, or atheist, or whatever). That standard is frequently violated because many people think they can put anything about a person's religous beliefs in an article without reliable sourcing. That is what is unsourced in the article. If someone grows up an atheist but is now a Christian (see William J. Murray), do we put that person in the "Atheists" category?" MANY people grow up in a particular denomination (or lack thereof in Murray's case) but do not end up claiming that perspective when they are adults. This is a simple matter of following one of the very cornerstones of Wikipedia: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Peter Gallagher may very well be a Catholic right now, but the article doesn't state that. If you want to restore the category, please find a sourced statement to that effect. And remember, the responsibility for sourcing is on the person who adds or restores information. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

All I did was revert something that was removed without explanation. Had you simply put "no citation" or something into your edit summary, I wouldn't have reverted it. BTW, "going to the mattresses" and spouting off counter examples and/or WP rules is a bit rude. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not possible to place a citation needed tag when removing a category or when no statement about his adult Catholicity exists; I'm not making up a statement such as "Gallagher identifies himself as Catholic" out of thin air and placing a cn tag after it. And once again, the responsibility for sourcing is on the person who adds or restores information. And regarding your accusation of being "rude", consider this a friendly reminder that Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is very possible to put "no citation bears this out in article" in the edit summary when removing a category (or anything else for that matter). Good, nor am I asking you to. Re: the rest of your statement: I have not personally attacked you, just pointed out your message is terse for no reason. Consider this Wp:Help:Edit summary a friendly reminder that Wikipedia has a policy for Wikipedia:Civility. As I explained above, I only reverted your edit because I did not know why you removed it. I have no quarrel with you other than your tone, which is still a bit shrill. Please consider that I can't read minds, and that I revert several dozen cases of vandalism every day on Connecticut articles. I've never seen your account name before, and you left no summary. Wouldn't you have done the same? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken about the edit summary, although I must also point out that there are literally thousands of unsourced denomination categories on Wikipedia. Removing them is tedious. The "HotCat" tool makes removing them much easier, but it does not allow for changes to the edit summary. I generally remove with HotCat, then if someone restores it, I provide a more extensive explanation in an edit summary and place the above message on the user's talk page, which in no way is "shrill" or "rude". I understand your concern about the edit summary issue, but I think you have overreacted to my message above. It's a thorough and civil explanation with links to appropriate policies, ending with a "Thank you." It certainly isn't uncivil or rude, and it did not merit those terms in your comments. All of that being said, I think we understand each other better at this point, so I'm willing to put this behind us if you are. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's just let bygones be bygones. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WinchesterCTseal.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WinchesterCTseal.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

thefastertimes links

I'm removing links left by a WP:SPA/WP:COI account. Please don't revert my edits; it's an abuse of your rollback rights. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. However, if you'd have left an edit summary, I'd have known what you're up to. I've never seen your account on pages I monitor before so I logically assume vandalism when a reference is removed with no explanation. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Y'know

Sometimes, I can be a little naughty. - Denimadept (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I like it! I likewise hope the crystal ball link will help. Markvs88 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

David, Jr. Mallett House

I made multiple small changes in David, Jr. Mallett House article. One i should mention is that i drop reference to www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, as that is just a copy of NRIS database, and I and most others prefer to just cite NRIS. It is convenient to use sometimes i agree. This is commented about, and there may be other useful tips for you, in wp:NRHPhelp guide for NRHP article authors. I'd be happy to discuss at article or my talk page or here, any of other small changes i made in the article. --doncram (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that all looks fine to me. I generally write articles from a town perspective, not an NRHP one since I don't have much to do with that. Pages I've created like the Washington Bridge (Connecticut), Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Ferry & Old Mine Park Archeological Site got done because they're local, not becuase they're historic. Markvs88 (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Connecticut Autumn 2010 Photo Contest

As a member of WikiProject Connecticut, you are invited to participate in the WikiProject Connecticut AUTUMN 2010 Photo Contest! Rules: You must take the picture yourself; adding public domain pictures (i.e. postcards from pre-1923 that are on a website) will NOT count. The picture cannot already exist on Wikipedia, in Commons, etc. The picture must be of something notable for a CT rated article and be of decent quality. You may not add more than 5 pictures to any one article during the contest. All photos must be uploaded and added to their articles. If it wasn't added to the article and titled, it doesn't count. All submissions must be made after 12:00 UTC (8:00 AM EST) on September 15th, 2010 and no later than 23:59 UTC (7:59 PM EST) on October 31st, 2010. Everyone who adds 15 pictures will earn a barnstar, and the editor who adds the most pictures will earn a special unique barnstar! To enter the contest, click here. Thanks for your attention and good luck! –Grondemar 04:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo contest

I thought that a single picture used in two articles counted as two. In the last contest, pictures in "normal" articles as well as pictures in the National register pages were counted, so I thought both counted. However, I just looked at the old list again, and I see that National register entries were counted only when there wasn't a separate article counted. My bad for not reading closely enough.--SPhilbrickT 12:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly... the NRPS pictures count only if they're not in other articles. It's all about the number of photos you upload. Did you get a chance to go over that list to see if I made any mistakes? Markvs88 (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Oath. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Markvs88 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Money Island

State names in parenthesis are disfavored, how about Money Island, Thimble Islands. That is very descriptive. --Bejnar (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Disfavored where/by whom? I'm not aware of any SOP on that. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

Removing quote; may remove Atlantic Monthly rank altogether from Recognition, since it's really criticsm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.114.230 (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC) I removed it altogether, and posted on the talk page of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.195.124 (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC) I was reading your interests page and actually share and agree with a lot of them! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.195.124 (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's nice, glad to meet you too. But (as I posted on Nader's talk page) you're still reverting a cited point because you don't like it. Discuss why you think it needs to go, I wouldn't want to see you blocked for edit warring. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the page. What's edit warring? Going back and forth you mean?99.93.195.124 (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine, thank you. Wikipedia:Edit warring, in particular check out the The three-revert rule. BTW, I highly recommend creating an account. Most other Wikipedians give named accounts a wider benefit of the doubt vs. IP users. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Okay, I'll check that out, start reading other rules. Do I make an account or do anything special to move my additons to an name account? 99.93.195.124 (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem! AFAIK you can't move them over, but you can mark the page(s) you've edited with the new account which works just as well. Check out Wikipedia:Why create an account? too. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

I may have inadvertently started something that is getting out of control. The criticism section of Ralph Nader is getting undue weight now. 99.25.216.198 (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Silver

Please comment here. Materialscientist (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry I cannot be of much more help, but it's not really my field. Thanks for dealing with Gresh0. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Woops

Sorry -- I tripped over you. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem, you were doing the right thing. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

HOLY LAND

I guess Ill see you in JANUARY you SICKO who likes to TALK ABOUT GIRLS who get RAPED AND MURDERED. I WIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.27.220 (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll never "win", because you're the one continually being locked out. You'll never "win", because you're the one getting the page locked for all anonymous editors. You'll never "win", because I'll always be there to stop you from reverting the truth. And you'll never "win", because vandalism is not tolerated. I don't know what your problem is, but you cannot just censor things you don't like. Markvs88 (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"I WIN" because you are getting SO MAD. I WIN TOOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.27.220 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mad? Hardly. It takes a nansecond for me to hit "rollback" to your edits. PS, you might want to look up the 9th Commandment, you seem to be unaware of it. Markvs88 (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

OH ADMIT IT Youre just full of rage because you know you like talking about girls who get raped and murdered, and you're so mad that I can evade whatever block is put on me with EASE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.154.113 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Even after all this time, you really don't get it, do you? I don't care if it was a cited point about a papal visit or the nuns at the site building a spaceship. You keep reverting that cited point (and against consensus!) so I'll keep you locked out of the article. It's that simple. Markvs88 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You Cryin? See you in January loser! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.154.113 (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and a Merry Christmas to you, too! Markvs88 (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Woodbury, CT

Hi Markvs88,

I hope that this is the correct way to contact you as I saw no other method. I recently submitted a mobile website that directly relates to Woodbury, CT. Prior to creating the site, I had even spoken to Jerry Stomski, the First Selectman and got his approval prior to moving forward with this project. From the revision comments, you had marked the inclusion of the link to woodbury.mobi as ad/spam and I just wanted to get your thought process behind doing so? The site is currently free and provides a wealth of information and utility for people that live in Woodbury or are considering visiting. I hope you'll reconsider and allow me to add the site in the external links section. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael33as (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Michael, and thank you for your polite note, it's a refreshing change. The problem is that .mobi is a for-profit domain, and is most certainly not a town service, charity, etc. Unless you can cite Mr. Stromski (or any other communication from the Woodbury town gov't) stating that this is a town-approved project then I have no objection. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The site is not town approved per-se, but Jerry was very excited by the thought that there would be another resource for visitors, especially people that are traveling, to learn more about Woodbury, right from their mobile phones. I had some exchanges with him early on in the project and he even said that he would put a link on the town website to mine. That is actually the next step for me. Once the link is on the town website, would that be sufficient for your criteria? I'm hoping so. I would also be open to discussing this offline if you'd like? Thanks again, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael33as (talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, it still would not meet wikipedia's standards. The town website has lots of things on it which are unnotable, such as playground information, most elementary school data, etc. A link off of it doesn't imply any notability or even that it is known to be there by the town government. Wikipedia is all about verifiability, and this is still a commerical site. You'd need to pass the extra hurdle of having some sort of media exposure or that it is a town service. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time Mark. I'm going to see what I can do to meet your criteria in the near future and hope to get back to you. Regards, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael33as (talk • contribs) 21:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem! If you have any further questions (esp. on WP's citation rules) feel free to drop a line. (BTW: on a talk page always sign the end of your comment with ~~~~. It adds your sig. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Jasta 14 (band)

Re your message: I removed the CSD tag because of the reason I stated in the edit summary: the bands meets criteria #6 of WP:MUSIC... Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians. Jamey Jasta, Mike Barr, and Greg Burns are notable musicians, therefore the band meets the criteria. Would the article pass an AFD? Maybe, maybe not, but per the CSD guidelines, the claimed notability through the connections of those three are enough. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I heard Eddie van Halen was in Jasta 14 too. C'mon now.... add some citations so that we can at least pretend it it's worth saving, eh? :-) Markvs88 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The lack of citations isn't the problem. Really, just either PROD or take the article to AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care about this enough to bother. Markvs88 (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I replied to your comments on WikiProject United States

I wanted to let you know that I responded to your comments on the WPUS talk page. I think I covered most of them but the most important one about independent importances between projects is good to go, The template has that logic built in. Take a look at teh WPUS/DC temaplte on talk:Washington Navy Yard. --Kumioko (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll read it and reply as soon as I get a chance. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Buck's Rock

Mark if you are going to change the language and background on Bucks Rock, be correct. Jo Jochnowitz was forced out of partnership due to Lou Simon and Irwin and Roberta Berger's desperate need for more money (which I did not include). Call Jo up, he is in the phone book.

As for what you state I plagiarized, I never plagiarized anything, what I did was re-post what was put there before, with some corrections. Don't like it, sorry Charlie. But don't change something because you don't like the history.

If you are so confused about the history, Ask Roberta, she cannot get away from the truth. I hope their memories have not faded, so they can still tell people the truth, sadly, Sybil lost a best friend when the Jochnowitz's were pushed out of BR. She also lost her best advocate, Carol, who brought her from Dr to Dr to try to identify the root cause of her blindness. By standing by Lou and pushing her best friend and advocate away, Sybil never had a chance. Lou did nothing to help Sybil when she was sick. Nothing. People from BR came from all around to visit her in the hospital, bring her to Dr's and he was to busy trying to get a sun tan, botox and a new squeeze. Everyone at BR knew it, everyone. It was a sad day when the Jo & Carol were pushed out. The spark of creativity & art was dimmed. I hope Laurie & her husband Mickie have changed the course of BR from years past, but shame on you who fails to understand truth from non-truth... I am sure if you asked people who were campers, CIT, JC & Counselors from pre-82 what they thought of it, they would all agree. In addition, I am sure if it was posted to what lengths the Berger's and Simon's went to disparage the Jochnowitz's post them leaving, people would be extremely disappointed. I certainly do not want the crimes of the parents to shadow the children from 28 years ago and that includes all the Simon's, Berger's & Jochnowitz's children, but don't push it.

