User talk:Donald Albury/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Ms. Kelly

The album was originally titled Kelly Rowland: My Story and was recently renamed to Ms. Kelly. I posted an audio source for this information on the article a few days ago ... - Noboyo - November 18, 2006

Fast Food

I finally found out you were the one who removed what I added in "Fast Foods". You called it vandelism, along with other innocent edits. I looked at your contributions and you do this to numerous articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.73.96 (talk • contribs).

City Nicknames

I'm guessing you're not from around here. A number of the items you claim need sources are extremely well known, and you're asking people to re-research stuff that's already covered in the articles. It's ridiculous. Anyone who has ever heard of Chicago knows it's called the "Windy City". Boston has likewise been called "Beantown" for generations. How about if you do some of your own work instead of trying to make everyone else do it for you? Baseball Bugs 12:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And I'm guessing you'll come in a month or a week or 3 days and if no one has done your work for you, you'll delete them, on the grounds that no one has "verified" the obvious... thus rendering the list worthless... which is maybe what your motivation is. Why do want citations for "capital city"? How about you check the list of capital cities and observe that they are capital cities. Baseball Bugs 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, and in particular, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, which is official policy. It is the responsibility of an editor who wants to retain a 'fact' in an article to provide a citation to a reliable source for that 'fact'. Note that the nicknames I have re-tagged are NOT sourced in the city articles. Being "well-known" is not sufficient. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and practice before throwing accusations around. -- Donald Albury 12:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and please post any further discussion on this topic to Talk:List of city nicknames in the United States, where it belongs. -- Donald Albury 12:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Verifiability" and "truth" are actually the same thing. Don't be lecturing me about policy, and don't be telling me where to post questions. Baseball Bugs 13:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputes in English grammar

Hi Dalbury, there is currently a hefty debate going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disputes in English grammar about whether the article in question constitutes original research. Having seen your name and credentials at the Theoretical Linguistics wikiproject, I reckon that you, more than me or any of the other people arguing there, would know whether this subject really is original research, or whether it is the kind of subject that gets written about in a meaningful enough way to give rise to an encyclopaedic article. A moment of your time to look it over would no doubt be illuminating to the debate. Cheers, Jdcooper 21:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Should Valentinian become an admin?

I am asking you this because you are an admin & should have some idea of the qualifications. Valentinian has:

• 50,000 edits
• Quite a few barnstars
• A wonderful record of general contibutions

Please reply on my talk page. Laleena^{Talk to me} _{Contributions to Wikipedia} 15:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Donald,

Ken Udut here (simplify3) webmaster of http://free.naplesplus.us

I'd like my site to be a resource for Ave Maria students and searchers as I have a few articles on the site about Ave Maria as well as a good collection of news stories (I'm constantly collecting them), but after having read the usage guidelines for external links, I understand why you removed my entry from external links.

I wasn't doing it for pagerank, as the change to "nofollow" happened before I started my site up (I started it up in June '07 - it's a new resource) and I was aware of it.

I simply hadn't understood the guidelines properly.

So for a page on my site to be viable for Wikipedia then (just so I understand it) - it would have to be fresh, NOT be a search, AND be something that doesn't wouldn't fit properly on the Wikipedia entry itself but rather be something akin to an academic footnote resource?

If you could help me understand, I'd appreciate it. It's quite possible that what I offer on my site isn't approriate for wikipedia at all and if that is the case, I understand. But even with that, I do have some Ave Maria links I've been collecting, such as official links to the new grammar school, the Ave Maria library (which is open to the public of Collier County) and some others.

I live ten miles south of Ave Maria, FL, so I have a definite interest in its goings on.It's sort of a mission of mine, even though I don't go there.

[I'm trying to bring together a "one stop" free resource for Collier County of hard to find information on free.naplesplus.us]

If I can help Wikipedia in any way improve their entries, I'd like to be able to do that. Thanks! ] Kenneth Udut simplify3@aol.com webmaster: http://free.naplesplus.us

simplify3 on Wikipedia IP: 76.101.6.88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.6.88 (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

unname sction

So something has to be written down in a book or by some non reader based site for it to be "evidence". Yeah, Nice one.

