User talk:Denimadept/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

RE: Roebling's Delaware Aqueduct

Yeah, this is definitely something that needs expansion. Its going to take either one whole day or several days of writing and research. I've been to the bridge, I also have pics, so this'll get a great, hopefully Featured Article Improvement overhaul. I have the bridge to the south (Downstream), the Barryville–Shohola Bridge on a pre-FAC peer review, and the next bridge downstream, Pond Eddy Bridge, is a GA, but it needs details on the previous suspension bridge before I considered FAC. Thanks though.Mitch/HC32 22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I also have Skinners Falls – Milanville Bridge on GAN :) - so the upper parts of the river are getting their expansions :) - Mitch/HC32 22:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Interstate Bridge

Hi, could you explain this diff? Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. The reason I'm asking is that I think it would be a good idea to remove the redundant parameters from the merged infoboxes (i.e. one set of coords) and the map. In the NRHP infobox, the map is mostly used as a placeholder when there isn't an image. Since the bridge infobox has an image, I don't think we need the map. But since you were shouting in the summary, I don't want to change this before I ask you about it, since I don't wish to cause an edit war. Katr67 (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In order to make infoboxes less messy, the NRHP infobox can be embedded into another infobox. I did that. My impression of the use of the map is not the same as yours. My understanding is that a map is an addition which can be used as part of the functionality of the infobox. A regular image can be placed anywhere, which you'll notice I did with the 1917 image (moved it). The map is harder to get. It's generally a nice feature in a geographically-oriented article to be able to locate the area or object of interest, so I use the map for this purpose when I can, cf {{reqmap}}. Is that a problem? I realize we could use either of the OR or WA maps for this bridge, so I chose one arbitrarily since I don't see that it matters which one we use, since either will get the idea across. - Denimadept (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Triborough

Image galleries are disallowed now, and well, Commons has images - There are way too many in there anyway. Mitch/HC32 16:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[1] -here.Mitch/HC32 16:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Streets and squares in Boston

I started the template {{Streets and squares in Boston}} to address the concerns of Sebwite, please take a look and voice your support or lack thereof at the discussion we were having so he will know whether or not it is going to cause problems to start using it. I will also contact NE2. Thanks for your valuable input, it is very appreciated. Sswonk (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism to my user page

Yes...it is because of my August 4th edit and edit summary to Metric expansion of space found here [2]. Maybe he got the wrong tone out of my edit summary, but it is a stupid thing to retaliate on, so it likely mostly because he likes making trouble. He may also not like some stuff on my user page as well. He is probably attacking User:Sesu Prime and your user page because both of you reverted his changes to my user page.--Jorfer (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Life After People

I apologize for the references I made of Life After People on other wiki pages. I hope they have not affected you in a negative way. I have considered your request and will stop inserting any new Life After People trivia. As for the ones I have already inserted, I will remove all of them soon. Thanks for comments. Esb94 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question

It is quite perplexing why one user is singled out by a vandal when there is an whole encyclopedia to vandalize. The reason is Jorfer posts provocative and insulting edit summaries if he doesn't like the edit and especially if he can guess the editor is not a female in his age group. He is extremely well mannered if the editor is a female and within his age group. In one occasion he didn't even spare an elderly teacher. He has good guessing capacities about people's gender and age. Enough was enough. In any case, you better talk with him and fix his manners and let him know his comments are seriously hurting his chances of becoming an admin one day. May God bless you. Beardedmanners (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples are required. At this time, you and your sockpuppets have zero credibility. - Denimadept (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: WoW:C

Yeah, I was surprised also. --Izno (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

lol - Denimadept (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What was truly amazing is that it lasted a whole 7 minutes before an AfD template showed up. - Denimadept (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a prod. I honestly can't imagine why that would be prodded...
I'm also surprised it wasn't created beforehand by zealous "the leaks are the truth"... --Izno (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just as glad it wasn't, as even though I'm definitely an Inclusionist, I couldn't have backed an article based solely on rumor. - Denimadept (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey, I noticed you did some work on the Rock Creek Canyon Bridge. That's great... where did you get some of the info about the bridge upgrades & stuff like that (ie:dates, reason, ect). I couldn't, for example, find the dates for when they did some of the upgrades so I didn't add that part as no to write anything in a way that would be incorrect. Did you e-mail them? How did you get that info? I didn't find some of that on their page on the bridge & didn't find any info anywhere else on it anywhere on the net. Where did you find that? Cheers AndrewEnns (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't. See the article history. I added the {{location map}} and adjusted the {{coord}} template a bit, but the rest was Maedin (talk · contribs), it seems. - Denimadept (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I just didn't open my eyes wide enough I guess cuz' I didn't see what you pointed out. AndrewEnns (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

i do not understand your questionMephiston999 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: User Talk:Tim1357#Please be sure