Woof Woof

August — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustsrevenge (talk • contribs) 04:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

August, the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove things, not me... as you're the one removing a cited point without discussion. Personally, I don't know or care about these people or Buck's Rock, as I've never even been to New Milford! All that matters to me is to have an article which is neutral in tone and not plagarized. As it is, your entries are not cited and appear in google searches so (as you kept editing without any summaries!) I naturally assumed plagarism. I also suggest improving the article with media citaitons since at this point the majority of the history section can be deleted as uncited. Likewise, History takes up over half the article and is definately given wp:undue weight as compared to the Camp Life et al. I am happy to disucss any and all issues regarding this article with you. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

CT architecture categories

Hi, thanks for help with Farwell House and related Talk pages, which i didn't notice.

Please don't simply remove a category that I've added to an NRHP article, merely because it shows red, as u did recently for Mansfield Training School. That's like removing all red-links. Redlinks are allowed! The two categories exist at the world-wide and probably at the "in the United States" levels. Trying:

• Category:Late Victorian architecture
• Category:Late Victorian architecture in the United States
• Category:Late Victorian architecture in Connecticut

Probably that and the other one will exist at the Connecticut level soon. You could simply create such a category, by going to the redlink and adding a higher level category to the blank page. Then it wouldnt be red.... About Mansfield, could u fix that, either by re-adding the cats i had added, or by revising them to link to the United States level (in which case another editor, sometime soon, might split out to state level).

Okay? Thanks. --doncram (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I can run reports out of NRIS database now which would show how many of each of these architectural types exist, if u r really interested. Lots. Not yet apparent in Wikipedia articles, though, as we have to get past editors deleting the application of these categories or not adding them where appropriate.... --doncram (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doncram,

While I'm not against redlinks per se, I typically remove redlinked categories because more often than not they've either never been created or where not spelled correctly. Since I couldn't figure out what they were supposed to be (and categories of single articles are to be avoided) I never create them for just one article. Best, Markvs88 (talk)

Okay, well for NRHP architectural categories, please do not simply remove them. Please look for variations (like the "in the United States") which you u could change them to instead, or point out the issue to me at my Talk page and i will revisit them. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

...or you can create the category when you tag an article with it. :-) If it's more than a day old, I've got to assume spelling error/other issue. If I can't find what to change it to because the "correct" cat doesn't exist... what's the point? C'mon, this is really a small thing. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I try, or will try, not to leave redlink categories in articles that i create. But I am not going to notice every time that there is a redlink. I make errors in editing. I don't always notice every follow-on edit by others that remove rather than build. The request is simple: please let me know, don't simply delete redlink categories. It is a small thing, i agree, but the principal is simple not to tear down work unnecessarily when there is a small correction to make instead. This reminds me of disambiguation-focused editors who, to be punitive, simply remove an entry off a dab page because it does not perfectly conform to their current view of how an entry should be formatted. Just fix it, or let me know, or let it be.

P.S. I revisited the items in Category:Late Victorian architecture to bring down most of them to Category:Late Victorian architecture in the United States. Currently there are 3 there which could be used to start Category:Late Victorian architecture in Connecticut already, but i don't mind leaving that split to category-focused editors. Who will certainly get around to it, i predict. --doncram (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, we're all human... yep.

PS: Of course! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Update about WPUS

Merry Christmas and I wanted to let you know about the WPUS status based on your comments. I have added the projects to the top of the main page so they are more prominent and I have begun knocking out the assessments. I am still looking into the wording as well. So far I have found out that there is a way to customize it but I still do not know exactly what a better thing to say is. Let me know if you have any ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Waveny Care Center

Hello Markvs88 - Waveny Care Center is not part of Waveny Park. It is a non-profit retirement home that sits on land that was once part of the Lapham estate, but that land was carved out years ago. Saying that Waveny Care Center is part of Waveny Park is like saying that NCHS is part of Waveny Park. An EL to Waveny Care Center falls clearly under WP:ELNO point 19: Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.  7  23:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Markvs88/Archive 2! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

ratings

I do mean everything positive i said about your work adding importance and quality ratings to Connecticut articles. It is really basic, helpful work.

I wonder, could u revisit Prudence Crandall House now? It's a work in progress, but has achieved a certain size. I am not familiar with applying quality ratings, wonder where this is at. --Doncram (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! Nice start! It's borderline C right now... another 2 or 3 references would put it over the top, and more detail on the school will help a lot. I did raise its importance to Mid, however based on the School section. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe u'd like to raise the importance for Prudence Crandall herself to being High, though, her being Connecticut's official State Heroine and all (now documented in its article). :) --Doncram (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch! Done. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

My deletion tag was not "spurious"

I find that offensive and I also wonder how you don't see that it's unnecessary to have an extra article on a team's performance under a specific coach. The team's performance in general is covered in other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.201.233 (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You are well within your rights to be offended, but I just can't take a one-edit editor putting up a deletion tag without even opening a talk on the subject as serious. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a "one edit editor". I've made thousands of edits to Wikipedia. My IP changes. You made no attempt to address what I even said, just discarding me as an IP editor. 74.108.82.252 (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm discarding you as someone that tagged a page for deletion without even bothering to open a discussion on it. Yes, and for all I know you've made thousands of spurious page delete requests from random IP numbers. If you were serious, you'd have done so or gone with a merge/split tag. I don't have to address anything else, as there is nothing to address -- you're the one that's not even considering getting consensus. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's extremely rude. There's nothing to merge or split. It's covered already in other articles. I have not made ANY "spurious" page delete requests. You are editing in extremely bad faith and being rude to boot. If you disagree with what I said, you could've explained why, but instead you attacked me. Best, 01:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.181.97 (talk)

Rude? You asked, I answered. The entirety of the article is most certianly *not* included in other articles, but that's besides the point -- again, you'd tagged for something to be deleted without consensus, which is the definition of rude as it was in at least two Wikiprojects. I attacked you? Where? All I said was that you were well within your rights to be offended, and that you were a one edit editor -- which you persistently seem to be. If this is even the same person. IDK, because you keep changing IPs. I *have* explained why -- three times now. WP:Burden is on you, since you made the tag. You failed to make any comment on the talk, remember? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You called my edit spurious, which it certainly was not, and then accused me of making thousands of spurious tags. Most of my edits are minor improvements to articles, and I only propose deletion when I think it's necessary. You have not explained anything. I explained why I felt it should be deleted, and you cast aspersions on me. First you claim I'm a "one edit editor", and then say I make thousands of spurious deletion attempts, both of which are false and assumptions of bad faith. Please read WP:AGF. Best, 74.108.181.97 (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You can feel that way, but the deletion tag was spurious: it was a bastard effort. Um, no. "for all I know you've made thousands" is non-accusatory. I have cast no aspersions, I've only pointed out that I'm not taking your word for anything (and why should I, since you can't be bothered to always edit from the same IP, much less make an account?). You failed good faith by putting up a del tag with no discussion on a one-edit account. End of story. That's the fourth time I've explained it to you now, I can't see how much clearer I need to make it. Spuriously best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"You can feel that way, but the deletion tag was spurious: it was a bastard effort." That's an assumption of bad faith. "(and why should I, since you can't be bothered to always edit from the same IP, much less make an account?)." I have a dynamic IP. It changes without my knowing. Perhaps you should look up what a dynamic IP is before saying such things. "End of story. That's the fourth time I've explained it to you now, I can't see how much clearer I need to make it." I've explained it five times and it doesn't get through to you. I guess you'll only listen to users with accounts. How nice. Best, 74.108.174.117 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not an assumption, it's a conclusion. Get through to me? What point would that be, exactly? That you don't understand to discuss a proposed deletion? Spuriously best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That it's not necessary to invent new ways to assume bad faith with each response. Also that you should look at the page I linked. Best, 74.101.74.32 (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you actaully my responses, or do you just assume what I say? It's not new, and it's not bad faith on my part. You acted in bad faith (c'mon, I'll say it a 5th time now) by putting a delete tag without opening disucssion. I'm well aware of WP:AGF. Are you aware of WP:Editing policy ? Obviously not, as you didn't even try for a merge or to get wp:consensus. What amazes me that with all the time you've taken to talk to me, you could have actually started a discussion on getting that page's content merged/deleted. I think we're done here, you're passed wp:dead horse and are whipping it's eyes. Markvs88 (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to be merged. The article serves no purpose. I proposed a deletion and stated my reason. You removed it for no reason, giving no explanation other than that I'm an IP so my edits are worthless and you can revert them and be rude, because I'm only an IP. You never once addressed my reasoning. No dead horse. I'm trying to get across my point and you continue along the same road of dismissing my comments. 74.101.71.105 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Do you actaully my responses" I think that about sums it up. 74.101.71.105 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much, I've had to try bad spelling to make you pay attention. See you around! Or, probably not. Markvs88 (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm on Wikipedia basically every day, trying to improve it. I don't know what you're doing, but if you're trying to advance the project's best interests, try to treat people the same, regardless of whether they're posting from an account or not. 74.108.207.48 (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Editing policy. QED. Markvs88 (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

????? 74.108.178.168 (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yawn. Come back when you have something to say. Whomever you are. Markvs88 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have plenty to say. It's your refusal to listen that's the problem. 74.108.178.168 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you're just wasting your time trying to pick a fight here. But thanks, I always enjoy having yet another stalker! BTW, if you're going to ask people such as user talk:Brewcrewer to look into me, I suggest that you not try to goad me over a week for replies over something which could have been easily solved (sixth time here!) by you commenting on the page you wanted to delete as to why. Markvs88 (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not a "stalker". I made an edit and you reverted it without reason. I stated multiple times the reason for my edit. You responded with multiple allegations of bad faith and attacks. My asking for an explanation somehow makes me a "stalker", and the fact that my IP address is dynamic is somehow cause for you to attack me further. I am not trying to "pick a fight". You must've been trying to pick a fight by reverting my edit. 74.108.180.175 (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... it was a spurious deletion tag, I've explained it over and over... and now suddenly there's no reason? If I'm attacking you, why are you the one who keeps posting on *my* talk page over and over? As for me picking a fight, I have 6500+ pages on my watchlist. What makes you think I have it in for you, other than the same paranoia which prevents you from creating an account? Again, if you were serious, you'd simply have done a merge or started a discussion on the talk of the page in question to delete it. Or hey, even go for the Rfd. Please, go waste someone else's time, I'm tired of "offending" you by trying to discuss the matter. Goodbye, Markvs88 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't spurious and I've explained that over and over. You are attacking me. What does that have to do with where the attacks are taking place? You think you can denigrate my contributions because it's on *your* talkpage? I was serious and why would I start a merge discussion? It should be deleted, not merged, as I've said over and over again. I do wish you would try reading what I write just once. I'm tired of being attacked simply because I asked for an explanation. 74.101.71.101 (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"What makes you think I have it in for you" The fact that you choose to attack me and denigrate my edits rather than discuss what I came here to discuss. "other than the same paranoia which prevents you from creating an account?" Oh, so now everyone who edits from an IP is paranoid? How very polite. Yeah, you don't have it in for me. You've merely called me a stalker, claimed I'm paranoid, lied about my contributions, and refused to discuss the original topic, which was about why I felt the article wasn't necessary. And that's merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what you've said about me. 74.101.71.101 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just being petulant. At least two other editors have told you that you're wrong, so take your bruised ego and leave. If you'd do that, I'd stop "attacking" you because in your mind my replies are somehow attacks. I'm not denigrating, I'm replying. If you don't like how I reply, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Don't spite your face, as all you are doing is prolonging your "being attacked". Yes, you keep saying that... without any rationale, not on the talk page nor in an Afd... and as you're so keen to just argue that here I *know* you're not serious. I do not choose to attack you, you choose to be offended, o anonymous one(s). Yes, because from my chair all of that is at least potentially true. If you'd just *do what you're supposed to do* and put the tag back WITH AN EDIT SUMMARY, put on the page's talk WHY it should be deleted this would be a non-issue. But no, you choose to take it personally. I don't know who you are, and I don't care. You're just a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. Again, goodbye. Markvs88 (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You did attack me. I gave you multiple examples and you again choose to ignore what I write and give some long rant about how I'm "petulant". You're constantly name-calling. Paranoid, stalker, petulant, malicious... Anything else? 74.108.174.233 (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye for the third time, Markvs88 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye. 74.108.174.233 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

disambig page banners

Hi, i dropped NY, MO, another state wikiproject banners that u had just added to Talk:Washington Bridge (disambiguation). I don't believe any other state actively tags disambiguation pages, except perhaps dab pages that are distinguishing primarily among many similarly named places within that state. There is no need to add state banners corresponding to every item in every disambiguation page! I wouldn't even add CT to this one, myself.