Where's the books source of the word ey!? Oh yeah, real life!!! So would an eyewitness in a crime have to have a picture for it to be considered real evidence to you people?!

...It's pretty rich being told that something isn't a word, just because it's not written down in some publication or something, especially since it's so adult and semi-rare, surely the opinions and public usage make something a word, exactly what Urban Dictionary does.

It's also pretty rich because Wikipedia isn't at all reliable, and because I'm being told something isn't a word by some burgerchomper who probably wouldn't be able to speak half decent English if you tried.Kurtle 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

City nicknames

Please consider participating at split proposal. -- Jreferee t/c 14:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman

There is a discussion that you might want to weigh in on, Talk:Harry_S._Truman#The_.22Roswell_Incident.22, thanks. WikiDon 05:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

List of palms of the Caribbean

Hi. I have listed List of palms of the Caribbean as a Featured List Candidate, and was wondering if you might have the time to give me some feedback on the nom. Thanks. Guettarda 21:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Your statement about fossilized footprints in the article on Hylonomus is unclear. At a glance, it looks like an unverified claim. You added a reference to the reference section, but did not indicate which fact in the article it goes with. Citations directly indicating which sentence they refer to are most helpful. (See WP:CITE.) Wryspy 20:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

ALLAHHH

PRAISE ALLAH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.59.130 (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientology included in the Clearwater, Florida site

Sorry for trying to delete Scientology from the Clearwater, Florida site. The reason is that I do not feel it should be included as a part of Clearwater, Florida history. There are many, many religions in Clearwater, Florida, and I do not feel only including Scientology as a Part of Clearwater history is appropriate. If you include only Scientology, then you are basically stating that this is the only representative religion in Clearwater, and that is not the case. If you include this religion, then you should mention all other representative religions in this City.

Again, please consider deleting this from the site. Clearwater is a wonderful sea-side town and should not be associated with any specific religion, no matter what its history. If someone wants to look up Scientology, then let them do it directly and not associate this religion with any particular city. It's like saying that Madison, WI is only associated with Muslims.

I apologize for attempting to delete without contacting Wilkapedia first. I hope that you consider my statement in good faith. Long-time resident of Clearwater, Florida, since 1964.

Teri71.43.32.87 23:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.32.87 (talk • contribs)

You need to raise your objections on Talk:Clearwater, Florida. -- Donald Albury 00:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Omnydickgosh

Shouldn't he be username blocked? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

'Dick' does have innocent uses, and is even used in Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. -- Donald Albury 00:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Donald

I sent you an email concerning Giovanni, and the issue of how we might be able to discuss the sources. I also see that you reverted my changes at the article, without really explaining why. Would you mind putting a note on the talk page there? Thanks... Privatemusings 04:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

a nickle

Ever wish you had a nickle for every time your took Hulk Hogan out of Clearwater? Cheers, :) MikeReichold 20:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing 'prominent residents' who are either not 'prominent' or not resident is just part of the background noise. -- Donald Albury 20:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Links to NHM

I see what you mean and have altered the Philipp Christoph Zeller article accordingly,putting a sentence in the text and linking it to Notes and through the external link to th NHM Zeller page.I hope correctly.Please get back to me and if all is well with Zeller I'll fix the others.Best wishes from rainy Ireland Notafly (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That works! -- Donald Albury 12:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ride 'em, cowboy

A user snipped at you for putting as many tags as you did in the Cowboy article. I just felt inspired to say I think you did exactly the right thing. And that user actually demonstrated the usefulness of your approach, because he/she then turned around and sought to add needed sources. Keeping riding high in that saddle. Wryspy (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I try not to get upset when that happens. I don't like it when I get drawn into revert wars. I'll just keep pushing where I can to improve sourcing in WP, but I normally don't have the time and energy for full-blown battles. -- Donald Albury 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

How is it not useful? The person I was deleting no longer works for the company...I've made changes in the past when corporate personnel have left the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.102.219 (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

According to what I've found on the web, he was there as of last month. Please point me to a reliable published source that reports his departure. Per our policies, everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable from reliable published sources. Removing material from Wikipedia without a valid reason is often regarded as vandalism. If you work for Muvico, then I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- Donald Albury 12:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, which in a nutshell, is "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". -- Donald Albury 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mayaimi

I went ahead and changed the rating on the article Mayaimi, because it's a single section. That's a stub.