Im so sorry for having taken such a long time to reply, i must admit I was extremely embarrassed to have made such a stupid mistake. I did not know that using a recursive category, would bring me to categories unrelated to the starting category. In short, I did not know that one could get to non-vermont related articles, even though they may be traceable to the vermont category. I have gone through and made sure that all the articles that were tagged were appropriate (however most of my work was already done for me) im sorry to have caused you inconvenience. Tim1357 (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Convert -- accuracy and precision / Coords which to use and precision

I deliberately don't use the convert function because I want to control the precision of the output and I don't know what it will do. Thus, when specifying a focalheight in feet, I divide by 3.28 and round appropriately to get meters. If something is a not very precise 200ft away, I want it to be 60m, not 61m or whatever else convert would turn out.

I do not specify lighthouse ranges in anything but nautical miles because that's what mariners use -- even metric country mariners. Certainly I know that non-mariners refer to our articles more than mariners (who should use a Light List rather than Wikipedia for their facts), but generally we don't use statute miles in a Wiki saltwater lighthouse infoboxes, so why include kilometers? If we want to include all three, then let's discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses.

---

The USCG is now specifying lighthouse locations to thousandths of a second, each of which is about 3mm. That is, of course, ridiculous, as the filament of the lamp probably vibrates more than that. Nonetheless, since that's the official position of the light, that's what I use and I change the NRHP specified position to match. Note that many of the NRIS postions are off, sometimes grossly off, but most often a little off because they were originally calculated on the North American Datum of 1927, which yields different results from the modern WGS84. What I want is that if the reader clicks on either set of coords, then he or she will get a Bing or Google Maps arrow on the lighthouse, not somewhere in the vicinity. The USCG coords, over-precise as they are, accomplish this; the NRIS coords do not. (We have to have two sets of coords at the moment, for reasons that are under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses#Combined NRHP - Lighthouse Template)

Forgive me, this is a little stronger than I would want, but it's late and I'll be away tomorrow AM, so I wanted to get it written. Regards, Jim . . . . 02:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)

In places where {{Location map}} and {{coord}} are used, the official coordinates are redundant. They won't display all the precision you're using. In {{Location map}}, there's a BIG DOT. Being off by seconds makes no difference, let along microseconds. In the regular coordinates I've seen, the result in {{coord}} is good-enough, also. I don't get coords off of some list; I get them from Google Maps, when I provide the coords. For lighthouses, I don't bother 'cause they're already present in most cases. I've only checked out 3 lighthouses, and I doubt I provided the coords. Great Point Light, I provided an image, Sankaty Head Light, I haven't edited at all yet, and Brant Point Light, I provided the image and {{Infobox nrhp}} as well as revising part of what you did earlier. If you need total precision, I recommend including "(USCG)" as a reference after the special coords, and saying something about it on the Talk page to explain what's up with that. Otherwise, others will do what I've done. I got this song and dance with my work on bridges. - Denimadept (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right -- of course the extra precision is redundant to placing the dot on the map -- you don't need more precision than minutes, much less 1000ths of seconds. In Alaska, the nearest degree would probably be close enough. Problem is, the coords in the NRHP box don't just place the dot, they also show up inline. Since that's required, they should, I think, match the ones in the Lighthouse box, so that persons clicking on them will see the right place on Bing or Google maps and editors won't change the Lighthouse set to match the NRHP set. We're struggling with this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses#Combined NRHP - Lighthouse Template and hope to fix it, but for now I think the best solution is to use the USCG coords in both places. I suspect bridges are different -- after all, the lighthouse location is precise, the filament of the lamp. A bridge is a much larger target. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 10:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Y'all are combining the infoboxes? Good luck with that. While the NRHP infobox can be embedded, it presents certain problems, IMHO. With bridges, we generally eliminate the redundant "coord" item in {{infobox bridge}} in favor of the one in the HRHP infobox, but I suspect your usage is different. Then there's things like [3] where coords can't just be dropped. It's a problem. - Denimadept (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"African-American"

Then what does it mean, and why does a term like Irish-American, or at least European-American, not apply in the same situation? According to the Wikipedia definition of the term, Barack Obama is in fact not the first African-American president. That would be Warren G. Harding. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Warren G. Harding wasn't black. Where do you get that he had African ancestors? - Denimadept (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Wikipedia page on the term "African-American" does not state that someone must be black to be an African-American. It only says one must have some sort of heritage in black Africa. Warren G. Harding claimed to have black ancestors; and therefore if Obama is an African-American, so is Harding, according to Wiki's definition. And furthermore, as I already asked, why does the term "Irish-American" not apply to people with Irish parents in the same way that "African-American" applies to people with African parents?