WikiProject NRHP banner is different, as it reflects "ownership" / development / maintenance mostly by me, in the >3,000 NRHP dab pages that i and others built up to provide disambiguation and resolve naming conflicts between NRHP-listed places having articles or not yet having articles. Mostly based off the NRIS database covering approx 85,000 places, of which maybe 5,000 are non-unique names (like Smith House or U.S. Post Office). This was a major project to create all the disambiguation, and it is worth maintaining by wikiProject NRHP. I can't imagine any comparable role for WikiProject New York (inactive) or WikiProject Missouri (not very active) or others to play in dab pages. Hope this background helps. --Doncram (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, I know Texas, New York, and California all do, and Rhode Island is set up for extended ratings.

Doncram, NRHP is no different from the states or any other wikiproject. No offense, but you really have to come to terms with that some time. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's misguided. I put "ownership" in quotes; sure, ownership is usually a silly concept. But the NRHP's NRIS database is in fact the source for all or most of the items in many of the NRHP-related disambiguation pages (maybe not this one). There's been a long development of that disambiguation system, and many past issues contended, and always new editors arriving unaware of nuances of wp:MOSDAB which allow for red-link entries so they start to delete them, and so on, requiring a continuing high amount of monitoring and maintenance. Due to the use of the NRIS database and the size of all of this system, the wikiproject NRHP involvement with the dab pages is fundamentally different than any STATE wikiproject's involvement.

Your adding CT to every dab page that mentions a place in CT won't be helpful, frankly. Please don't add WikiProject New York, anyhow, as a Wikiproject that i belong too (though it is inactive at State level, i am more involved in a couple NY region ones). I can't imagine that Wikiproject MO or any other state wants you adding them to every dab page for them, either. This was by way of information to you. I am not going to go around removing CT banner from dab pages; i will only be mildly irritated by seeing u pop up again and again in my watchlist on the NRHP-related dabs. --Doncram (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, the NRIS is at best "somewhat inaccurate", as I have proven time and again. As a project, however, the NRHP = Connecticut = NBA... et cetera. I accord the NRHP the same respect I would any other project, and that's it. Because it is *not* special by any measure except in your head.

Now, why you feel the need to beat the redlink dead horse for some reason (and I thought we settled that in our last thread?) then fine. But what you cannot imagine in your philosophy is not my problem. I'm happy to deal with you, but I'm not happy with you doing NRHP > everything else. Because that is, in a word, myopic.

My rating CT articles is what has turned up a plethora of articles which have been improved, INCLUDING your NRHP stuff. I've co-tagged quite a bit, you know.

That's fine, I'm often mildly irritated by seeing a ton of useless NRHP stubs in my watchlist on the CT-wikiproject. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Touche!  :) (Aside: I don't know what past thread about redlinks you are referring to; i don't particularly recall u being involved in redlink stuff; i was meaning other editors; there have been lots of other editors on the redlink stuff). --Doncram (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Graci. (It's in my archive now, we discussed about a removal I did on some article that had a redlinked category or two. In any event, I trust this is water under the bridge?) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that was about categories i had added to some regular articles that were redlinks (and practice seems to be with you, that such categories get removed from articles by other editors too, i've been noticing). What i was referring to was editors arriving at disambiguation pages like First Presbyterian Church and removing links to valid topics like First Presbyterian Church (Canon City, Colorado) (currently a redlink for an NRHP-listed place). Those removals of redlinks cause me to watchlist the 3,000+ dabs having NRHP entries. Just clarifying. About the other, yes, water flowed under. :) --doncram 23:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't bite

Hi, Markvs88. Another user has complained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Markvs88 has repeatedly vandalized the Cheshire Academy Page regarding your edits to Cheshire Academy. The substance of your edits there is defensible, but it appears to me that the manner of those edits (i.e., mass reverting changes with fairly brief messages to the editor involved) might be a case of biting a newbie. The other user is not new, but s/he has little editing history and never received a Wikipedia welcome or other advice. Also, that other user's edits look like they may be good-faith efforts by a user unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. In the future, I hope you will be careful not to warn a "newbie" without also providing pointers to information on Wikipedia policies and guidelines that they may not be familiar with. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the heads up! I did provide minimal guidance on their page, but yeah, I was reverting in a rush. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Flags

I tried writing to the town of Harwinton, but so far, no response.--SPhilbrickT 19:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I think that flags will be much harder than town seals. At least with seals you can usually find them on the town website, or failing that on an official document. That and while the towns were required to create seals by the State, there was no such requirement for flags. I'm betting that less than 25% of CT towns/cities will even have one... Markvs88 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Duh, I said flag, but I meant seal. I wrote to one of the selectmen, but I don't know anyone there, just used an online email address. If I don't get anything in a couple days, I'll try calling. If I contact anyone, I'll ask about a flag, but my guess is they have a seal, but not a flag.--SPhilbrickT 20:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's great! I'm personally amazed that we're only missing 14 out of 169... Markvs88 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a more High definition flag that could be used for the city of Bristol, Connecticut http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5122/5323535198_ce329b041b_b.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheven18 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thanks! Did you or do you know who owns/posted the file? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I thought that Canada was a beligerent. I admit that I do not know all the details, and the film is indeed rather vague on these.

Sorry I thought that Canada was a belligerent. I have watched the movie but I admit that I do not know all the details, and the film is indeed rather vague on these.

If the map is inaccurate, then it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.201.146 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, the map is one of those "on again off again" things that has been bouncing around that Red Dawn page for years. Yeah, it's vague because the book they based the movie on (The Moon is Down) was vague so it would fit any country in occupied (WW2) Europe. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Civility is important for all editors. In this case, one editor acted rashly, and another editor strongly rebuked him for his actions. Other editors in an AfD are involved, with some strong statements being made. I am asking for calm deliberation by all editors contributing to the discussion. Some are also editing the articles at issue, to make improvements and rescue them from deletion. That is normal during a pending AfD discussion. Thank you for your information. Feel free to reply here, or on my talk page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, DThomsen8. Thank you for this note, I appreciate your taking positive action in this... "event". I will be of any help that I can. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject United States

I have proposed a change to the mission statement of WikiProject United States at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Mission statement for WikiProject United States and would welcome your views. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the heads up! I have posted my support for your proposal. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I replied to your comment on the WPUS talkpage. --Kumioko (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't walk away from the discussion. I will make a third proposal latter today. Racepacket (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Racepacket, but Kumioko's idea of compromise is "you change" and I'm tired of talking to a wall. He is unreasonable and this is a waste of time, just like my previous foray in speaking with him was. He's never once conceeded anything, so there is no reason for me to bother. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is worth one more round, and we have gotten more people involved. My new proposal is here. The entire thread has been posted as a RFC as a centralized discussion and at the WikiProject Council. If broader discussion does not work, we can always try RFC/U. Racepacket (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko has resigned from participation in WPUS and as its self-appointed leader. It is safe to return to the civil discussion of WPUS' scope, if you wish. Racepacket (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Racepacket, but I've said my peace already... I don't have anything to add at this point but will look in on the discussion periodically. It's not a matter of "safe" IMO, I think (as I say below) that Kumioko shouldn't quit. It was more a matter of the discussion not being able to get anywhere, and I hope now that it can. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I left the project

I thought you would be interested and pleased to know that I am no longer a member of WikiProject United States and I will no longer be actively working on project tasks, the portal, the noticeboard or the Collaboration. --Kumioko (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks dropping a line, but I take no joy in it. IMO you should stay with it and work on the national-level project that needs good editors. I disagreed with you on the debate, but that doesn't mean I dislike you. We all have our POVs, and that's never going to change. I hate it when an article I write gets zapped by deletion Nazis, or some of the absurdities of my co-inmates here on Wikiproject Connecticut, but that's all part of the fun. Hope you change your mind, Markvs88 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

peacocky=jealous

peacocky=jealous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.186.75 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheshire might be affluent for New Haven county, but that's like being rich in North Korea. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

5

5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.186.75 (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

cheshire comment

Hi, with such an uneducated,jealous statement about Cheshire, one can assume you never attained your goals financially or career wise. You either come from the Midwest,Bridgeport or are a Red Sox fan and probably graduated from an online college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.186.75 (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, sockpuppet! Thank you for your insults, but you're still afowl (yes, that's a pun) of wp:peacock. Cheshire is only the 38th richest town in Connecticut, making it rather average for the state (barely in the top 20%) and 3rd in New Haven county behind Woodbridge & Madison. (sort by column C): [2]. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Block on anon

I blocked that anon IP for only 24 hours because of the likelihood that the IP is subject to reassignment. A block on an IP like that is likely to cause collateral damage to other people who happen to be temporarily using the IP. Anyway, this particular anon seems to move from one IP to another, as indicated by the fact the s/he edited from another IP shortly after I blocked the previous one. In this sort of situation, page protection on the article (which I semi-protected for another 7 days) is generally more effective at preventing the vandalism. --Orlady (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense... but the last page block was for 2 months back on 17 November. I doubt a week is going to deter this guy. Ah well, C'est la vie. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but most vandals do give up eventually. If the block turns out to be too short, it can be extended or reinstated. The article is on my watchlist now. --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged! Though I think you'll find this particular vandal to be pretty tenacious. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Neomaster2008

Can I ask how on earth did I "vandalize" those pages because I think you are a self obsessed power mad mam who sits all day in front of the computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neomaster2008 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And you suppose that blanking as article and replacing the content with "This article was removed", changing a guy's name to "gaffer" and his birth year/playing years, and adding "it also is slang for testicle" to each article (respectively) is somehow encyclopedic? You may want to read up on Editing policy so you understand what a valuable edit might be. Markvs88 (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) - One list needed

Please note my request, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)#One list needed and comment or volunteer to make a list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Pennamite-Yankee War

Hard to believe that Connecticut and Pennsylvania were fighting wars, but the threePennamite-Yankee Wars were exactly that. Pennsylvania won. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it? Well, I don't think PA or CT actually won since it was a negotiated settlement (the CT settlers got to stay) but PA got the land... IMO it was probably the best settlement given that the territory was hard to govern since NY was in the way. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new WikiProject University of Connecticut

You are cordially invited to join the newly-proposed WikiProject University of Connecticut, designed to promote collaboration and improvement on UConn-related articles on Wikipedia. Specifically, the following articles are proposed to be within the new WikiProject's scope: The University itself, including the campuses, notable buildings, notable academic programs, and notable professors; The Connecticut Huskies athletic teams, including the men's basketball, women's basketball, and football teams, their coaches, players, facilities, and history; Notable alumni, including both athletes and non-athletes. Currently no one WikiProject covers all UConn-related content: WikiProject Universities covers only the academic-side of the university; WikiProject College basketball and WikiProject College football cover only articles from their respective sports; WikiProject Connecticut does not cover articles related to UConn that are about places or people outside Connecticut (for example: bowl games such as the 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl and alumni such as Svetlana Abrosimova). WikiProject University of Connecticut, when created, will be a centralized location to coordinate monitoring and improvement of UConn-related articles. To comment on the proposed creation of the new WikiProject University of Connecticut, click here. To join the proposed WikiProject, click here, as the membership list is transcluded directly on the proposal page. Thank you for your attention, and GO HUSKIES! –Grondemar

