User talk:Buaidh/Archive 2012

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to shut down WP Geographic Coordinates & ban coordinates on wikipedia articles

This means you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:User WP Romania

Hi! I noticed you created {{User WP Romania}} not too long ago, but there is a already a template {{User WikiProject Romania}}. Do you mind merging the two? --Codrin.B (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Volcán Tacaná in 'List of Ultras of Mexico'

My primary mission on Wikipedia for the past several months has been updating, correcting and expanding the world's ultra prominent peaks articles. I believe I have found an error in the article List of Ultras of Mexico. I have been unable find a source that lists Volcán Tacaná as an ultra prominent peak. Nor have I found a source stating its prominence measure at all. In the process of deleting the volcano from the list, I noticed following note in the edit window: The following table is specially formatted to facilitate precise sorting. Please discuss any proposed changes at least a few days beforehand. So I cancelled my edit and instead addressed the issue on the article's talk page. However, I have boldly made the necessary corrections at the Volcán Tacaná page.

I have since then noticed that it was you that added the table note, so I thought I would run this all by you. Please read the post at Talk:List of Ultras of Mexico for a full explanation if needed. Is it alright with you if I proceed with the edit? Is there anything about the table itself that would be disrupted. Off the top of my head, I believe I will also have to make some related edits at Ultra prominent peak and now that I have checked also the same thing at List of Ultras of Central America. Thoughts? Thank you. --Racerx11 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Volcán Tacaná#Topographic prominence. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I asked User:Viewfinder to help out with the Tacana prominence issue. I did this because: 1) I was pretty sure he would have an answer and 2) he is the most authoritative editor I know here with respect to topographic prominence and such. I have dealt with him before and have seen his edits and I trust his judgement. So, well, he said it's no ultra and has a 1030 m prom and I took this and ran with it. I have made correction at Volcán Tacaná, List of Ultras of Mexico, List of Ultras of Central America and Ultra prominent peak. I think I got it all right and will go over everything again tomorrow when I'm fresher, but you may want to check the ultra list pages that you are very familiar with and make sure they are all in order. Also, I haven't really checked into what other ralated articles may be affected. These were just "top of my head". Gotta go for now. Thanks.--Racerx11 (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I updated the List of the most prominent summits of North America, the List of Ultras of North America, the Mountain peaks of Central America, the Mountain peaks of Mexico, the Table of the highest major summits of North America, and the Table of the major 4000 metre summits of North America to reflect a topographic prominence of 1030 m for Volcán Tacaná. I also updated the List of Ultras of Canada, the List of Ultras of Central America, the List of Ultras of Greenland, the List of Ultras of Mexico, the List of Ultras of the Caribbean, the List of Ultras of the United States, the Most prominent mountain peaks of Alaska, and the Mountain peaks of North America to reflect the new ultra counts. Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well done! I think you may have covered everything. Thank you very much.--Racerx11 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User citizen Isle of Man

Template:User citizen Isle of Man has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Egg Centric 15:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right that some of those userboxes are the same thing (Wales and Guernsey) so I have nominated them for deletion as well. Whichever way consensus goes we need to be consistent! Egg Centric 19:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I stress again that these templates refer to regional citizenship as opposed to nationality. Do you have a right to vote on the Isle of Man? I don't wish to get involved in political disputes. Since there are over 400 of these templates, you have a great deal of work to do. Yours aye,  Buaidh  19:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What is regional citizenship? No, I do not have the right to vote on the Isle of Man - but only because I need to be here for 12 months to do so, and I've been here all of a week (less, in fact, as I had to pop down to London for two days). I have no political dispute whatsoever, just a pedantic dispute Egg Centric 19:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Pedantic? Different countries have different forms of legal citizenship. The United Kingdom and its various nations and realms are perhaps the most convoluted arrangements. I created Category:Regional citizenship user templates as a way to get around some of these legalistic distinctions. Regional citizenship means a long term relationship with a geographic region as opposed to residence (sometimes temporary, as in your case) or nationality (which is a legal distinction often independent of place of residence.) Would not the 12 month residence requirement for a British citizen to vote on the Isle of Mann be considered a requirement of regional citizenship? If you are a citizen of the United States and you qualify to vote in a jurisdiction, you are also considered a citizen of that jurisdiction. Jurisdictional citizenship extends to non-registered adults and minors if they are otherwise qualified to vote as well. Yours aye,  Buaidh  20:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Aye, tis me that's being a pedant - I wasn't calling you one. Perhaps the templates could be reworded, e.g. "This user is a Welsh British Citizen", or "This user is Welsh, and a British Citizen", or "This user is Welsh, and therefore a British Citizen"... or even "This user considers themselves to be a Welsh Citizen". Just that my pedantic mind is focussed on not creating citizenships that don't exist. It certainly isn't a political point, fwiw I would certainly support the right of said citizenship possibilities to exist. But they don't, and so the userboxes should recongise that. Convoluted arrangements, indeed Egg Centric 21:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The following is from the Home Office:

British citizenship is one of the six different forms of British nationality. Some of these were defined in the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1 January 1983. The laws defining how citizenship can be obtained changed on that date, which is why you will often see references to 1983 on this site.

The forms of nationality are:

   British citizenship;
   British overseas citizenship;
   British overseas territories citizenship;
   British national (overseas);
   British protected person; and
   British subject.

Other forms of British nationality have existed, but they are not current - for example, citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies (CUKC) or British Dependent Territories citizenship.

Only British citizens, and certain British subjects with right of abode through qualifying connections under the Immigration Act 1971, have the right to live and work in the UK. People holding one of the other forms of nationality may live and work in the UK if their immigration status allows it.

British nationality is defined in law. Whether a person has a claim to British nationality can be determined by applying the definitions and requirements of the British Nationality Act 1981 and related legislation to the facts of their date and place of birth and descent.

The most acceptable evidence of British citizenship is a British passport. For advice on the documents needed for passport applications in the UK, your should read the guidance booklet supplied with passport application forms, visit the Identity and Passport Service website or phone 0300 222 0000. If you believe that you have a claim to British nationality but you cannot apply for a British passport because you do not have the documents needed, you may apply for a nationality status certificate.

British nationality law is complicated, and you are advised to read the Guide NS or obtain professional advice on your claim before applying for a nationality status certificate using Form NS. You can download the form and the guide from the right side of this page. Details of the fee and the payment slip can be found in our fees leaflet.