As per your question of sources, historian William Estabrook Chancellor concluded Harding's descendance from black great-grandparents, as published in New York Times last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.250.92 (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, but it doesn't change anything. I was thinking you were going to say that someone with a Caucasian background from South Africa could be considered "African-American", but you didn't. - Denimadept (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Um... yes, logically that changes everything. Either the statement that Obama is the first African-American president of the USA is false; or Andrew Jackson is the first Irish-American president, etc.216.185.250.92 (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't logic, it's politics. - Denimadept (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Race is not politics... and furthermore, everything is logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.250.92 (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Were you really able to say all that with a straight face? - Denimadept (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I really shouldn't leave it at that. Look, there's no such thing as "race". We can all interbreed, so we're all the same race. The "race" concept is purely political. Politics isn't ruled by logic, or at least not by logic alone. It's mostly ruled by emotion, unfortunately. Look at history to see what I mean. - Denimadept (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well now you're just digging the hole deeper. By insisting that "race" is non-existent, you are giving yet another reason that the statement of Obama's "African-American" attribute is unnecessary and unfair. Second, you are implying that Wikipedia is racist, because it clearly acknowledges the concept of race. Third, race can not possibly be nothing but a "social construct" as you would suggest; to make that implication would be to claim that the fact that black families produce black children is a mere co-incidence. Clearly it's not a co-incidence, families of a particular race produce children of that same race because race is genetic. For more evidence of this, though it shouldn't be necessary, different illnesses and conditions affect people of different races in very different ways; there are notable biological differences amongst the races besides pigmentation of the skin, including variation in brain size and bone structure, as well as hundreds of less-obvious differences; and your claim that there are no human races simply because we can inter-breed is as valid as the claim that there are no different breeds of dogs using the same argument.216.185.250.92 (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Now you're just arguing to argue. Good thing I enjoy it too. Let's see...

Define your terms. On the one hand, you're saying that Harding was "African-American", in contradiction to the normal accepted meaning of the concept, so that there's some kind of meaning of "race" which differentiates human from human. On the other hand, when I say there's no such thing as "race", you claim I'm contradicting myself. You can't have it both ways. If "race" isn't the biological concept that defines the difference between "human" and "octopus", or more properly, between "human" and "chimpanzee", what is it?

I didn't say it was a social concept, I said it was political. Those do not equal each other. A social concept would be something like the difference between Indian castes. As we don't have castes in the USA, as symbolized by the fact that we now have what might have been a member of an under-caste now in charge of the country, what we have is political distinctions, in this case, differentiated by skin color for arbitrary historical reasons. On that same line of reasoning, Harding was never a member of that under-caste, so while his biological heritage may have implied such, it was effectively meaningless in real terms.

Oh, and thanks for the strawman. I enjoyed it. - Denimadept (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be entirely missing the point of my argument. It was never that black and white aren't races -- it was that the term "African-American" is inaccurate and arbitrary where used in the Obama article; that "African-American" is not a race, "black" is.

Where I was going with that is, saying Obama is "black" would also be untrue, which is why we call him "African-American." However, going all the way back to my original argument, he was not the first African-American president if Harding had some black ancestry, according to the very definition of "African-American." Obama is neither the first African-American president, nor is he black... so the attribute of his race is actually quite un-remarkable in the grand scheme of things. Obama is the first mixed-race US president, but other than that, nothing remarkable.