Note: You received this message as you were a member of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Connecticut. If this message was unwanted I do apologize and will try to avoid bothering you in the future. –Grondemar 01:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Markvs88. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Racepacket (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Racepacket, I will take a look sometime in the next day or so. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

HOLY LAND

You know what? You are full of it... You try and justify citing this useless information, and to put this whole stupidity to the test, I found a credible source, ESPN if you must know... which contained an article about a man who went streaking across citi field... I posted it and cited it properly. It was removed by an admin, reason saying "who cares?" .... Oh so when someone like yourself wants to post something others might deem wrong and should be left alone, its ok, but when someone else tries to post something.... then it's irrelevant.... STUPID, and hypocritical.... "Best" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.26.198 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And I hope you enjoy your next ban as much as you enjoyed your previous one. However, you must bear in mind that when it was discussed on talk:Holy Land USA, you were the one that lost the vote and the one that tried to "stuff the ballot box". Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was never banned, again, do you know how easy it is to get around these wikibans? Sure I was banned the other day, and I got around it in about 10 seconds... I think I proved my point, I elaborated on the murder with cited information, and it was deleted. Censorship/creative control at it's finest... so it's ok for certain people to add useless information, but not ok for others to add to it... hypocritical fools. Best, 69.37.154.161 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, sockpuppet. 69.177.26.198. You lost wp:consensus, even while trying to stuff the ballot box. I suggest you get over it. Markvs88 (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Troll Markvs88, you lost at life. You have proven yourself timelessly to be a hypocrite, and a bit of a fool. I suggest you get over it. Best 69.177.22.57 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Another day, and another IP has been blocked. --Orlady (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Orlady! I seem to attract only the finest anons for my rogue's gallery. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Another minute, another block evasion... just give it up. I have offered up a new concensus for the added material. What's the problem here?149.152.191.2 (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that since you're going against wp:block evasion, you have no input. Markvs88 (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that since I was blocked for adding sourced material and was blocked requesting a concensus, I don't see the reason to block me. Secondly, I am at a new location at the moment which makes my input valid actually. This IP was never blocked therefore there is no reason to block it. 149.152.191.2 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't understand the rules, that's the first problem. It doesn't matter what IP you post from, the article is locked because of your actions. And, because of wp:duck, you're never going to get anywhere with these "guerrilla" tactics. The expectation is that you'll be blocked until you give up. Given your tone with me and others (since August), you're attempt to game the system with wp:sockpuppets, and your constant removal of content against wp:consensus there is no reason why we should give you the benefit of the doubt: you've tried everything you could do (including wp:block evasion to have your wp:pov on this one issue, and that's not how Wikipedia works. That you're trying a new angle of "but it's sourced!" is just another farce. Markvs88 (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well your expectations are farcical and asinine. My edits are for adding mere detail, and neither you or anyone else here can say otherwise, and I will not give up. Your best option here is to work with me and not against me. Best 69.37.97.81 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia essay

You may find this essay interesting. --Orlady (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm familiar with it. I don't always follow it, but I'm familiar with it. :-) Markvs88 (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

anti-metric bigotry

Hey, your complaint in edit summary here made me laugh. I think you believed the AnomieBot edit was erasing valid information by replacing ".9 acres" with "less than one acre" instead. In fact the edit was implementing a correction; the available information is only that the place has less than one acre, and the ".9" value is a data entry code used by National Register's NRIS data entry staff, which means that. If a different precise acreage is given, say .4 or .7 or 1.2 acres, then those are correct values. There was a long-running previous misunderstanding by users of the NRIS database, about places where .9 shows. AnomieBot is fixing that error. More at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 50 (where that correction was added to bot request), which followed this initial bot request, which references previous discussion. I'm suspect this is more than u need, but please say if you have any more concern. Anyhow, i reverted your cancellation of the bot edit. Again, i liked your characterization of the bot. Cheers, --doncram 17:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you reverted again, already. Hey, you are too quick with that; it is edit warring a la Polaron; your repeated edits have repeatedly removed another needed change, about updating the NRIS reference. You could/should instead take it upon yourself to open a question with the other editor, to come to some understanding, don't merely remove their contribution. There is too much quick reversions going on in Connecticut articles in general, frankly, which drives away new editors. But, i thought you were complaining about the loss of a precise measurement (metric) rather than complaining about the use of "acre" rather than also showing metric hectare. Well, fine, replace "less than one acre" by "less than 1 acre (0.40 ha)" if you like. That happens to cause a line-break and doesn't look great; it was Elkman's judgmenet and i went along with it that showing "less than one acre" is fine.

Frankly, i have never seen a hectare, have no idea what it is. The source states "less than one acre", and it is about American places. I sincerely doubt that any real estate in Connecticut is listed for sale by its hectarage or whatever. Real estate is measured in acres in the U.S. Again, go ahead and use the "convert" template if you wish for this one, to explain to no one what less than one acre is in metric. Please do replace the rest of the edit. --doncram 17:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. Glad I finally got someone's attention on this! Why on Earth is the 'bot removing metric measurements? I don't know who is running the bot, nor do I really care -- it's sloppy editing. BTW: In regards to edit warring, and one cannot edit war with a bot making bad edits. :-)

I disagree - it looks exactly like it's supposed to... after all, you wouldn't call "slightly less than a can" more accurate than than "11.2 ounces" when discussing (say) a certain beverage in a can, would you? Thanks again & I appreciate it, Markvs88 (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean to refer to, with "I disagree - it looks exactly...". The NRHP nomination document for the place is the fundamental source providing the "less than one acre", information, see page 4: "Acreage of property: less than one". This is coded into the NRIS database as "less than one" by use of the .9 special data code. Their use of the .9 code that way is documented within the NRIS database that can be downloaded. Elkman's system failed to decipher that into "less than one", and Elkman has acknowledged that error and has fixed it in his system so new NRHP infobox for this place would now show "less than one acre". Your edit has so far restored the .9 acre assertion, which is incorrect; there is no source available stating the NRHP-listed area is .9. Please restore both parts of the edit: mention the area one way or the other as "less than one acre" with or without long discussion of what a hectare is, and also restore the replacement of NRIS reference. --doncram 19:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the current view... I don't see anything wrong with it. However, with that revelation I'm fine with the edit -- apparently the NRHP isn't too thorough in it's paperwork. But then, I've pointed that out a lot in the past and why the NRHP is not authoritative. I will revert. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the error being corrected here was not the NRHP's, so you should not allow this to add to your perception about typos or other errors in the NRIS database. The error is only in other parties' misinterpretation of what the NRIS database accurately reports about the actual NRHP nomination document. Okay, good, done. --doncram

Pearl Harbor Bridge revert?

I thought it'd been bad for longer than that, so I didn't revert him meself. I'm glad to hear it's only a recent issue. - Denimadept (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It has. I-95 has had traffic jams since the day it opened, as it should have been built with 5 lanes according to the architect. (That's from History Channel, anyway). But most would probably agree that the bridge became more of a bottleneck after the rebuild & expansion of I-95 in East Haven (over the last decade). Before that, the jam was just longer in length. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Local media

I admit to lacking much Wiki experience and I would like your suggestion about how to add the names of legitimate local news organizations in the local media section of a number of CT towns. Carllavin (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carllavin! Most of the time websites aren't included in local media unless they're the site of a local newspaper or a town government sanctioned site. I'm not sure which article you're referring to offhand, can you clarify which one you mean? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your response. Local newspapers are being replaced by online news sites. This is happening in large areas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MinnPost) and in smaller neighborhoods (see "internet" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_in_Seattle, in particular the reference to westseattleblog).

The notion that a town government has to approve a site or that it has to have roots in a legacy print company to have legitimacy with an audience is becoming outdated. My own career shows some of that arc. I was at four newspapers then Forbes.com as an editor. Now I have joined Main Street Connect, publisher of local news sites in 10 southern Fairfield towns.

When I was with Forbes, I was in touch with some ranking Wikipedia editors who suggested that we update Wikipedia profiles of billionaires with the latest Forbes information. Some of the profiles had outdated stats. Now that I am here, I recognize that the local media entries for Darien and nine other towns where we operate do not include the websites we publish.

I tried as an experiment to update the Darien entry and I saw that you deleted it. I also noticed that you have been active with many entries related to the state. We would be very interested in learning more about the CT Wiki group with the goal of possibly profiling members who live or work in our area.

I hope this makes sense. Happy to talk more here or by email or phone. Many thanks again for helping me gain a more complete understanding of Wikipedia policies and practices. Carl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carllavin (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 827c3f9b2f96b7f91cc1d4a297d1ab7a

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Professional ice hockey in Connecticut

Hey!

I did a huge revision to the Professional ice hockey in Connecticut based on your advice about organizing into history, franchises, and other sections. I'd really appreciate it if you could give me some more feedback. Thanks!

--Zfish118 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Zfish118, I look forward to checking out the new content -- thanks for dropping me a line! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

prod process

I assume with your re-adding a prod statement twice to article Canton Bridge Company article, that you are unaware of guideline/practice in this area. Read the message that the prod statement itself posts: "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." Your next move is to open an AFD, if you actually feel that is appropriate.

I get the drift that you might be editing while angry about something else. Then, that would seem to imply this is wp:POINTY disruption of wikipedia at the Canton Bridge Company article to make a point about something else. You might want to read that guideline. --doncram 01:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm, i see you re-added the prod again. And you also removed a reference which gives the source of most of the info in the article. If you want to question the reference's wording, you can do so at a Talk page of this article or of the reference template i.e. at template talk:NRISref; it is nonsensical for you to remove the source itself. Please revert yourself. This is a silly matter to open an ANI or 3RR incident report about. --doncram 01:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Until it actually supports the page, it is not a citation. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not a word of the article is supported by any source, you may NOT replace a prod once it has been removed, which anyone can do. Take it to AfD if that's what you think needs to happen. LadyofShalott 01:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, discussion of the reference is now at Talk:Canton Bridge Company.

About the prod process, do you acknowledge that the process is that you do not re-add a prod, once removed? Your removing the prod now would be appropriate. Read up on wp:deletion processes if u need to. Hey, i have to go off-line now, will return tomorrow. No hard feelings; I do appreciate what you do as an editor generally; I don't really mind your trying to make a point, but you should read up and think about this a bit, then revert yourself. regards, --doncram 01:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Doncram, I'm sure you will see the light soon too. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier

Don't revert other people's removals from an article based on the fact that the material was 'cited' if you haven't actually read the citation. Which I doubt you did, since the citation is a dead link. Prodego ^talk 04:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

First, be nice. Second, please go back and check when I started contributing to the article, I assure you that I read the citation. Third, I still only reverted your opinion, unless you can cite otherwise. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No where in this new citation is the claim that the ability to launch the F-35 is a "new design feature". Even if there were a citation for it (which there is not), this information is wrong. "The CV variant will be designed for compatibility with NIMITZ-class aircraft carriers (CVN-68 through -77)". It was a design requirement for the F-35 that it be able to operate from the Nimitz class carriers, so it cannot be a new feature for the Ford class ships. Prodego ^talk 00:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you cite that a Nimitz carrier can launch the F-35C? AFAIK, the answer is no. The F-35 needs more energy to launch than an F-18 or F-14, especially when fully loaded. Maybe -- maybe a Nimitz could do it with the wind just right, but I don't see anything from the Navy to say that the F-35C will be deployed to any Nimitz class carriers. Could a F-35B do it? Probably, but that's not the point. If you can find such a citation that they'll be deployed to Nimitz class, I'd be very interested to see it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiffle Ball hatnote

There's no confusion, simply that wiffle redirects to Wiffle Ball without an option to go elsewhere, prompting the suggestion here for a hatnote, which seems perfectly reasonable unless perhaps you think that there should be a disamb page for wiffle, which really does strike me as unnecessary. danno 20:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, now that you mention it a wiffle disambig page would be overkill. Go ahead and put it back in, but would you please also put the same shortcut on the buzz cut page? I guess we chalk this up to being "two people divided by a common language"! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with the common language thing! As Wiffle redirects to Wiffle Ball though, is it really necessary to have another hatnote on Buzz cut? As it has a completely different title to its redirect I think that you'd have to specifically navigate there to miss Wiffle Ball. However if you think it necessary I'll happily add it. Thanks and regards, danno 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

rubbish etc

About rubbish, i stand by my remarks that there were edits adding non-encyclopedic rubbish to the article during the course of the AFD. I get the feeling you felt the article was "obviously" a notable topic, so you didn't feel it was necessary to put more than some minimal amount of effort into any additions of information. If that was what you were doing, it certainly didn't work to convince me of the notability, and I am left feeling this article is not suitable for Wikipedia.