Virtually all nationalities involve just a single nation, but British citizenship encompasses the United Kingdom (a single state with perhaps four nations), the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, and the Bailiwick of Jersey.  Buaidh  00:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Egg Centric 16:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure. With the rise of supranational entities and renewed interest in tradition regional identities, the notion of the traditional nation-state is being challenged as never before. For example, a Glaswegian may identify as a citizen of the European Union, a British citizen, a citizen of the United Kingdom, a citizen of the Great Britain, a citizen of Scotland, and perhaps one or more Scottish regions. The British passports for Gibraltarians have the names of the European Union, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar embossed upon the face. Perhaps we should let users identify themselves as they choose, despite the traditions of international law. Yours aye,  Buaidh  01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In any case

I've changed my mind about the templates, they should stay based on the arguments that people should be allowed what they like on their talk pages. So... would you like to continue the above debate? I'm perfectly happy to, but don't want to waste yer time, it's something where we need to both be willing participants! Egg Centric 00:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I link to the regional user templates I've created at User:Buaidh/Regions. My intent was to provide as much flexibility as possible. Britain may well have been short changed in the process. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This user is a
British Citizen.

This user lives in the Isle of Man.

What do you think of the Isle of Man so far? I've never visited the island. Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all your India related works on Wikipedia. Thank You :-) can't thank you enough... -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 15:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Topographic isolation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yushan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening Collaborations are: Hobby farm Raised bed gardening Sustainable gardening Urban horticulture Vermicompost The next collaborations will be posted on April 1, 2012. (Contribute here)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of elevation extremes by country (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lake Asal and Chimborazo

Table of the highest major summits of North America (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sierra Nevada

Table of the major 4000 metre summits of North America (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sierra Nevada

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mountain ranges of Colorado (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Park Range, Elk Mountains, High Plains, Sierra Blanca and Ruby Range

Southern Rocky Mountains (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to High Plains, Sierra Blanca and Ruby Range

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

17-03-2012

	Have a good Saint Patrick's day!
	May this day pass well for you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Satop

Template:Satop has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RIL

Template:RIL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pbox

Template:Pbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Obox

Template:Obox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Glinks

Template:Glinks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UCC

Template:UCC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are: Cash crop Energy crop Plant ecology Seedling Tropical horticulture The next collaborations will be posted on May 1, 2012. (Contribute here!)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Table of the most isolated major summits of the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Santa Rosa Mountains, Flat Tops, Blue Mountains and Santa Catalina Island

Table of the most prominent summits of the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Santa Rosa Mountains, Flat Tops and Granite Range

Table of the highest major summits of the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Flat Tops and Granite Range

Highest mountain peaks of Canada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Queen Elizabeth Range

List of Ultras of the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Granite Range

Mountain peaks of Canada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Queen Elizabeth Range

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sar

Template:Sar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice user page

	I like the flags
	I like all the flags on your page Monocletophat123 (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. When you recently edited Colorado counties, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Juan County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiknic 2012

Hey there! Would you like to help to organize a Denver/Boulder event for Wiknic 2012? I've listed a meetup at Boulder in June, but we could move it to Denver if that'd be more convenient for people. Let me know! -- Gaurav (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up -- I hope to meet you tomorrow at the Boulder Wiknic! -- Gaurav (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikimedia events in Missouri and Kansas!

You're invited to 3 exciting events Wikipedians are planning in your region this June—a tour and meetup at the National Archives in Kansas City, and Wiknics in Wichita and St. Louis:

Kansas City Saturday, June 16, starting at 9 a.m. — National Archives in Kansas City This full-day event will include a tour of the facility; presentations from National Archives Wikipedian-in-Residence, Dominic McDevitt-Parks, and Exhibit Specialist, Dee Harris; and time in the research room to work on projects. The focus of the projects will be scanning, writing articles, transcribing, or categorizing images on Commons. Wikipedians from St. Louis and elsewhere in the region are encouraged to make a day-trip of it and come to Kansas City for this special opportunity!
And two local editions of the Great American Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit." Come meet (and geek out with, if you want) your local Wikipedians in a laid-back atmosphere: Wichita Saturday, June 23, starting at 1 p.m. — Central Riverside Park Join the 1st annual Wichita Wiknic: The Sunflower State blooms Free Knowledge! St. Louis Saturday, June 23, starting at 11 a.m. — Forest Park Visitors' Center Join the 2nd annual St Louis Wiknic: The Gateway to the West is now The Gateway to the Wiki!

Message delivered by Dominic·t 19:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are: Blanching (horticulture) Damping off Gertrude Jekyll Horticultural flora Square foot gardening The next collaborations will be posted on July 1, 2012. To propose future collaborations, please contribute here!

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Excess index links on U.S. states

Buaidh, do we really need that many links to outlines at the bottom of each state's article. I'm looking at these 5 level indents you've added to every U.S territory. It looks a lot like something we should avoid to me. The outlines for each state links to those indexes anyways. Do we really need links to Outline of history or Outline of geography? Wouldn't just one link, to the state's index, be plenty? Was there some decision about this on the outlines project?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 03:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see my reply at User talk:Patrickneil#Excess index links on U.S. states. Yours aye,  Buaidh  22:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose when I see a link to Outline of history, I just have to ask how that relates to a given article? I suppose every single article with a History could have the same link, but what use would that be? If we wouldn't link to "History" then why link to "Outline of history"? Same with geography. When we have a portal or outline that directly relates to the article, I'm fine with including that, but its the larger, and I would say unrelated portals or outlines (say Portal:North America) that I do find to be excessive.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 23:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Outline of history link can be deleted from many state articles, although it seems useful for some states such as California. Feel free to delete any links you feel are superfluous. Yours aye,  Buaidh  23:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then I'd like to go through the states and change them all along these lines. Any concerns there?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 23:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please just be judicious since other users may have a different notion of what's superfluous. Do you feel that a book link is superfluous?

The ==See also== section must be preceeded by, and end with, a {{clear}} template. Thanks,  Buaidh  01:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If there's a book on the same topic as the article, but linking to one that is on a larger topic seems just like we're trying to fill out every field, even if we don't have relevant info.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 17:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The United States Book has individual information for each of the states. If a state has its own Book, Template:Cwb will link to it and the United States Book. Likewise, Template:Csl will link to a state bibliography if one exists, now or in the future. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Buaidh, where else do you see this format being used? I very much have to disagree with adding links to pages that don't currently exist into this section. If they're created, then we can discuss adding them. The book on the United States is just a PDF version of each states article. As the editor adding these templates to so many articles, I think the impetuous is on you to say why we need a link to something like that.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Impetuous is an adjective. I've been called a lot of things, but impetuous is not one. Perhaps you mean onus.