Thanks for helping me with this; I took a look at the list after I set up the assessment grid and groaned. It's a nightmare. Horologium t-c 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tallahassee notables

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Tallahassee, Florida. Please do not add to this section.

Sorry, Dalbury, but I just undid your latest Tallahassee revision. In my opinion, having your own Wikipedia article is not the only suitable measure of notability, just a good first check. In fact, some rather non-notable folks have them, and some notable one, the various easily checked Olympic athletes on the list for instance, don't have articles. Marion Tinsley did have one, but without the "Dr.". I checked all the Olympians. They're legitimate. Tim Ross·^talk 22:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I still say the best indicator that someone is notable enough to be listed as a 'notable resident' is to have their own article. It is not enough that someone's existence is verifiable. If we are going to call someone 'notable', then Wikipedia:Notability should apply, and it is a bit awkward establishing notability in a footnote to a 'notable resident' who doesn't have a WP article. -- Donald Albury 22:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I suppose that all Olympic athletes can be fit into Wikipedia:Notability. Thus, someone could legitimately write an article for each saying, basically, that such a person completed in certain events, at a certain Olympics, with certain specified results. It doesn't make a lot of sense, though to require this for the Tallahassee listing unless you feel that some Olympic athletes are not notable. By the way, do you know if circular references, back to Wikipedia, qualify as "reliable sources"? Tim Ross·^talk 23:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether a given individual (or the subject of any article, for that matter) meets the criteria of WP's notability guidelines is ultimately subject to a consensus of editors, often decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (if an article has not been nominated for deletion, then no one has seriously questioned the notability of the subject). Notability for some subjects has been reduced to a set of criteria (see Wikipedia:Notability (music)). The notability quideline for people (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) requires substantial coverage of the person from independent sources. There is no provision that someone who has won a particular prize or event qualifies for an article in WP. As to your last question, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Reliable third-partysources cited in WP articles may be cited in other articles, as long as it has been verified that the cited sources support the material in question.

I believe your argument is faulty, Dalbury. Yes, one certainly is supposed to have reliable secondary sources in a biographical article to demonstrate, among other things, "sufficient coverage" to meet the notability specification. The Tallahassee article, however, is not a biographical one, and I don't believe that the listing of notable individuals in that article has to meet that specific standard. It is your personal definition, alone, which is the sticking point, that one should not be on that list in the Tallahassee article without a personal biographical article. I believe, for example, that the fact of having one's own article is sufficient grounds for consideration for the list, but that the article editors might justifiably wish to exclude some such individuals from the list if their local notability were negligible. Conversely, many important individuals, in a local sense, have no Wikipedia articles, but may be appropriate for the Tallahassee article. The Olympic athletes in question are a perfect example. One should be following a consensus of editors on this point, not the biographic notability requirment. In any case, I intend to replace the deleted Olympians, including an appropriate reference to their existence and achievements, which I hope you will find satisfactory. Tim Ross·^talk 11:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, everything in WP articles must be verifiable, and anything that is challenged or likely to be challenged must have reliable published sources cited. Therefore, if I challenge whether someone is a notable resident of a place, then citations to reliable sources that such person is notable and is a resident/former resident must be provided. In practice, editors have been accepting the existence of a WP article about someone as establishing notability. So, either create an article for each person you want in the list, or cite enough reliable sources for each person to establish reliability and residency. -- Donald Albury 11:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

May I point out, Dalbury, that your issue was with Wikipedia:Notability, not Wikipedia:Verifiability? I note, also, that your "challenge" on that topic consisted of deleting anything that didn't meet your standard, rather than initiating a discussion on Talk:Tallahassee, Florida, which might have been a better option, and, indeed, might be the right place for this discussion. Tim Ross·^talk 12:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Tallahassee, Florida. Please do not add to this section. -- Donald Albury 12:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fort Pickens

Without a tape recorder and citing the Ranger's name you can call the info "unverified" if you like, but I'll take his word over the outdated info in the Wiki article. From what he said the road was already rebuilt and wiped out again by another storm just before it was to reopen (might have been Dennis.) Latest FAQ says 2008 to *start* construction at the earliest. When I visited Barrancas in October there was still no actual plan.