About your statement at Talk:St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish (Middletown, Connecticut) that i "have no problem red-linking in this article (and in many, many others)", i don't know what you are referring to. The general tone of your remark and some previous ones is impatient and aggravated, so I think there might be some big insult in that. But i simply don't have a clue what you are talking about. If you want to clarify, i'm listening. --doncram 00:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If it didn't, that's a shame, but by the same token I'm tired of you denying to others what you demand for yourself. Doncram, I prefer working with you than having to deal with things like this, but as this appears to be what you want, so be it. Redlinking: you really don't know that you redlinked Greater Middletown Preservation Trust) on 09:57, 14 February 2011, or that we've had at least one prior discussion about your tagging articles with non-existant categories? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm replying here as a courtesy. You seem angry. Yes, i added that redlink to Greater Middletown Preservation Trust, thinking there could possibly already be an article for it, and i did not remove the link afterward, as I expect it is an organization that is Wikipedia-notable and can get an article. So what? I am not against there being red-links in articles. In the St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish (Middletown, Connecticut) article, i have made edits to improve the article and its links. As I have stated at its Talk page, i feel that duplicate links to one Uhlans article is not helpful. I simply don't understand what you are taking offense about specifically, though I think from the tone and repetition of your remarks that you seem to think i am inconsistent in my editing. I don't see a contradiction between my supporting articles on NRHP-listed places (which are usually held to be notable from consensus of past discussions and their compliance with wp:GNG), and my disagreeing with the notability of every church or parish (for which wp:GNG seems to be the standard). I'll continue to watch here, in case you want to clarify. But maybe it would be best to just take a break. --doncram 17:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As am I, though I'm not angry... I'm tired, as I said. I find it... interesting that you find redlinking of your own to be fine, but linking to relevant points to not be. Not helpful to you, maybe. But then you are a major Wikipedia user. Perhaps some 13 year old in East Haven isn't so knowledgable. Consider that, eh? I'm not taking offense, btw. No, this is me treating you the way you treat other editors SOMETIMES. As I've said, I greatly prefer working with you rather than this petty "fighting", but (again) SOMETIMES you go off the rails a bit and decide to grind an article down for no reason, while giving "your own" a free pass. That's not acceptable. The fact that you don't see the difference in and of itself is a problem, IMO. To put that in perspective re: wp:gng - if I did a mass AFD on every NR database sourced article (assuming it only had 1 other ref), how would you feel? That's my point. Enjoy your break! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well i was suggesting you take a break.

As i've commented now also at Talk:Canton Bridge Company, "If you seriously want to dispute notability, open an AFD on this and as many other NRHP articles as you like." Please do. It will run down your own reputation, I predict, because the AFD will be quickly or eventually closed as Keep. But if you really believe they are not valid you have that option to make the case and get a judgment from other editors. I did the right thing previously, based on what i believed, in putting up the church article for AFD. Your attempting to tear down the Canton Bridge Company article seems like revenge on your part, for your taking offense that I used the AFD process on a Connecticut church article. I see no reason why you should take offense, and I would not take offense myself if you would use the available AFD process yourself (though I will probably point out you are wasting other editors time on a non-serious proposal). Make the AFD proposal or accept that notability is established, one or the other, please. --doncram 20:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I totally misunderstood you. Here I thought you weren't being condescending. Feel free to check your ego check at any time.

Well Doncram, that depends on you. I've spoken with you on multiple occasions asking you to take the NRHP blinders off. Sometimes you do, sometimes you dont. Sometimes (as with the "Catholic Church AFD Absurdia" you go way into left field. I can tell you're particularly annoyed that someone is even bothering to question the "holy historical database". In any event, this is not revenge. It's a reckoning. It can stop now, or it can continue, the choice is up to you. We've had enough encouters over notability in non-NRHP articles and NHRP tagged articles that I feel this is necessary if you continue with applying NRHP > everything else as a ruler. As I've said multiple times, THAT is what this is really about. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Eliza Kruger

Hey... no fair starting a discussion about the NFL/High school girl incident and then not discussing it!  :) I think it should be removed for the reasons I've given, but I'll wait to hear your thoughts. Judging from the reverts and edit summaries, there are a number who agree that it should not be included. Wikipelli ^Talk 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to discuss it, as I'm pro inclusion. :-) Seriously: if it is removed, no one will discuss it, so it must stay until proven not relevent. I'll talk on that talk page in reply, of course. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide justification of why it should be there, which you haven't. Everyone understands that she is a student at the school, and that the story was in the paper, but the story had nothing to do with the actual school.

I keep posting it, you keep not reading it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but keep in mind you could never answer the question. You can't justify it, and that's the truth.

LOL! Yeah, I've been on Wikipedia for 5 years, plotting editing this one high school page. You should learn the rules before you fight against them. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent report to WP:AIV

Thank you for trying to report an edit warrior on WP:AIV. However, you made two mistakes: a syntax error and using the wrong board. First, you made a syntax error that made the links in the IPVandal template break. You inserted a space between the pipe symbol "|" and the IP address. This probably caused other admins to skip your report because it was broken. Second, edit warriors need to be reported at WP:ANEW. I then fixed the report three hours after you submitted it, and it seemed that the edit war had finished. The report was then almost immediately removed by another user as being stale. Jesse Viviano (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jesse. Sorry about all that, I guess I was a little tired last night. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Retired

I have decided to retire from Wikipedia effective today, 20 February 2011. I've spent several years improving Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut articles, but recently I've spent far too much time fighting vandalism over the past year or two, nearly to the exclusion of improving articles. It just isn't fun anymore, so I'm done. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go; it was a pleasure working with you. Relax and do something less frustrating, and if you ever decide to return, know you'll always be welcome. –Grondemar 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bye. Best, 74.108.173.137 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Stratford (Metro-North station)

Please do not be so parochial. Wikipedia readers outside the USA may very well not know where Connecticut is. All articles relating to a place should specify what country they are in, unless they are a world city such as London, Paris or New York. -- Alarics (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona

The Navy couldn't have given the name Arizona to CVN-79, because USS Arizona (BB-39) is still in commission. (And will be until she totally falls apart, at least.) So any such suggestion was either clueless or grandstanding.
—WWoods (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah, sure. But that doesn't mean the suggestion wasn't made all the same. Remember, it *was* made by a Congressman! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springdale Little League

There was a problem with this edit which should have been made to the specific AfD rather than to the log page. Please feel free to reinstate the content of the edit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springdale Little League. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wesleyan University

Markvs88,

Why is it that for a person to be a notable alumni of a school, they must have a wikipeida page? A CEO of a major company such Foxwoods Casino or a US ambassador ARE without a doubt notable alumni regardless if they have their own wikipedia page or not. Please explain to me why this is not so in you view. I realize you have been on wikipedia much longer than I have and edited far more pages, but I feel that you are wrong in this case. Plenty of other schools list notable alumni who do not have a wikipedia page. look at the business section in Wesleyans alumni wikipedia page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_University_people.

-Willsom11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willsom11 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Willsom11! The answer to this is simple: wp:verifiability. You'll note that for those I removed (and I do that with every list in the Wikiproject Connecticut, be it Yale, Wesleyan, Bridgeport, etc) I asked for a wikipage or a citation for proof of whom they are. If you can list any such school in CT, I've been slacking. :-) But more to the point: suppose I added "Markvs88 - CEO of General Motors" to the list with no wikipage, no citation. It can (and should!) be removed, as anything uncited on Wikipedia can be. While I don't believe that you added spurious or non-existant people, there are those whom do. It's bad enough that no one (or almost no one) goes through the list of people that HAVE wikipages to ensure they actually went to the school/came from the town in question. Could you imagine if we didn't at least keep a minimum bar of having a Wikipage or a citation to be added? If any of this is unclear, I'm happy to discuss it further. (PS: THANKS!! I did not know about that page. I'll add it to the project and do some editing, but the wide majority of the entries seem to have pages or citations.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI there is No requirement for a list of names for those names to currently or ever have a Wikipedia article. There are tons and tons of cases where a list of things would not need to have an article on every item or individual in the list. However, as Marks stated that list of individuals must be verifiable so, for example, if the names are listed on the schools wesbite as Alumni, but they are not all notable, they could still be on the list, but wouldn't have an article (or even a red link). --Kumioko (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kum, and thanks for stalking my talk page! You might want to read WP:NLIST & WP:LSC and reconsider your opinion. Believe it or not, there *are* requirements for adding content to lists. No, they don't need to have wikipages, but they do need citations. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol, not intentionally stalking but I suppose it could be. Yes I am familiar with those and I agree that the lists should have a citation, in fact I mentioned that in my post as well. However it appears, based on the context above that your feelings are that if the person does not have an article in WP then they are not notable and thats the point I wanted to clarify. For example, it has been determined and agreed that Medal of Honor recipients are notable and as an example this list includes a lot that currently dont have articles. To remove these red links would make the list incomplete and yet seems to be what you were saying was required. Or am I misreading your comments. --Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fair... and that's why when I delete entries off of lists my edit summary normally reads "no wikipage nor citation" (ie: [[3]]. :-) I fully admit that most of the time I don't check every wikipage for proof unless the entry seems suspect like "Brian Smith" with no disambiguation -- I generally take adds of those with pages on good faith. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I will be sure to add more citations! If you have any other advice for a new editor, please feel free to leave me some. I will be adding the citations over the next few days and would appreciate some feedback when I am done.

-Willsom11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willsom11 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you like, feel free to join the WikiProject Connecticut. It is a project to track and improve all Connecticut based articles. If you have any other questions or just want to chat, drop a line anytime. And keep up the good work! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Revisions

Made minor revisions to clarify sources, and referenced controversy, corrected neighborhood data. This should satisfy your concerns. I'm sure others will come and discuss in more detail later. Note that automatic aggregators like "ONESPOT" which only direct to an original blog post are not the same as established sources, but we can keep the link to the original blog post for now. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.81.119 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Also note: Online aggregators like "ONESPOT" are not blogs - they are automatic aggregations of news feeds and not subject to any editorial control. The WP:NEWSBLOG section on blogs, that you cite, talks about online weblogs that are under the control of a particular journalist.

Thank you. I have made some changes to make it more neutral in tone, which I hope you find acceptable. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, these are helpful. Also thank you for pointing out the ambiguous source policy sections on WP, that users may need clarified.-71.235

Anytime, and I'm glad we could come to an accord! There are all kinds of guidelines on Wikipedia, and I try especially to follow "Don't Bite". If you have any other questions or things you wish to discuss, just drop a line. Also, you might also wish to consider "creating an account". Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheshire, CT

Gulati went to Cheshire High School, and his family lived in the town. He was a resident of Cheshire.