I think some users may find Book:United States useful. You are being rather paternalistic about what other users should or should not have access to. I am primarily trying to reduce our maintenance burden.

I think that a U.S. state article should, at a minimum, contain links to the following articles if they exist:

1. Outline of state
2. Index of state-related articles
3. Bibliography of state
4. Portal for state
5. Book for state

Yours aye,  Buaidh  22:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Buaidh, I agree with this listing. I don't see why we need links for the next level up, so to speak, e.g., the United States, North America, History, etc. It also would be good to have agreement on where such links appear, and whether they should be repeated in See also if they are already in a navigation box. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion for a minimal U.S. state ==See also== section:

==See also==
{{ports|United States|New York}}
{{cwb}}
*{{sl|Outline of New York}}
**{{sl|Index of New York-related articles}}
***{{csl|Bibliography of New York}}
{{clear}}

Which renders as:

See also

• Outline of New York
  • Index of New York-related articles
    • Bibliography of New York

Some states include one or more of these links on there state template, but many do not. I feel we should include this minimal ==See also== set regardless for consistency. If the state WikiProject wishes to add additional links to the ==See also== section, they should be free to do so. Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks good. My only confusion there is why bother with the indents? I think its more common across Wikipedia to just have the bulleted list line up.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I use these indents is to distinguish these links to three special topic overview articles from any subsequent general interest article links, e.g.,

See also

• Outline of New York
  • Index of New York-related articles
    • Bibliography of New York
• List of New York state symbols
• List of people from New York
• List of places in New York
• National Register of Historic Places listings in New York
• USS New York

I suppose I could create a linkbox template or something else for these links. Yours aye,  Buaidh  22:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I created Template:Oib which simplies the above to:

==See also==
{{ports|United States|New York}}
{{oib}}{{cwb}}

Which renders as:

See also

• New York
• Outline of New York
• Index of New York-related articles
• Bibliography of New York

Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've combined Template:Oib and Template:Cwb]] into new Template:Cto which further simpliflies the above to:

==See also==
{{ports|United States|Indiana}}
{{cto}}

Which renders as:

See also

• Indiana
• Outline of Indiana
• Index of Indiana-related articles
• Book:Indiana

Yours aye,  Buaidh  00:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Related information

Hi--I don't think adding a "Related information" link is really necessary at the bottom of an external links section (re: Alaska, Illinois, etc.) It's not recommended at MOS:LAYOUT and it's only adding kbs and clutter, so I'm removing it on Alaska and probably Illinois. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see my reply at User talk:Funandtrvl#Related information. Yours aye,  Buaidh  22:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Link colors

Could we get you to read over WP:Link color before making links invisible to our editors. Wikipedia is not the place for nice colors - it is a place to navigate topics. Pls do not chose esthetics over user accessibility. Moxy (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I give up. What do you suggest for a #cc3333 background? Yours aye,  Buaidh  01:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Any color that looks like a link..perhaps - #00006E This looks like a link someone can click on - This does not look like a link.Moxy (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

So what do you think of Template:Maryland?  Buaidh  04:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That is horrible - Outline of Maryland and all the other white text is hiding the work of our editors. If i was the author of those articles I would be pissed noone will see the links, thus read the articles when it come to this template. In fact all the main articles are hidden. Why would color be more important then user accessibility. Can you pls follow our policy on this and fix Template:Colorado so the links can be seen. We dont have a need to get others involved do we?Moxy (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

So you don't see any situation where light links on a dark background is appropriate? That seems pretty limiting.  Buaidh  01:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont think you understand the problem. Its not about what I or you like its about our readers having access to information. How are our readers to know its a link? Hiding internal links makes navigation more difficult and is not a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Our goal is to help our readers - not provide nice colors that hide our main articles in templates made for the purpose of easy navigation. In this encyclopedia as with most of the internet, words highlighted in blue are examples of internal links - not white or green or pink etc. The Main Page is linked somewhere in this sentence, can you find it and the other links by moving your mouse over every word to identify all the links? This is what your asking our readers to do.Moxy (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I too believe in functionality before beauty, but I don't see how this preempts light blue links on a dark red background (colorado in the Spanish language). I've been doing user interfaces for 41 years now, so I do have some experience in this area. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking

Can we get you to take more time with your mass edits. Your adding links in the see also section that are already linked in the articles like the word Canada or the Bibliographies that have there own sections with a main link. Also could we get you to only add links to portals that actually have info on the topic of the article that the portal links to. For instance in the Ontario that is a province has no need to link to the commonwealth portal.....why because is not a country nor is there any info at the commonwealth portal about Ontario. I will take the time later to fix all the overlinking as per our policies WP:SEEALSO and WP:Overlink Moxy (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.  Buaidh  15:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cto

Template:Cto has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see my response at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Cto.  Buaidh  17:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Please can you tell me why you left this notification on my user talk page Buaidh? As far as I am aware I've never edited or had anything to do with this template, I don't mind messages but ones that are out of the blue always are more intruiging. :-) The Helpful One 23:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You received this because you are a member of WikiProject Outlines. Yours aye,  Buaidh  20:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ports

Template:Ports has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.Moxy (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see my response at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Ports.  Buaidh  17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

For technical reasons, I suggest to avoid mass-adding the cto and ports templates until it becomes clear that they will be kept - otherwise their deletion will bring too much inconvenience. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur.  Buaidh  23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop

While it is under discussion please stop adding the template {{cto}} to articles, as if the result is anything other than keep you are creating a mass of work for editors. There is no rush to complete the encyclopaedia and such changes can be done later, perhaps after changes to how it is used or it's precise formatting are agreed.