If you can find "verifiable" content, be my guest. But I'll take more up to date over "verifiable" any day of the week. I asked the Ranger about it because I couldn't find verifiable information.

Next time I won't bother sharing. Red Harvest (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review the official policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Even if you recorded the ranger's comments, it wouldn't make a difference; publication by a reliable source is required. -- Donald Albury 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take accuracy over verifiably inaccurate information every time, thanks! Red Harvest (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The community has chosen verifiability over "truth" for reasons that have been discussed repeatedly on the talk page of the policy. For one thing, verifiability means that any reader can potentially check the source and decide for himself or herself how useful the information is, while "truth" often comes from an unidentifiable and uncheckable source. Oh, and if you can cite reliable sources that contradict what is in an article, please do so (following the rules at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight). -- Donald Albury 13:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Florida State Parks in Alachua County

This is my first effort at creating the consolidated articles I proposed at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Florida. If you like it, I will redirect the six individual articles to this one, remove the templates from their talk pages, and add one to this page.

I am coming to you for approval because you have (by far) the most experience of the people who are active in WP Florida right now. I think you are the only admin who has posted to the page in months, so you seem to have (for better or for worse) been selected as the dean of the project. Horologium t-c 01:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to think on it. Grouping the parks by county seems arbitrary. The article looks fine, its just the method of grouping I'm hesitant on. I hadn't thought about there being an article for the Dudley Farm. I've been there, and I know there has been a book published about it (my sister was the editor for the book). Maybe I'll find a copy and add to the article sometime.

I'm not the only admin around, Cuchullain just joined the discussion today. I'm just getting active again after a long slump since the Spring, and I can't guarantee how deep or long my enthusiasm will run. I'm also torn between adding content, patrolling my watchlist, and getting active with OTRS again. We'll have to see how much I can do. -- Donald Albury 02:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. Are you suggesting not merging them after all? It's not a crisis of biblical proportions, but the potential reduction in stubby articles is pretty drastic. (Most of the counties that have a state park have more than one, so we're looking at 45-50 articles instead of 180+.) The NRHP merges will produce even more dramatic results. Horologium t-c 03:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks

yea sorry i didn't site it, i was pretty much just joking around —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.75.142.33 (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nova Southeastern in Miami

The NSE campus in Miami is located at 1750 NE 167th ST :: NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL 33162 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.170.227 (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not in the City of Miami. -- Donald Albury 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if that's not the city of Miami, then Johnson and Wales (also located in North Miami Beach), FIU (Located in University Park/Sweetwater), are not in the city of Miami either....Please explain this to me

Existing errors are no excuse for introducing new errors. I will be looking at the Johnson and Wales information. -- Donald Albury 00:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Muvico Corporate

Thanks for reviewing our edits, however I represent Muvico Theaters and have made the most recent and accurate adjustments.

Per the Wikipedia official policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability, information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable from published reliable sources. We do not accept someone who claims to represent a company or other organization as a reliable source. You have been entering information that is not reflected in the Muvico corporate website. If you continue to insert information about corporate officers and structure that is not sourced from reliable published sources and which contradicts what is posted on the corporate website, I will have to regard such posts as vandalism. -- Donald Albury 00:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Samuel Eliot Morison