JP Morgan simply attended a boarding school in the town. Was never a resident. Seems ridiculous to include every Cheshrie Academy alumus as a "notable" resident of the town — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.2.111 (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that they both apparently left the town after high school, I'd say that if we were to exclude one, we'd have to exclude the other. As it stands Gulati's whole "Personal background" section is devoid of citations, so at this point one could argue he should be dropped from the list as there is no verifable source that says he ever lived there. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Tagging

I am starting to get a little annoyed with your unnecessary reversions of my tagging articles for WikiProject United States. Having the opinion that these articles are out of WPUS's scope is fine, however you are the only one that agrees with your assessment. You have tried repeatedly in multiple venues to find some supporters and every attempt has failed. Its ok that you do not agree, it is ok that you think I am wasting my time tagging articles that you feel are not in the scope of the project, it is not ok that you are reverting my efforts to include these articles in the scope of the project against concensus. Please stop. All your doing is causing me to retag them thinking that I missed them or that they are new articles. --Kumioko (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You're out of scope according to your own wikiproject, and I tire of correcting you. Why don't you go tag an article about a Soviet Rugby team? Oh wait, you've already done that. I am not against consensus, there IS no consenus. Feel free to take this to the next level if you like, but be aware that I will continue to revert ONLY the articles that you mindlessly tag. Note that I leave anything that could fall withing the US scope alone. If anything, you're going against the majority of the votes on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States governors discussion. Please stop. All you're doing is causing me to untag them thinking that you don't understand that they aren't articles relevant to your project. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your not correcting me I am am correcting you. If you think I am going against the discussion on that talk page then you are only reading your own comments. Everyone else thought you clearly had your own thoughts apart from the rest. If I tag an article that isn't part of the project (which has happened a couple times) I will untag it. Otherwise your just wasting time in edit wars. And If you think that I am tagging articles against the scope of the project then read the scope again because you clearly don't understand it. If you have such a problem with them being in WPUS then why do you not have a problem with them being in United States History...Its United States too, by your definition it clearly says that in the name. You might also want to remove the US task force tags from all teh American revolutionary war task farce articles under Military History because they would be out of scope too. The reason you don't do that is because you have a problem with me or WikiProject United States, not the scope of the project. Additionally, I can tag faster than you can untag I am quite sure so if you really want to get into a wheel war over symantics then feel free. Personally I have better things to do than to spend my time in discussion like this that take me away from actually improving articles. --Kumioko (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I also feel compelled to point out that your blind reversions are also doing other useful edits besides tagging for WikiProject United States. So your prejudice towards the WPUS project is also undoing helpful edits. --Kumioko (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rotflmao!... Then stop tagging colonial articles, as they have nothing to do with the United States! (QED.) The reason why I have no problem with them being in US History (as I have said before *many* times) is because it IS a piece of US history, not a piece of the United States! Tell me, what American forces were present at King Phillip's War? Oh, that's right... it took place 100 years before there was a US, and was fought by ENGLISH colonists. Ergo it is a valid tag by your own scope.

If I had an infinite amount of time, I would go re-tagging all of the wrongly-tagged WPUS articles OVER to USHist that are pre 1776/1783. No, as I've said dozens of times now: the WPUS needs to follow a start date, and should not blindly tag anything that has ever happened on current US territory as in its "mission". I don't care about the WPUS nor you, except that you keep tagging articles that have nothing to do with the WPUS as WPUS articles. (Again:) Otherwise, wouldn't I be reverting *all* of your WPUS tags? But no, I leave the ones that make sense which are indeed the majority (surely aboue 90%!). It's the mindless inaccurate tagging that I oppose.

I also feel compelled to point out that you're a senior editor and should know better than to complain about that. If you want that to stop, you can easily do a two-step edit on an article we're conflicting on. Your assumation that you're doing good by tagging everything under a WPUS banner is blinding you to the truth that NOT everything that has ever happened on these shores is American. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If the article is a piece of US History then it is in the scope of United States, United States History you said it yourself. Not colonial american history, not revolutionary war history, United States History. This whole discussion is a matter of symantics and your interpretation of the rules. I should not have to create a project under United States for Pre-1783 just because you, one editor doesn't like it. If thats what it takes to make you stop this nonsense then thats fine I will. Either way these articles are going to end up in the project. For your information though I have just been drug into yet another ANI which given the timing I find highly suspicious and my instincts tell me its somehow tied to this conversation either because someone is watching your page or you discussed it with them offline. Either way that will slow me down significantly from making improvements to the project for some time most likely. These things usually last weeks and consume a lot of energy. That should give me plenty of time though to create this pre 1783 subproject so youll end this stupid nonsense. --Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

For the nth time: I have no quibble with WPUS tagging articles that are relevant to the United States. For that to be true, the US has to have EXISTED at the time of the topic! (At no time am I removing the WPUSHistory tag. Why? Because they're the us history project.) The US did not exist before 1783/1776. See the difference? If not, please re-read that, perhaps the nuance isn't getting through. And no, I don't mean that as a slam. I can understand the WPUS and the WPUSHistory having *some* overlap. It is logical that anything which existed WHILE there was/is a United States would be in the project. But not things before.

I'm not asking you to create a pre-1783 wikiproject. I'm asking you to stop tagging articles that are not about the United States. I should not have to constantly revert one editor that doesn't understand that the US did not exist since the dawn of time. As for nonsense and stupidity, if you can't grasp the simplicity of what I'm saying here, well...

If you're making an accusation, feel free to make it as I always deal plainly, and because I can assure you that I have no part in whatever conspiracy you might imagine. I do not use alts, I do not canvas, etc. If you find that hard to believe that's your perogative, but frankly I really don't enjoy this bickering. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The conversation below is an indication of how the AN got started only moments later by Sarek. You are not asking for me to create a pre 1783 project you are demanding it by removing the tags. So I will oblige, I will create yet another useless project so that I can place all the articles that pertain to United States History but predate the creation of the United States (from Columbus through 1783) so that you, one editor, will feel like they are now within the scope of the project. Its a lot of work to create and maintain yet another project that will probably not attract many members but its worth it because you say it must be done. --Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am asking you (and have been for months!) to realize that not everything that has ever happened within the modern geography of the United States is a part of that wikiproject. Again, by your logic the whole of the Roman Empire would be Wikiproject Roman Catholicism, or supposing that Canada ever does split up and the provineces join the Union... every one of those articles, no matter what they are about or when they occurred -- would be WPUS. It is illogical. That you seek to "get around" simple logic by creating a duplicate project of Wikiproject United States History tells me two things: that you have no answer to my argument, and that you have some odd need to continue this tagging spree for your project. I think both of these points speak volumes. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been saying the answer that you are refusing to hear and you are looking at the WikiProject United States thing in too much of a Black and white manner. Its more grey than that. In school all the way from the first grade through college all the history teachers taught that United States History included Christopher Columbus's discovery of the America's, the revolutionary war, etc. But by your logic this isn't true because the United States didn't exist, so how can it be US History? Well Ill make a deal with you, if you can get the United states educational system and all the history books and scholars to agree with you that the United States History should not go beyond 1783 then Ill concede. Otherwise I am going to continue on with the understanding that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just trying to wind me up and waste my time. --Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Either something is, or it is not. Christopher Columbus sailed for Spain, but came from Italy. He did not discover the United States, he discovered the Western Hemisphere (with all the debates that go on with that re: Vikings, Chinese, et al). The scope of any project is finite, and the WPUS covers the United States. You're tagging issues that are NOT about the United States. That is the problem. Whatever you were taught in school is not verifiable, and is spurious anyway: did you learn about world history? Is Stonehenge or Napoleon WPUS because you learned about them in classroom in the United States? LOL!

You keep missing my point: the scope of WPUS is the United States, not United States History, which is a seperate project. I STILL have no quibble with WPUS tags on anything that occured, existed, lived etc AFTER the founding of the US.

I'll make a deal with you too: prove me anything you're saying isn't just myopic folklore. Show me that Christopher Columbus called the land the United States, or that Federal troops took part King Phillip's War. Oh that's right, you can't. As for wasting your time, you've been wasting mine by clearly tagging, re-tagging, and re-re-tagging articles that are clearly out of scope. Also, if I have no idea what I'm talking about, I shudder given your comprehension level. (See? That was me being snarky. You can stop at any time.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:King Philip's War. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sarek of Vulcan. I have been talking about this at length, and have been reverting Kumioko's vandalism of the page. I point out that I have had an extensive converation about Kumioko's editing here, and on my talk, he has exhibited bad faith by going back on his word. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I understand you don't agree with the scope of the project but to say I am vandalizing the article because I add a banner to it is complete bullshit and you know it. You are misinterpreting what I said just as you are doing to the scope of the project itself. This makes me wonder what other poor decisions you have made in your edits. I never, ever said anything that would indicate I went against my word nor did I act in bad faith. You are the one showing bad faith by telling me that the article is not in scope because the United States didn't exist yet. --Kumioko (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"We are a project dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the United States, with an emphasis on subjects with regional and national significance"." -- The WPUS is not a history project. The US did not exist when this war was fought, it is outside of the stated scope of the project. I am not misinterpreting anything, I am comparing your action (tagging) against the tagged projet's scope. It is lacking, as this article is about a war between American Natives and the British Colonists. If you think simple logic is bad faith, then I think you might want to rethink what you think your project scope actually is. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes you hit the nail on the head related to the United States. Christopher columbus is "related" to the United States. So is the Mayflower and Declaration of Independance. So is George Washingtons crossing of the Delaware and the American Revolution. All according to you are outside the project scope yet, as stated by the projects scope itself, related to it. The project is a project for United States topics. Those topics include people, places, things, events and even historical topics. Again you are the only one who thinks otherwise and you are the only one who thinks its out of scope. You. Thats it. Knowone else. Any idiot except you apparently would agree that the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution are clearly in the projects scope. Also, again, this is all mute because I am going to create a subproject for this timeline so its all good. Problem solved. Moving on. --Kumioko (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? Christopher Columbus set foot on United States soil? I'd love to know how that was possible, since he would've been DEAD for about 270 years! What's next, every Haitian article falls under WPUS? Likewise, the Mayflower did not land in the United States, it founded a BRITISH COLONY within the Native American Nauset nation. The Delcaration of Independence? Sure, that one makes sense as it is the document that basically starts the United States, which is why I'm flexible re: 1776 or 1783 and *do not have any problem with any articles that are after it*. So no, they're not all outside the project scope... but SOME of them are. How many times must I say "the US has a start date"? Again, you are perhaps the only one that thinks the United States started in 40,000 BC. (I assume you mean "moot" instead of "mute"?) If you do such a subproject, it will have the exact same scope as Wikiproject United States History. I'm sure they'll be estatic. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

AN discussion

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting help with a disagreement. Thank you.--Kumioko (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of non-free image File:Woodmont Milford CT Flag.gif on Woodmont, Connecticut

The non-free image File:Woodmont Milford CT Flag.gif was recently restored to Woodmont, Connecticut by you after it have been removed for failure of our non-free content criteria policy, specifically item #10c which requires a "separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". The image still fails the 10c policy requirement and has been removed from the article again. Please do not restore this image to that article again without complying with the requirements of that policy. For more information on how to write an appropriate non-free use rationale, please consult Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. If you have questions about this, please ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Hammersoft. I feel that rule 10c does not apply since it's free use. Did you check out the URL I pasted into the edit summary? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• No, I didn't. The image is tagged as a non-free, copyrighted image here. Therefore, it needs to comply with 10c. If you feel this image is in the public domain or otherwise available under a free license, feel free to update the image description page as appropriate including convincing evidence of the claim. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• By the way, you claim on the image description page that flags can not (apparently by their nature) be copyrighted. This is false. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take care of that soon. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? I always thought this was the rule: Under 15 U.S.C. § 1052, A trademark on goods shall not be registered if it "(b) Consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof." How could a copyright therefore exist? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Trademark and copyright aren't the same thing. There's entirely different sets of laws in regards to both. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Woodmont Milford CT Flag.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Woodmont Milford CT Flag.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

interview

Hi Mark,

Possible for you to e-mail me at bsnyder@hartfordadvocate.com? Not sure what other way to get in touch with you. This is re: an article for an alt-weekly in CT. uh, here's four tildes: 163.192.12.142 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Brianna Snyder

Patriot vs Rebel

The American Revolution is what it says it was. A REVOLUTION against a lawful form of government. The use of Patriot in these contexts is a misnomer. Here is the dictionary definition of the word "Patriot" "a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion"

Wouldn't then, by this definition, the Loyalists also be Patriots? As they loved their country and way of life as much as the Rebel side did. The mere fact that the country today known as the United States of America at the time of the Revolution did not exist. It was still a colony of Britain and remained so officially until the day that the Constitution was officially declared in Sept 1787. A person who loves a country that by all means did not exist cannot be a ""Patriot"" The term Patriot is a misrepresentation as a description for soldiers or supporters of the Revolution. If Rebels do not suit you, then change it to Revolutionaries? “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.”