And note that your mass notification of editors of the discussion could be considered canvassing, and as such inappropriate. Usually no steps need to be taken to attract editors to TfD (the way the discussions are grouped by day means each discussion is seen by many editors automatically).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, what are you trying to do? --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I did not see the comment by Materialscientist above and your agreement to stop. The advice about canvassing though I think you should consider.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) - best that we link to Wikipedia:Canvassing so it can be seen and read.Moxy (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Who'll revert his edits now? He has added these templates in too many articles! --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Err, please do not mass revert anything until the outcome is clear. Materialscientist (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

See this section from a reader's pov tell me can you understand what has been suggested to "see also"? But, okay will not mass revert edits!--Tito Dutta ✉ 00:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, exactly what criteria did you use in deciding whom to notify regarding these deletions? I find it odd that you apparently found the time to notify at least thirty editors and yet not me, considering I was one of the key participants in the previous discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I assumed you were already involved. I notified the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines and Wikipedia:WikiProject Indexes who are directly involved. Yours aye,  Buaidh  13:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"doc1" pages

Is there any particular reason you've chosen to create pages like Template:User Faroe Islands/doc1 which need to be specified manually when calling {{documentation}}, rather than just putting said page at Template:User Faroe Islands/doc? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:User Faroe Islands/doc1 is used by Template:User in the Faroe Islands, Template:User from the Faroe Islands, Template:User citizen Faroe Islands, Template:User interest Faroe Islands, Template:User WP Faroe Islands, but unfortunately not Template:User Faroe Islands nor Template:User WikiProject Faroe Islands since those templates do not use documentation pages. Yours aye,  Buaidh  13:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why not simply convert Template:User Faroe Islands to use a doc page, which is five seconds' work? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I get it now. It's because this is another walled garden of meta-templates ({{uir}} this time). I take it there's no provision to convert Template:User Faroe Islands to call {{uir}}, which would obviate the need for weird documentation hacks? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You make me out as some sort of weird software pervert. No wonder the number of active Wikipedia editors has declined so rapidly. If you met me in person, I'm sure you would find me quite conventional, knowledgeable, pleasant, and cooperative for an elderly person, even grandfatherly. (My grandchildren appear on the second page here.)

There is no walled garden of any sort. I thoroughly document all my templates so any user can understand their use. A number of users have been involved in this effort, although I seem to be the only user left engaged. I would love some help again.

Template:Uir has evolved over many years. Template:Uir provides the logic to create regional userboxes, but its subdocuments create the documentation for the individual user templates. The Template:User Region/doc1 pages provide the custom data for each individual country or region. This has helped us eliminate tens of thousands of lines of code. I avoid altering templates created by others for fear of stepping on toes, but yes they could also access the data on the /doc1 pages. Unlike the user templates that invoke Template:Uir, these templates employ a myiad of forms and formats.

Please see User:Buaidh/Regions for the regional user templates I try to coordinate. I really don't care for userboxes, but I seem to have inadvertently volunteered for this sideline. Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW: Did you read my comment about the problem with flag icons on Template:Portal at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Ports?  Buaidh  15:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Table of United States Micropolitan Statistical Areas

The page for the US table for Micorpolitan areas, why did you revert the changes made? I had the proper website, the United States census site for the 2010 census and 2011 estimates. The data that you changed back is wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai662 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A number of users have changed data in the Table of United States Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Please check this table and make sure it agrees with the U.S. Census Bureau estimates. Thanks for your help,  Buaidh  14:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Electrical engineering

Hi fellow editor, You are invited to join the WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of electrical engineering. If you'd like to join, add also your name to the member list. Thanks for reading! SchreyP (messages) 18:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineering

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Electrical engineering! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of all electrical engineering related articles.

We are just starting, so there are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; feel free to participate as much or as little as you like:

• Tag existing articles on their talk page with the {{WikiProject Electrical engineering}} template.
• Starting missing articles in the electrical engineering area.

You can use Outline of electrical engineering or Index of electrical engineering articles as a starting point.

• If you want to know how good our articles are? Have a look at our assessment department.
• If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any fellow member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you.

Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

SchreyP ^(messages) 19:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ports

		The Portal Barnstar
		The Portal Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have made significant contributions to topic portals. People sure seem eager to delete the fine work you've done at Template:Ports, some of whom haven't even considered the notion of merging the parameters to Template:Portal that aren't already a part of that template's options. Increased layout options improve the functionality of page layout in the encyclopedia; limiting layout options is inferior, in my opinion. Hopefully people will at least consider a merge. Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia for the public! Northamerica1000(talk) 14:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ll

Template:Ll has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent comments

I would remind you that personal attacks such as [1] and [2] are not accepted. Please stick to commenting on the encyclopaedia. I note other editors have also asked you to stop and slow above, i.e. #Excess index links on U.S. states, #Related information, #Overlinking, and I would echo their remarks.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

My comments are not meant as a personal attack, but a statement of fact. I know nothing about you, but I find your actions reprehensible. Most sincerely,  Buaidh  18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. – I heed those who have constructive criticisms of my work. I have little use for those who just wish to harass other users.  Buaidh  19:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

editing the "see also" sections of pages, especially state pages

Hih Buaidh- I know there are some TFDs occurring for the see also and helper templates you've been working on. In the meantime, it appears you've been editing large numbers of articles to reflect alternate approaches to this section. It appears you've made edited four or five generations of the idea- from two templates ({{oib}}, {{cwb}}) to one ({{cto}}), to an outline style (a series of {{ctl}} links), to a second version of this ({{ll}} links).

In looking through the deletion discussions, I wonder if part of the bias against your edits is that you continue to make largescale edits while the templates and concepts are being discussed. I'm suggesting that you leave them alone until consensus is achieved- I suspect that would ease other editors' minds.

What do you think about this? tedder (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you tedder for your polite note. I believe that you are absolutely correct. At this point, I care little. They can delete everything. I'm tired of trying to work with imbeciles. Yours aye,  Buaidh  20:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tol

Template:Tol has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ports template

The TfD discussion closed as merge to {{Portal}}. Any plans on doing the merge? Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at it in a few days. I have a number of repairs to make first. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Great! It would be senseless for all of the options from the Ports template to be nonexistent in the encyclopedia. The information hasn't been deleted yet, but may be relatively soon. Here's the link: Template:Ports. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

pls stop adding red links to see also sections

Can we get you to STOP adding red links in see also sections as per our policy on the matter WP:REDNOT. I will give you time to revert all these additions as I simply dont have time to go over every edit and will just mass revert all see also additions if no correction is done on your part.Moxy (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I shall. This is why Template:Tol and Template:Ll were created. I really don't see the virtue of all this manual maintenance. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. All redlinks removed.  Buaidh  19:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Buaidh, the simple and polite way for you to have made all of these changes would have been to use edit summaries. Looking back on about 150 of your most recent edits there is not one edit summary. Please do so for such changes in the future. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Navbox link template

Say, I'm trying to get a conversation going about this idea. Would you please consider commenting? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Grep applied to state outlines

Hi Buaidh,

I've been using Grep, to find ways to gather links for countries.