You told me I was incorrect to make the connection, "if Obama is the first African-American president, then Jefferson is the first English-American," for reasons that you did not rationalise to me. So if I'm making a straw-man argument, that's only because you never actually defined your own argument to begin with. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Then I have a suggestion for you. Change the article. You'll probably need to log in to do it. - Denimadept (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a great suggestion, coming from the person who removed that very change the first time I made it. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you edited Herbert Hoover, not Barak Obama. Try raising this in a reasonable article, perhaps? - Denimadept (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ponte Vecchio

Please see Talk:Ponte_Vecchio#Undoing_the_compromise? ... it has been suggested that the article be returned to a more standard format, as it has been a year since the compromise. Your participation may be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you joined the conversation (and as a note if you know of anyone else I missed please let me know or invite them yourself). But I would urge you in the strongest possible terms to not use "idiot" or "stupid person" going forward, it's just not going to be helpful. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 07:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Arch Bridge (Bellows Falls)

Nice new article - have you nominated it for DYK? I replied on the Talk:Arch Bridge (Bellows Falls) page with some suggestions for improvement. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 78.32.143.113

I notice you've commented on this IP's talk page. There's been some wholesale changes to TOC's from left to right from here; didn't this come up as a vandalism problem a while ago? Xyl 54 (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Haven't seen that change. He was up to something else when I made my comment. - Denimadept (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD numerical date format in footnotes

Hello, I think you commented on this issue earlier, and you may like to know that there is now an RfC under way on this question, at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates. -- Alarics (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tubby

Hello, the Tubby entry you wrote in the article of the Tacoma Narrows bridge cites to wikipedia itself. I do not think this is the right thing to do. I found an article that you probably want to use http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/TNBhistory/tubby.htm Diego Torquemada (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

South Park

I am not at all saying that South Park doesn't contain social commentary, but only that it isn't really a main genre, like "animation" and "situational comedy". The show contains a lot of themes, but they are not all to be listed as genres.--Henry talk 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bridges over the Merrimack River

If you have time, would you mind looking at List of crossings of the Merrimack River? It looks like it was started with the intent of following the example of the Connecticut River crossings list, but the user who created it has stopped at the New Hampshire border. Are there on-line resources I could use to continue the list up into New Hampshire? Thanks for your help. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my barging in. I've sort of come up with a list of present day bridges on the Talk page that could be used as a starting point. --Polaron | Talk 15:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Calvin Coolidge and access-date

Why'd you comment them all out? - Denimadept (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Coemgenus 22:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To avoid clutter. Didn't imagine it could possibly be controversial, esp to experienced users. Anyway, here are the applicable §§

WP:CITE

"A full citation is also required in a References section at the end of the article. In addition, providing an access date for the link in a comment helps editors recover a link that has become unavailable. for example:

*Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''The Guardian'', London, October 27, 2005. <!--accessed June 5, 2008-->

WP:CITEHOW

"Citations for newspaper articles typically include:

• name of the newspaper in italics (required)
• date of publication (required)
• byline (author's name), if any
• title of the article within quotation marks
• city of publication, if not included in name of newspaper
• the date you retrieved it if it is online, invisible to the reader: <!--accessed: date-->
• page number(s) are optional"

"Citations for World Wide Web articles typically include:

• name of the author(s)
• title of the article within quotation marks
• name of the website (linked to a Wikipedia article about the site if it exists, or to Website's "about page")
• date of publication
• page number(s) (if applicable)
• the date you retrieved it (invisible to the reader if the article has a date of publication: <!--accessed: date-->)

Majorite (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for finishing the list on the Merrimack River crossings. I was going to finish it at the time, but I forgot about it. Thanks again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. But why do you say not to use double-quote? - Denimadept (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Perth Bridge

yeah, i actually agree. i've noticied that it was far too dark when i first submitted the picture on the Perth (in Scotland) article. could get the color of the picture altered so it appears brighter. Kilnburn (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC at my talk page

In an effort to create a navbox for urban parkways in the Boston metro area, I have come to the realization that what is really needed is something that ties together the entire system first envisioned by Charles Eliot in the late nineteenth century. I feel that this should be a cooperative effort, probably created as a subproject of WP:MASS. However, initially I am seeking comments and/or assistance from several editors that have contributed in various ways to elements of the scope of such a project. This note is being posted to the user pages of Beland, CaribDigita, Denimadept, EraserGirl, Grk1011, Hertz1888, Jameslwoodward, Markles, NE2, Polaron and Swampyank. I apologize in advance to anyone who wishes to comment that I have left off of the list of users, as I may have unintentionally forgotten them and others. Please feel free to comment on my talk page under the heading I have created, linked here. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

DCR bridge transfer to MassDOT

I don't know how familiar you are with this list, but all non-pedestrian bridges under DCR control were transferred to MassDOT ownership on November 1. This makes the list linked above and several related bridge articles, some possibly not in that list, outdated. I am thinking you will want to address the change in ownership in several of the articles you maintain. Two good references are footnoted at the end of the lead section of Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston, which is a new article under development. Sswonk (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

HAC redirect to Nosocomial infection

Response my talk page JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)