Longbranchno4 (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Brock

First, let me thank you for including the name of the article you are complaining about my editing. I have 7,325 pages on my watchlist and make several hundred edits a day so of course I know exactly which one you're talking about. Yes, that is sarcastic because you're also replying from an account which did not edit the article you're complaining about!

Second, you feel the need to quote a dictionary before even starting a discussion? Okay... why do you assume that they must "American" patriots? The Green Mountain Boys were most assuredly patriots of New England before there was an America. There are many cases where one can assert that someone was a patriot of their individual colony, such as Nathan Hale for Connecticut.

Third, “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” ? Really? Try this one on for size: "The cliché is a hackneyed idiom that hopes that it can still palm itself off as a fresh response.” Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Wyoming.

Sorry, I did not realise the scope of your editing so when I responded to you I did not know that you were editing this many pages. Both acc'ts are mine so Austina55 and longbranchno4 are both me again- pardon me for my editing faux pas.

I quoted the dictionary because I like to use verifiable sources. Certainly the dictionary is a verified source? The same as what should be used in Wiki pages- Correct? Think of it as a citation.

I assumed that they said AMERICAN PATRIOTS because that is what is clearly stated in the article.Battle of Wyoming Not ""New York"" Patriots- at that time known as the Province of New York... Please see the article as it is clearly stated at the top- AMERICAN PATRIOTS. My reasoning still stands- the usage of Patriot is a nearly Disney-esque 20th or at best 19th Century term. Please give a verifiable first person account from the American Revolution about the Battle of Wyoming Valley or other where it states AMERICAN PATRIOT or PATRIOT even.

I can give numerous accounts of where it states "REBEL" because this is the proper term for the people who decided to REBEL against England.

I hope you enjoy your editing time. It must make you feel very powerful to be able with the stroke of a pen to change history for the Great Unwashed.

Austina55 (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Yes, I do enjoy editing, but reverting an edit back isn't about power -- I revert dozens of edits every day because they amount to wp:vandalism. Thanks for mentioning the page, now I remember this one. Since the edit in question didn't have an edit summary and came from a new account with few edits, there was no reason for me to assume any particular rationale -- that's why you were reverted. Using edit summaries is a good way to ensure that another editor understands what you are trying to accomplish.

I don't dispute the use of the dictionary, I dispute that you felt inclined to posit that your use of the word was the only possible one. Clearly (now that I can read the article) my examples above are moot.

Yes, and did you click the link American Patriots and read it? Personally, I don't disagree with your POV -- I personally have been dealing with an editor that insists that everything that ever happened on American soil (EVER!) is American. Doesn't matter if the King of Spain appointed a Governor in Florida in 1570, that person is an American Governor. The mind reels.

I'm sure you could. You might want to look at the arguements on that talk page (Talk:Patriot (American Revolution) as a jumping off point. However, I am disinclined to reword something which appears to be common parlance and has a nearly 7 year old article backing it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Miss Porter's School

Hey there, while there is no guideline in Wikipedia requiring examples in lists to be notable (as defined by Wikipedia), standard practice throughout the encyclopedia these days is to avoid non-notable subjects in lists. At one time it was useful to allow non-notable items in lists as an indicator as to what articles needed to be written but these days the general approach is to establish notability for the subject first (via an article for the subject) then include it in the list. This also keeps a consistent definition of "notable" going such that the requirements used for establishing notability for an article are the same used for establishing notability in sections with a heading title of "notable" (as in this case). I've started a discussion on the talk page here, hope to see you there. SQGibbon (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello SQGibbon. Both of the names in question are tied to the articles listed in their summations. In the case of Ms. Petit, her article was actually merged into the Home Invasion article as she would otherwise have her own article for "being killed". Likewise, Ms. Putnam is probably unlikely to ever have her own article (or one that has much content if it were made), but being awarded a medal by the President seems enough to pass the notability test for an alumni list. I hope you understand my rationale for restoring these two. I of course have no problem with the other two, they don't seem to posses any notability at all. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

XXL Magazine

Why do you keep removing the 2010 and 2011 Freshmen's list on the XXL Magazine page? Stop editing the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginmassoli (talk • contribs) 23:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you read the talk page? I've let it stand because somebody FINALLY put in a citation that shows there has been a list after 2009. Before there was no citation, so the 2010 & 2011 entries were not factual. I could have changed all 24 of them to Iron Maiden and they would have been just as legitimate. They've stood for 3 days now. Remember, all uncited information on wikipedia can be removed at any time. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bigos

Bigos in Kraków.

You recently edited the article Bigos stating that you have only ever had Bigos with potatoes. Well, I have had Bigos once in my life, in Kraków, and it was definitely without potatoes. I have a picture of the dish as proof, seen here. JIP | Talk 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello! What I did was revert an edit that said one would never eat potatoes & bread at the same time. I meant that I've only ever had bigos with both. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I just read...

the Hartford Advocate article. Good read, although it felt a little inside baseball. I hope it is half as interesting to non-Wikpedians. --SPhilbrickT 20:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Sphilbrick. I'm not sure what you mean by "inside baseball"... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, should have typed Inside baseball (metaphor)—a phrase meaning that the discussion talked about several things that might be very familiar to regular WP editors, but I'm not sure how interesting they'd be to outsiders. I hope they are of interest, just not sure whether typical readers would find the details interesting or not. --SPhilbrickT 21:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks, I wasn't aware of the expression. It would have been nice had the reporter emailed me back with a link to the story/when it was going to be run so I'm glad you found it! She used about 1/8th of our emails, but then I suppose there was a size limitation on the article or some such thing. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool interview. I bet it will interest some folks outside Wikipedia (not just insiders). --Orlady (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Queensryche albums

I just read your message. I didn't know there was a way to communicate with other editors. I would have stopped repeatedly changing the genre information on the Queensryche album pages had I read your message earlier; I wasn't trying to be stubborn. I'll explain why I made those changes. Terms like "Heavy Metal" and "Hard Rock" are very broad and loosely defined, and they can be applied to any band which's style of music is ambiguous, but most of Queensryche's music has all the traits of "Progressive Metal" without ambiguity, therefore I labelled the appropriate albums as such (Warning, Rage for Order, Operation Mindcrime, Empire, Promised Land, Operation Mindcrime 2, American Soldier). Their four experimental (and less popular with the fans) albums (Hear in the Now Frontier, Q2K, Tribe, Dedicated to Chaos) are difficult to label, therefore I felt the simple term "Rock" (or "Hard Rock", due to a fairly heavy sound) would be appropriate. Let me know if you agree. If yuo don't, I'll stop editing those pages. Josh4999 (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Josh Zepeda

Hello Josh4999, that's quite alright, and I understand it's not easy being a new user! Yeah, I agree the terms are broad...= but that's actually a necessity on Wikipedia since otherwise there would be 10,000 categories for every single thing/experience/object out there, so we often tag things with multiple tags so as to make them as inclusive as possible. Personally, I totally agree with you that QR is Prog Metal, but it's a small genre overall -- I mean, aside from Fates Warning, Dream Theatre and Rush, there aren't a lot of "like acts" out there. IS HitNF more of a rock album than RfO? Well sort of, but they both count as metal for the average country fan. It's all a matter of perspective, and as an online dictionary WP needs to not assume that a reader doesn't know much about something before they've read it.

If you have any questions or concerns about something, feel free to write to me at any time. And please, don't stop editing! :-) However, if you think an edit might be controvertial or is reverted, always put in an edit summary before hitting "Save Page" and/or take it to that article's talk page. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Promised Land (album)

Could you please stop reverting my changes on the Promised Land article? What I was doing was not vandalism, I was trying to add the locations of where that album was recorded. I have Promised Land on CD, which mentions the same locations of where the album was recorded in the infobox. 76.191.133.247 (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope. But if you want to add cited content, I'm all for it. Nothing you've added to date has actually contributed to the article, it's already in the "Album credits" section. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I wasn't vandalizing at all. I was just trying to add where the Promised Land album was recorded in the infobox. Are you trying to tell me that I have no right to do that just because it's already in the "album credits" section? If you own a copy of Promised Land like I do, check your copy and you'll see where it was recorded (the same locations I added). 76.191.133.247 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course I own a copy. I own the entire catalogue, short of the newest release because the band finally jumped one too many sharks when they fired Stone for Tate's son-in-law. But I digress. The information does not belong in the infobox, as infoboxes are for short synopsis of the album, not every single little detail. That's what the article is (of course) for. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I understand why you think I shouldn't include the studio locations in the infobox to Promised Land, but what about Queensrÿche's other albums? Many of their albums (like Rage for Order and Operation: Mindcrime) include a studio location in its infobox, but does that mean a studio location shouldn't be included as well? I think that makes no sense. 76.191.133.247 (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, with the exception of Live Evolution & Mindcrime at the Moore, only Mindrime and prior albums have it. Tell you what though... looking at Template:Infobox album, it does say in their description that when & where an album was recorded should be included. So... I'll agree you can add it in, but must include city & state. ("The Dungeon" doesn't mean anything by itself). Fair? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Long Hill

I'm going to add a bunch of images of the historic homes on Main Street. I just need some time to upload to commons. There is a ton of information on the history of the industries in Long Hill. Should Parlor Rock and the history related to the northern parts of the Pequonnock River be added to Long Hill page too? IMO, it should be. There's just so much information. Probably should have a separate page on the History of Long Hill eventually.Later.Tomticker5 (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tom, sounds good! Of course I agree Parlor Rock should be included... and I think there was a train station for it too? Let me know what you need a hand on, I'm happy to help. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Polonaise

No big deal, sorry for misreading the situation: on the afterthought, your edit did not look like a revert war at all, and I should have used a less "personal" edit summary. Lolo Sambinho (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Markvs88. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 20:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

This Mystylplx AKA Griot sock/meat is stirring up trouble again. The other IP is NOT removing content. I can see from the history that he or she has MOVED content to another place in the article. Shifting content is NOT vandalism. This Mystylplx AKA Griot sock/meat was warned not to make false vandalism accusations before. I'd like to see something done. 99.93.194.84 (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And I find it interesting that so many IP editors from the same geographical area are all interested in the same article. As for moving the content within the article, let's try to discuss this on the talk page and not keep going in circles. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never claimed not to be at least some variation of the 99- IPs. There are three belonging to me, I believe, since December. Eagles and Hersfold are familiar with these matters.