I saw your recent edits to the state outlines, and started messing around with grep (on the WP toolserver) and its regex support on states to see if the searches for state-related articles could be refined to break the results down into meaningful groups of articles.

For example, the search string "Ohio" finds all articles with the word "Ohio" in the title. That list is overwhelmed with town articles that end in ", Ohio". So, to find departments of the Ohio state government, I tried the following search string:

(Ohio(.*)Department)|(Department(.*)Ohio)

The pipe symbol means "or". The dot (period) means any character other than a carriage return or special character. The "*" means "one or more of the preceding thing".

For the results of the above search, see

http://toolserver.org/~nikola/grep.php?pattern=%28Ohio%28.*%29Department%29%7C%28Department%28.*%29Ohio%29&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&ns=0

The list of departments that came up for Colorado was even bigger.

Eventually, editors are going to want to build outlines for the subdivisions of other countries (someone has already started doing so for the states of India). So I'm looking for ways to make this easier and faster.

The Transhumanist 22:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks,  Buaidh  18:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I admire your 'User in" Templates. I'm new to editing, is there anyway I may be able to utilize the format you created for those templates to create my own with multiple options. 1dayFloripa (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Solving the navbox as Easter egg problem

You may find this discussion of interest. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

How to update census tables?

Hi- Do you have any tricks on how to update the Table of United States Micropolitan Statistical Areas? The data is here-- csv or in xls. Is there a way to update the figures, I did the first 48 manually, and it looks like the ranking order has changed too. Just wondering if there is a shortcut to update the remaining 528 using AWB or something else? Thanks much, --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this data was corrupted. I'll send you instructions for batch updates. Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I noticed yesterday that the figures didn't match up, it looked like the figures were comparing the 2000 census figures to the 2010 one, but even that didn't match all the way down the table. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

List of United States cities by population

Where is your source on Davenport? You rudely reverted my proper removal of unsourced material. CTJF83 00:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't revert anything in that article. Please see "Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places Over 50,000, Ranked by July 1, 2011 Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011" (CSV). 2011 Population Estimates. United States Census Bureau, Population Division. June 2012. Retrieved August 1, 2012.. Yours aye,  Buaidh  02:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you, sorry I was snippy. Not sure why the census doesn't update their stuff CTJF83 03:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    • It takes a while for the USCB to update the American FactFinder. It is usually better to go directly to the USCB population estimates files. The latest estimates are posted there first. Yours aye,  Buaidh  03:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok, cool, thanks! CTF83! 23:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop removing information about elevation of Denver

In this edit you hid relevant information about Denver's elevation. Please stop edit warring over this—the city is not exactly one mile high if there are federal geography databases saying it is two feet lower than one mile. If you continue edit warring you can be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The City and County of Denver has "officially" declared its elevation to be exactly 5280 feet above the geoid. It's all a matter of where you place the center of the city. The City and County says it's the western steps of the state capitol. They move the official elevation point up and down the steps so they can claim to be exactly one mile high despite survey and geoid changes. It's all quite silly. To make a big production about two feet of elevation seems beyond trivial, especially when the geoid fluctuates by five feet. I happen to be a 64-year-old Professional Engineer working for the State of Colorado at the state capitol if you want a reference source. Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

So if the geoid is so imprecise, why did you introduce such a high degree of precision into the article here where you said the elevation was 1609.344 meters? That kind of millimetric precision is down to the level of 1/25th of an inch. The whole idea is that the official elevation is a mile but the real elevation is published variously. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly one mile is exactly 5280 feet is exactly 1609.344 meters. Please tell me where the real elevation point is and I'll tell you what the real elevation is. We are not dealing with buildings here; we are dealing with earth. This conversation is so nerdy, not even I (nerd-extraordinary) can believe it. Yours aye,  Buaidh  22:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A geoid is precise, but the Earth is constantly changing. The last conversion from the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) raised the elevation of the Colorado State Capitol by 917 millimeters or more than 3 feet. The conversion raised the central Rocky Mountains by 5 to 7 feet (see the Mountain peaks of Colorado.) The earth is also becoming less oblate as the icecaps melt, and the North American plate is moving to the northwest. While these changes are slow, they cannot be ignored. I worked on a National Science Foundation project to monitor these changes. Yours aye,  Buaidh  23:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Most Prominent Mountain Peaks of Alaska

I came across your Most Prominent Mountain Peaks of Alaska page and noted that Vulgarian Peak was incorrectly included. See the talk section on that page for other corrections and supporting rationale.SCGruhn (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Attu Mountain?

On your isolation lists of peaks in Alaska and the United States, perhaps you might consider listing Attu Mountain. Kiska Volcano, the nearest higher peak to Attu Mountain, is more than 204 miles away.SCGruhn (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"United States" statistical area article titles

Hi. I see that you've been busy moving pages for a variety of U.S. government terms, in order to create a set of consistently patterned article titles in Wikipedia. I'm referring to page moves like Metropolitan statistical area to United States metropolitan statistical area, Combined statistical area to United States combined statistical area, and Delaware census statistical areas to Delaware statistical areas. It looks to me like you created articles such as United States statistical area and United States primary statistical area several days ago, then renamed all the rest of these articles so the article names would conform with its name.

I'm always pleased to discover that I'm not the only Wikipedia contributor with an interest in Census geography, but I have a big problem with these renames. Terms like "combined statistical area" are U.S. Bureau of the Census and/or Office of Management and Budget terms that are not normally prefixed with "United States". Those "statistical areas" in the states are census areas, not state-defined areas (some of the states may use other "areas" for statistical purposes). Further, I don't see evidence that terms like "United States statistical area" and "United States primary statistical area" have any history of use outside of your Wikipedia articles (one of which even states "The OMB currently does not use the term "primary statistical area", but the term is useful...").

Was this renaming project discussed somewhere? Did you get consensus for it before you started it? Have you evaluated whether these new titles conform with WP:Article titles?

It looks to me like some original research was involved in generating these new names. IMO, they need to be moved back to the old versions. If there is reason to change some of the names, we should discuss them first. --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• The use of the prefix "United States" is simply to denote that these terms are only used in the United States and Puerto Rico. This is the same use as the term "U.S. state" to denote a "state" of the United States.

I originally created and named all of the articles using the term "census statistical area" under the mistaken impression that the United States Census Bureau was responsible for their definition. Since the Office of Management and Budget now defines these areas, the term "census statistical area" is misleading. Since I was the editor who made this error, it seemed appropriate that I should be the editor to fix the articles. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If the purpose of the inclusion of "United States" in those titles is purely to distinguish them from similar terms that might be used somewhere else, the inclusion of "United States" is not appropriate under WP:Article titles and WP:Disambiguation. If there are no other uses of a term, no disambiguation is needed in the title (as in Listed building, which is a term specific to the UK). If a disambiguator is needed, it is applied in parentheses after the ambiguous name (as in Georgia (U.S. state)); it is not added in a fashion that implies it is part of the name. I think those articles should be restored to their old names...

As for the "statistical areas" articles, the nomenclature seems like a problem, regardless of how it's done. (Who let the OMB create terminology, anyway?) I think a broad discussion (among multiple knowledgable participants) is needed to sort out the appropriate names -- including when terms like "Combined Statistical Area" and "Statistical Area" should treated as proper nouns (which is how the OMB uses them). There are myriad U.S. statistical areas (lower-case for generic noun) that have nothing to do with either the OMB or the Census, and the Census uses a variety of geographic units for statistical purposes (such as census tracts and census-designated places) that aren't OMB-defined Statistical Areas, so lower-case titles like "Delaware statistical area" and "census statistical area" seem potentially inappropriate for the narrower concept of the OMB-defined areas. --Orlady (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The OMB defines these terms at the direction of the President. In OMB Bulletin 10-02, the terms "Metropolitan Statistical Area", "Micropolitan Statistical Area", and "Combined Statistical Area" are capitalized on page 1, but used as common nouns on page 5. "Metropolitan Division" is capitalized throughout the bulletin, but "statistical area" is always used as a common noun. The term "core based statistical area" is not used in this bulletin. The USCB uses all of these terms, most commonly as common nouns. Given the U.S. government’s predilection for over-capitalization, I chose to use all of these terms as common nouns.  Buaidh  17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that "statistical area" is inherently a common noun, not a proper noun. Further, the terms "Metropolitan Statistical Area", "Micropolitan Statistical Area", and "Combined Statistical Area" are, in actuality, descriptors for urban agglomerations that happen to use the words "statistical area" in their names. It would be nice to find some other word for these units, so that "statistical area" doesn't have to be purloined to describe them. As you know, "Urban area" and "Urbanized area" also have been appropriated by US federal government for specific uses; the lower-case "metropolitan area" (without "statistical") has not been appropriated for federal use, but I don't think it deserves to be applied to micropolitan statistical areas. (BTW, my question about who authorized OMB was tongue-in-cheek. In general, government plays fast and loose with language!) --Orlady (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I firmly believe that Wikipedia should conform with whatever terminology an official agency chooses to use unless it grossly misrepresents the actual use.  Buaidh  18:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

At WP:PRECISION, the disambiguation instructions tell us to first select an unambiguous title such as Combined Statistical Area, a term used by no other country and thus not requiring a move. If that term had not been unique, the next step would have been to use a natural disambiguation made up of another name, one found in reliable sources but not as widely used. I think that United States combined statistical area, the target of Buaidh's move, is not such a natural dab—it is not used by anybody. Finally, PRECISION tells us to use parenthetical disambiguation if natural disambiguation is not obtainable. I think the choice here is between Combined Statistical Area and Combined Statistical Area (United States), not the current situation which fails PRECISION. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• The original titles of these Wikipedia articles were:

1. United States statistical area
2. United States primary statistical area
3. Combined statistical area→United States combined statistical area
4. Core Based Statistical Area→United States core based statistical area
5. Metropolitan Statistical Area→United States metropolitan statistical area
6. United States Micropolitan Statistical Area→United States micropolitan statistical area

Obviously, we need consistent titles for these articles. Perhaps:

1. United States statistical area→Statistical area
2. United States primary statistical area→Primary statistical area
3. Combined statistical area→United States combined statistical area→Combined statistical area
4. Core Based Statistical Area→United States core based statistical area→Core based statistical area
5. Metropolitan Statistical Area→United States metropolitan statistical area→Metropolitan statistical area
6. United States Micropolitan Statistical Area→United States micropolitan statistical area→Micropolitan statistical area

 Buaidh  20:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think Binksternet probably has the correct interpretation regarding Core Based, Metropolitan, Micropolitan, and Combined. The "statistical areas" and "primary statistical areas" topics are more problematic, because it's not as clear that these can be treated as proper nouns. --Orlady (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Statistical area and primary statistical area are clearly common nouns. The other four terms are used both as proper nouns and common nouns. I don't see any advantage to making them proper nouns. Do you?  Buaidh  21:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Those terms look like common nouns, but the articles treat them as if they were proper nouns, as the scope of the articles is restricted to the use of these terms in the OMB circular. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Further to the above, the U.S. Census Bureau uses the common noun "statistical area" very broadly. To see what I mean, click on the "statistical areas" tab on this page. I ran a Google search to look for non-census, non-OMB uses of the term. Possibly because of my U.S. location and search history, Google isn't giving me any non-U.S. uses, but I did find Alaska Groundfish and Shellfish Statistical Area Charts and city of Baltimore neighborhood statistical areas (probably census-based). --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the following titles?

1. United States statistical area→Statistical area
2. United States primary statistical area→Primary statistical area
3. Combined statistical area→United States combined statistical area→Combined Statistical Area
4. Core Based Statistical Area→United States core based statistical area→Core Based Statistical Area
5. Metropolitan Statistical Area→United States metropolitan statistical area→Metropolitan Statistical Area
6. United States Micropolitan Statistical Area→United States micropolitan statistical area→Micropolitan Statistical Area

If not, I shall propose the above moves. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully support numbers 3 through 6 (and I would be happy to execute the moves if we think they are noncontroversial), but the first two are more problematic. Both the names of those articles and the scopes of those articles are open to discussion. My current thought is that those two terms should be treated as proper nouns (Statistical Area and Primary Statistical Area), since the usage is narrowly restricted to the OMB Circular's definitions. Then statistical area could become a disambiguation-like page to assist with sorting out other terms such as Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area and the various areas like census tracts and CDPs. --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This expands our move list a bit:

1. United States statistical area→Statistical Area
2. United States primary statistical area→Primary Statistical Area
3. United States combined statistical area→Combined Statistical Area
4. United States core based statistical area→Core Based Statistical Area
5. United States metropolitan statistical area→Metropolitan Statistical Area
6. United States micropolitan statistical area→Micropolitan Statistical Area
7. List of United States primary statistical areas→List of United States Primary Statistical Areas
8. List of United States combined statistical areas→List of United States Combined Statistical Areas
9. List of United States core based statistical areas→List of United States Core Based Statistical Areas
10. List of United States metropolitan statistical areas→List of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas
11. List of United States micropolitan statistical areas→List of United States Micropolitan Statistical Areas
12. Alabama statistical areas→Alabama Statistical Areas
13. Alaska statistical areas→Alaska Statistical Areas
14. Arizona statistical areas→Arizona Statistical Areas
15. Arkansas statistical areas→Arkansas Statistical Areas
16. California statistical areas→California Statistical Areas
17. Colorado statistical areas→Colorado Statistical Areas
18. Connecticut statistical areas→Connecticut Statistical Areas
19. Delaware statistical areas→Delaware Statistical Areas
20. District of Columbia statistical areas→District of Columbia Statistical Areas
21. Florida statistical areas→Florida Statistical Areas
22. Georgia statistical areas→Georgia Statistical Areas
23. Hawaii statistical areas→Hawaii Statistical Areas
24. Idaho statistical areas→Idaho Statistical Areas
25. Illinois statistical areas→Illinois Statistical Areas
26. Indiana statistical areas→Indiana Statistical Areas
27. Iowa statistical areas→Iowa Statistical Areas
28. Kansas statistical areas→Kansas Statistical Areas
29. Kentucky statistical areas→Kentucky Statistical Areas
30. Louisiana statistical areas→Louisiana Statistical Areas
31. Maine statistical areas→Maine Statistical Areas
32. Maryland statistical areas→Maryland Statistical Areas
33. Massachusetts statistical areas→Massachusetts Statistical Areas
34. Michigan statistical areas→Michigan Statistical Areas
35. Minnesota statistical areas→Minnesota Statistical Areas
36. Mississippi statistical areas→Mississippi Statistical Areas
37. Missouri statistical areas→Missouri Statistical Areas
38. Montana statistical areas→Montana Statistical Areas
39. Nebraska statistical areas→Nebraska Statistical Areas
40. Nevada statistical areas→Nevada Statistical Areas
41. New Hampshire statistical areas→New Hampshire Statistical Areas
42. New Jersey statistical areas→New Jersey Statistical Areas
43. New Mexico statistical areas→New Mexico Statistical Areas
44. New York statistical areas→New York Statistical Areas
45. North Carolina statistical areas→North Carolina Statistical Areas
46. North Dakota statistical areas→North Dakota Statistical Areas
47. Ohio statistical areas→Ohio Statistical Areas
48. Oklahoma statistical areas→Oklahoma Statistical Areas
49. Oregon statistical areas→Oregon Statistical Areas
50. Pennsylvania statistical areas→Pennsylvania Statistical Areas
51. Rhode Island statistical areas→Rhode Island Statistical Areas
52. South Carolina statistical areas→South Carolina Statistical Areas
53. South Dakota statistical areas→South Dakota Statistical Areas
54. Tennessee statistical areas→Tennessee Statistical Areas
55. Texas statistical areas→Texas Statistical Areas
56. Utah statistical areas→Utah Statistical Areas
57. Vermont statistical areas→Vermont Statistical Areas
58. Virginia statistical areas→Virginia Statistical Areas
59. Washington statistical areas→Washington Statistical Areas
60. West Virginia statistical areas→West Virginia Statistical Areas
61. Wisconsin statistical areas→Wisconsin Statistical Areas
62. Wyoming statistical areas→Wyoming Statistical Areas
63. Puerto Rico statistical areas→Puerto Rico Statistical Areas

Alternatively, we could do List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas of the United States and List of Statistical Areas of Alabama. Any comments?  Buaidh  18:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please, let's stick to the first six for now. The others involve additional issues. --Orlady (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• The other titles all depend on the first six and have implications for the first six titles.  Buaidh  19:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Statistical area#Requested move. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:US states and territories

Template:US states and territories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Imzadi 1979 → 02:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:US Census Labeled Map

Template:US Census Labeled Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Userbox Barnstar
		I admire your initiative in fixing my mess and creating all those wonderful documentation pages. In recognition for your work, I present this pathetic excuse for a Userbox barnstar. Good work! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:US state and territory history

Template:US state and territory history has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Geography of Canada

Do you have any references for the info added to Geography of Canada - the info is interesting but does not have any sources. Would like to add it back but having trouble finding sources.Moxy (talk)

The references are in the linked articles. We may wish to create a new article entitled Extreme points of Canada (similar to the article Extreme points of the United States) to unclutter this article. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

We cant do things like that - cant assume that the info will not change in the other article or like with [[Baffin Island] there is no ref for that info on the main page... Reference must be provided were the statement it at. Is there somewhere other then referring to another Wikipedia page for this info?Moxy (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you posted this note 12 minutes after you deleted the sections.  Buaidh  20:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledgement of the concerns of policy raised and proper references is the response I would like a replied to.Moxy (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

So acknowledged.  Buaidh  20:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, so remember to include references listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. - If you cant provide any refs at all... think it may be best to remove all the info added about this topic. Understand my meaning? Need refs or removal and/or deletion may affect all these articles.Moxy (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The Extreme points of Canada is a list, and as such, the list links back to the relevant articles for most of its references.  Buaidh  21:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• No not at all - Our policy on that "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability".Moxy (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability of lists is determined by their source articles.  Buaidh  21:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Link above takes you to a statement that say "each item to be included on the list is adequately referenced and that the page on which the list appears" - Your making ME think deletion may be best for all these articles - - I am now assuming that all these have simply been piled together from what you have seen here on Wiki. Do you have any referances for any of the info on these pages at all? Pls tell me your reading a book or a website that has these listed.Moxy (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you are Canadian? Every one of the points listed is verified in the Wikipedia linked articles which in turn have references from many sources including the Government of Canada. The only point that is not linked is Boundary Peak 187 which cites a report of the International Boundary Commission. I will add additional references as time allows. Do you doubt the validity of any of these points, or are you just trying to make a point? Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you transfer the references to the articles your making - as per our policy?Moxy (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually i see that most are not referenced in the articles as your saying - like Kaffeklubben Island. So I will look see if I can find refs if not .....Moxy (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Kaffeklubben Island is in Greenland, not Canada.  Buaidh  23:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

So I take it by that reply or lack there of - you have no refs for anything you have been doing is this correct? As I have said will try to find refs ... if not will remove unsourceable material etc. Will be looking at the following books. Perhaps you can look to!Moxy (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have references up my !@&%$#$&! Take a look at Mountain peaks of North America for an example. This is not exactly a top priority for me, but I'll see what I can get you. Yours aye,  Buaidh  01:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that is one of the oddest things I have ever seen - you have the refs - but cant take the time to use them when making new pages... Ok I will take the time to fix the articles over the next week or so. Will do Extreme points of the Americas first since the project is taking about its deletion.Moxy (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I created an inline version of Template:Cmt named Template:Imt so that data from summit tables can be reused in summit lists. Yours aye,  Buaidh  00:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Csl

Template:Csl has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sl

Template:Sl has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Terribly short notice: Boulder WLM on 15 September

Apologies for getting this out so late, but this is all Pharos' fault. Please blame everything on Pharos.