That said, I would be thrilled to discuss the matter fairly and openly on the article talk page. However, I'll have nothing to do with Mystylplx/Griot meat/sock. Thank you for understanding. I apologize if I have offended you in any way. That was not my intention. Pax et Bonum, 99.120.40.178 (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Salve, 99.120.40.178. I have replied on talk:Ralph Nader. I'm sorry, but since I can't find it and you either can't or won't post the location of this consensus, I have to assume it does not exist.
I take no offense, but thank you, and I also thank you for being agreeable. Hopefully some sort of agreement regarding the movement of the subject matter can be met. I personally have no preferance either way, so I will not vote nor weigh in unless it becomes a shouting match. I have asked user talk:Mystylplx to discuss the matter as well, and hope the two of you can come to some agreement. Vale, Markvs88 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's also interesting that another IP user claiming to be a different person but making identical edits came in while the IP user starting with 99 was gone. And now that the IP user starting with 99 is back the other one is gone. Could just be an amazing coincidence....? Mystylplx (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'm disinclined to start a wp:sock puppetry investigation if the two of you can come to an agreement regarding where the content should be in the article on the Ralph Nader talk page. All I'm asking for is that the two of you discuss this one topic on the page with wp:civility. There's been too much pointless arguing back and forth, and too many needless reversions. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Per your talk page note, you asked that the version of July 26 be kept as is, which is the version I've reverted to. Logged out Mystylplx changed it back, so I reverted to the version per your talk page note. Why then are you reverting against you request? 99.25.218.227 (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't catch that on the version. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago, 99.25.218.227 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Major problems with Griot/Mystylplx, reverting against consensus and your wishes, kindly address, thanks, 99.59.98.144 (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've replied on the page, you have the next move to make your point on why the section should not be called "spoiler" & location of the AM entry. Also, please drop any further sock-puppet allegations in the Talk:Ralph Nader page, unless an investigation is started it isn't going to do any good. If M reverts again before the discussion is closed he has to answer why, but I don't think he will. Good luck. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've replied. Three times. No allegations, sir, facts. Some of which I've just emailed to Hersfold. Thank you for your time, bis vivit qui bene vivit, 99.90.145.111 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I posted an FYI on the article discussion page, too. I'm asking for help in this matter re: consensus. Also, I'm waiting for a response from Hersfold. De aequitate, 99.88.145.8 (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello 99.88.145.8. If you want to be upset with me that's your right I suppose, but I'm working with what I have. Per wp:consensus I have to find what you pointed to didn't cut it -- there was no agreement (other than to keep the content), there was no attempt at "Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions". Right now we're working within WP:TALKDONTREVERT, as M has agreed not to change versions back and that has held now into the third day. I see your discussion with Hersfold, and bear in mind I was making the suggestion to not mention it on the talk page, not to not pursue it. I am not on either side here, and I am striving to treat you both equally. I will refactor M & your points and I again ask you both to discuss those two points and see if you can come to an agreement. If after the "location & renaming" discussion you want to ask for a new consensus on if the text should be in there at all that would be best to get us out of this constant tit-for-tat (after all.. "adde parvum parvo magnus acervus erit"). It's up to you, I'm little more than a spectator. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Markvs, since I've apparently been name-dropped a bit here I felt I should drop in with a note regarding the sockpuppetry claims. IP editor did, as he said, send me an email, but the evidence he provided proves nothing. All I am able to see is the edit warring and harassment of Mystylplx you refer to above. Just thought you should know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hersfold, I did look up the discussion on your talk page. I am staying out of any sockpuppet investigations, trying to work with two opposingly polarized editors is hard enough for me. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Markvs88, I've responded to Hersfold and, utterly disagreeing with his conclusion based upon data and evidence, forwarded the information to the legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation. I will do what I can to remain calm in this matter. Understand that regardless of others' views, I know who this "M"/"G" individual is, and will not have any contact with him. So, I thank you to take the information I have supplied and act with equanimity. Btw, you may want to check each "contributor" per the consensus. There are at a number of sockpuppets of User:Griot, whose weigh-in cannot be counted. Failing that, I agree to a compromise moving the text into the 2000 section. I really cannot keep spending time on this, truly. As we've discussed, I have some very pressing personal matters I really must attend to. Pax et Bonum, 99.12.180.203 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that's probably for the best. Good luck with whatever you need to deal with. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking the time to address this matter, since I have already surrendered so much time to it. Your conclusion greatly disappoints me, Markvs88. I worked hard to supply you responses to your requests. You've twice recanted our agreements: 1) to revert to consensus once provided and 2) to wait until Thurs. for my response for any article changes, at which time there was to be further discussion. What's more, you've ignored my views on the matter completely, and haven't even fit a compromise. I cannot see that as proper mediation. I am certain you made best efforts, but would suggest you reconsider a proper compromise. 99.25.218.98 (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? I worked no less. I searched for consensus, I worked as a neutral party, and I spent a considerable amount to time as an arbiter. At no time did I ever go back on anything I've said, and as I've pointed out numerous times: I am not your advocate, I am an umpire. I likewise did not ignore your views and tried to find *any* way to reconcile them to the rules. I've painstakingly laid out what would need to be done to move the Atlantic Monthly segment, and I truly cannot see anyway that the "Spoiler" title can be legitimately called POV. I'm sorry you dislike this outcome, but I did the best to reconcile what I was provided with the rules. Personally, I do not believe that the two of you can reach a proper compromise (whatever you feel that may be) because neither one of you respect the other. I am not a final arbiter, I am just a wp:third party. However, I doubt you would find as patient an arbiter easily. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, I am certain you made best efforts. I've thanked you for your time and attention. Now, I am working on improving the article. 99.90.145.8 (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nader (reply to your comment)

I haven't had time to sort out all of the contentions regarding that article. It looks like an edit war, but one in which most of the contentious points are fairly subtle. (I may not have seen the worst differences of opinion, though.) Considering that it's a BLP, even minor differences in POV can be serious. Also, the fact that there are contentions over topics like the subject's religion raises red flags. While I was looking at the page, MuZemike protected the page due to legal threats. I was about to the point of deciding to do that due to the edit warring. When an edit war like that one occurs, it's often a good idea to ask for full protection of the page so that people can stop reverting each other and try to have a productive discussion. --Orlady (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for refereeing the Ralph Nader article. For some time, one editor working from many IPs and names has resisted including any mention of Nader's role in the 2000 election in the lede and has been harassing any editor who wanted this included. But the lede is in good shape now, I think, and thanks for that. 173.213.247.42 (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for dropping me a note! However, I didn't arbitrate against him... I really did try my best to make what he was trying to do fit within the rules. Unfortunately, there was just no good way to do so, particularly since he declined to debate the other editor. I agree, the current lede is reasonable and would (I hope!) probably be agreeable to that editor as well, hopefully it sticks. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

You're edit warring at Branford, Connecticut with this IP, you should probably desist, even if you think you're right. Atomician (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but iIf you're really interested in getting back into anti-vandalism (per your talk page), you shouldn't be warning me about edit warring against an IP editor that's also got a regular account and has had almost all of his edits under both account reverted. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, you need to assume good faith and not edit war, even if you're right. Additionally, I did not warn you, I advised you not to, there's a subtle difference. You reverted him 4 times, which in usual circumstances means that you've broken 3RR, so I felt I was being pretty kind. Atomician (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I've posted four notices on the IP page and two on his alt (named) page. He deletes the ones on the named account and has ignored all attempts to chat. So good faith goes out the window in the name of fighting vandalism. I regularly go out of my way to follow wp:bite, but that requires the other side to actually... talk. I appreciate the "advisement", but wonder who you actually are behind that shiny new account. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What are you implying inside the foggy cloud of your ad hominem? I was a good boy under my old account, and will be on this one too. Heh. I realize that you feel attacked, and I'm sorry for that, it was not my intention, I just didn't want someone more menacing to template you or somesuch. Anyway, good day to you, I hope we interact again under more light-hearted circumstances. Atomician (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, just consider it a genuine curiosity... a sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes musing on my part. Well, thanks, I appreciate that and its nice meeting you too. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Holy Apostles re-edit

Why did you delete the entries I made. I am a student and TA there and all is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbirds (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I'm sure it was accurate, because it was all copy & pasted directly from the Holy Apostles website. That's wp:plagarism and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Local politicians

I probably can't help you appreciate the relevance of "local politicians" as a category. Mayors, aldermen, selectmen, RTM members, etc., are all "local politicians" in Connecticut (a.k.a. local government officials). Local government officials are a categorization that some of the rest of us do find interesting, as exemplified by the fact that Category:Connecticut local politicians is a part of the category hierarchy associated with Category:Local political office-holders in the United States. --Orlady (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all great, but there were exactly 4 people and 1 category for about two years because... it's not being used. Are you volunteering to go adding it to the hundreds of CT politician articles? Further, a quick look shows that the *national* category is also a joke -- most of the state subs having a couple of sub-cats and an article or five and many of the subs that HAVE articles are (suprise!) "Mayors of places in North Carolina" and the like. The whole structure is as useless as "People from X County, Y State", when it should be by town/city and roll up in to State, then to Country. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The category is only for people who have held local government (municipality, county, or town) political office. For the most part, local officeholders other than mayors of big places are not deemed to be notable solely on the basis of holding local office, but some former selectmen, aldermen, city council members, school board members, etc., are notable for various reasons. There are now 10 people and a category (which in turn contains 7 categories and 25 people) in the "Connecticut local politicians" category. If you don't see any point to the "local political office-holders" hierarchy, I suggest that you take your concerns to WP:CFD instead of dismantling categories on your own. --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you'll take pains to note I'm not edit warring with you and would therefore prefer you modify your tone. However, I thank you for starting a project to revitalize this category. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I should thank you for discussing this civilly (consistent with your usual style) instead of warring. And I'm proud to report that not only have I populated this little category, but there are no longer any individual articles slotted in the Category:Connecticut politicians. But I'm frustrated at my inability to truly finish the E. O. Smith article (he's one of the people who formerly was in that category) -- he's featured as a coach in navboxes for UConn football and baseball, and I know he coached and/or played both sports, but I haven't found a source that documents his coaching at UConn. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see that just because Doncram is blocked that you're not taking out frustrations on others. :-) Anyway, good luck with E.O. Smith. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

CT climate

whats it to you? i know ct climate and i saw things that where wrong so i fixed them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atl1192 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Atl1192! Please read Wp:verifiability. Without a citation, your information is not considered valid... how can anyone else prove that your degree-or-two changes in any given month are correct? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

yes iam why dont u just leave me alone. i know what im doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atl1192 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you knew what you were doing, you'd sign your comments, put them in the right place, and properly cite your edits. I keep offering you help, you keep refusing it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

y?

why did u delete my post in the new milford high school athletic section?it is 1 of the best rivalry in the state and deffently should be in there. So why did u delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterboy6252 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Waterboy6252! I removed your edits because they're opinion...

1. There are probably (and I'm guessing here) several hundred rivalries in the state... why is this one any different from (say) Stratford High vs. Bunnell High in Stratford, Hillhouse vs. Cross in New Haven, etc?
2. There was no citation for the rivalry, the score, etc. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
3. Saying "Everone from new milford hates the "rowdy rebels"." is clearly false: that's like me saying "Everybody from Connecticut hates the New England Patriots". Sure, it might be true in some areas, but clearly not all and clearly not everybody.
4. Did anyone count the fans? How small is this gym?
5. What is the Candlewood Cup? How old is it? How do we know the score was 21-14?

If you want some help rewriting this or have questions, I'm happy to help. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

HC link on your user page

The link to the The Hartford Courant article should be [http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/nm-ht29wiki-20110712,0,365320,full.story Editing Wikipedia Isn't Easy], not with the pipe that it currently has. It was nice to read someone saying editing WP can be a good experience, even if the Palin/Revere fiasco got mentioned. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Well, one must remember that it was the "hot" news at the time so I guess (given the Advocate leans ever so slightly to the left) it was to be expected. (I consider it a piece of non-news like Obama mentioning the 57 states..). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the link, got rid of the pipe that was making the error. I actually wasn't thinking about the news reportage of Palin's Revere quote, but the cycle of editing/re-editing/no editing that happened at WP. That was a fiasco. Maybe a farce. Par for the course.... 71.234.215.133 (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! Ah! I wasn't aware of that, I tend to not edit political articles. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5