That said, this message is just to let you know that we're having a photo hunt for Wiki Loves Monuments at 11:00 in the morning of Saturday the 15th in Boulder, probably somewhere around CU, though the exact location hasn't yet been decided. Since you have previously attended or expressed interest in other meetups in the area, hopefully you might be able to come.

Please sign up as soon as possible if you're interested; we'd love to have you along to help postpone the squirrel apocalypse. Or at least get some decent images. -— Isarra ༆ 05:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:US states and territories/map

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:US states and territories/map, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:US states and territories listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:US states and territories. Since you had some involvement with the Template:US states and territories redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:US state and territory indexes

Template:US state and territory indexes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:US state and territory outlines

Template:US state and territory outlines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

data source for gross state domestic product

Hi there! Could you let me know about the data source for the gross state domestic product of Daman and Diu for 2005 to be $156 million? Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuanrandong (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are: Christmas tree cultivation Greenhouse Hedge maze Phytotoxicity Subsoil The next collaborations will be posted on November 1, 2012. To propose future collaborations, please contribute here! V • T

From: Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Protected Areas of Colorado and Blanca Wetlands

I just started Blanca Wetlands, which is clearly a Protected Area of Colorado, but was not sure where to fit it into template:Protected Areas of Colorado. It is operated by the Bureau of Land Management, so seems Federal rather than State. I put it under National Conservation Areas, which the Bureau of Land Management runs, but I suspect it does not belong there. I saw you have done quite a lot of edits to the template. Do you have any view on where it should go? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There are 66 BLM ACECs in the State of Colorado. See the Colorado ACECs. ACECs are not National Conservation Areas. ACECs are selected for special attention, but are not protected areas in the traditional sense. Yours aye,  Buaidh  00:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a whole new world for me. I backed into the subject from redlinks in redlinks. It seemed interesting and the BLM said it was important, but of course they would. Just one of 66? I took it out of the template - I had no idea there were so many. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there are 66 ACECs does not mean that they are not important. Many of these ACECs are also Colorado Natural Areas. I'll create a list of the 66 Colorado ACECs.  Buaidh  01:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cwb

Template:Cwb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Colorado Bibliography

Thanks for starting Colorado Bibliography. I have added to, trying to use the format already started. I see some Cite' templates and some without. I tried to keep the alpha in order. Maybe together we could collaborate about the rest of the style and further organization of material. This is just a beginning of my biblios to add. I have more ready to post. Do you have any comments or suggestions before I go too far which would need to be changed or styled differently? If not, I shall continue with what I have. Maybe you would like to review my stuff at User:Draconrex/Bibliography of Gunnison Country. Feel free to utilize this content as you would your own. —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Pls forgive me failing to sign the post. Draconrex (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are: Cold frame Fodder Gardening in Alaska National Organic Program Saint Petersburg Botanical Garden The next collaborations will be posted on December 1, 2012. To propose future collaborations, please contribute here! V • T

From: Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of locations in South Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Park County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of passes of the Rocky Mountains, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glacier National Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of mountain passes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Saddleback

List of passes of the Rocky Mountains (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Great Northern Railroad

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Seattle Public Library

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are: Agribusiness Bolting (horticulture) Garden city movement Garden design Grex (horticulture) The next collaborations will be posted on January 1, 2013. To propose future collaborations, please contribute here! V • T

From: Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

List of U.S. state abbreviations

Thanks for your recent modifications to List of U.S. state abbreviations. There are still a few oddities with with the font changes between columns, but overall, it is a great improvement. Thanks! YBG (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of U.S. state abbreviations (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to MP, AS, GU, PR, PW, FM, VI, MH and UM

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

American flag and the Great Seal of the United States

Both are symbols of the federal government, but would not be appropriate lead images on articles about the states. Since the US has a federal system of government, things like U.S. state dogs and the like are about functions of the states that have no connection to the federal government. I'd suggest that you re-evaluate what list articles get that box and probably remove it from most of them.

Also, the {{main}} tag isn't really needed at the top of an article, especially if there is already a link to the topic in the lead. That tag is usually used under a section header when the section summarizes another article. Imzadi 1979 → 19:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Please see Template:Ibox-US. Yours aye,  Buaidh  20:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Except that it's still not appropriate to use the Great Seal of the United States and the Flag of the United States in articles about the states themselves. The states are co-sovereign with the federal government, and placing the federal symbols on those lists makes a false implication that the national government has some function over, for example, setting state insignia or selecting state animals. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Yours aye,  Buaidh  22:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of U.S. state historical societies and museums (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nevada State Museum

List of counties by U.S. state (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Georgetown, Georgia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Y2K is not a word, it's an abbreviation

The K is a stand-in for thousand as in KM, KG or KW. Without a discussion, your move and replacing of the capital is inappropriate. I have reverted your changes and moved the article back. Feel free to discuss at the article rather than the disambiguation page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A capital K is not a symbol for 1000, it is the symbol for kelvin. A lower-case k is the symbol for 1000 as in km, kg, or kW. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Buaidh. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 18:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Buaidh. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 04:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Walter Görlitz that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&diff=529065513&oldid=529049686 Stating that I "but you don't seem have much of a grasp of modern English useage". correct "usage" would be "don't seem to". If you're going to insult an editor after talking down to them, you might want to check your grammar and spelling. I trust that we're done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nibiru (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hi, i added a template for Mauritius here, but i can't understand why it is link to the Mexico notice board instead of Mauritius, could you help please.Kingroyos (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

{{NBbox|Mauritius}} should work now. Yours aye,  Buaidh  00:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Kingroyos (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)