Hi Donald. In September I reduced the section on Zinn's mild criticism of Moison to a short paragraph (see: [1]). I then suggested on the talk page that this be removed as it didn't seem worth including. After no-one had objected for six weeks I removed the para in early November ([2]). 10 days later User: Skywriter reinstated the full bloated section with a somewhat confusing claim that a citation was needed to remove this material. I'm happy to discuss further on the talk page, but I feel that Zinn's comments on Morison's work are so marginal that they're not worth including at all (they seem to be one historians view that historians of Morison's generation didn't pay enough attention to the impact of Columbus and Spanish Colonialism on the natives of the Americas, but that Morison was better than most of his peers - this hardly seems to be an issue worth considering when evaluating Morison's work). --Nick Dowling 03:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in keeping in the material. I just saw sourced material being removed and reacted. I regret any miss-understanding here. -- Donald Albury 04:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. --Nick Dowling 10:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Muvico Theaters

What are you talking about? I edited that page over a year ago, and the information I added is still there, so I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

As for my reference for the Baywalk theater, my brother works as a manager there. I'd say that's pretty substantial proof.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.102.219 (talk • contribs)

The information at this page has changed in the last day. And I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to the Baywalk theater. In any case, your personal knowledge (or where your relatives work) is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. Once again, please read our official policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Donald Albury 18:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Florida

Can I get a civility check from you? I was particularly steamed by Britcom's nasty little rant against me, and I want to make sure that my response is appropriate. I want to make it perfectly clear how out of line he was, but don't want to fall into the trap of being incivil myself. Since you are familiar with the article and its multitude of issues, I'd appreciate your opinion on whether or not I need to refactor my response. Horologium (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. I've encountered BritCom before. Now we wait to see what happens next. -- Donald Albury 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(re:Census data) I have links on my user page to several useful census data sources: 2006 estimates for incorporated places in Florida, 2006 estimates for Metropolitan/Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and the 2000 list of population and area for all incorporated places and CDP's in Florida (the first two are in Excel format, the last is HTML). They're in the "Links for Editing" section of my userpage, in case you need to use them. They can be useful for updating population or sanity checking some of the more outlandish claims that end up on the pages, usually for population figures pulled out of thin air. Horologium (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. -- Donald Albury 03:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oversight email link

Ah well, if you will use Microsoft software ☺…
Seriously, thanks for the heads-up on AN/I - looks like it's been dealt with. Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 23:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First time I've had to seek oversight. I'll try to remember where to go next time. -- Donald Albury 00:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - there are that many WP:WHATEVER links it's hard to keep track. Sticking just
Oversight
into the searchbox works - the dab page says
For Oversight in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Oversight.
and you can take it from there. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I can remember that. Thanks. -- Donald Albury 00:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Add WikiProject Tampa to articles on Pinellas and Manatee counties

I am wondering why you added the Tamps city project to Charles Roser, an article that pertains only to St. Petersburg, Florida and Anna Maria, Florida and has nothing to do with Tampa. I notice that other Pinellas County articles are in the Tampa project, but St. Pete itself isn't.clariosophic (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Tampa project covers the Tampa Bay Area, which includes Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco and Hernando Counties (the MSA). Similarly, the Miami project covers South Florida (Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties) and the Jacksonville project covers the Greater Jacksonville Metropolitan, which includes 5 counties. As I am particpating in current drive to assess all of the some 4,000 articles in the Florida project, I've been tagging articles for the city projects when I assess them for the state project. If it is not the case that the Tampa project is taking on the whole MSA, I'll stop placing the template on articles. -- Donald Albury 04:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the edit.--H.Musleh (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Links on Vero Beach Page

I have a website which has a number of pages of just photographs of Vero Beach, South Beach etc. I believe these photographs would be helpful and interesting to people seeking to learn about Vero Beach. Do you suggest that I link them or do you believe that pages of photographs of Vero Beach are not suitable? If you believe they are useful perhaps you could suggest the context in which to create a link?

Zbeach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbeach (talk • contribs) 00:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Florida

Could you come and participate in the discussion here? We have an editor who wants to make some major structural changes to this template, which is in use on over 800 articles, the vast majority of which are under the aegis of the Florida WikiProject. His changes would break the standardization of the state templates that was hammered out last year. I don't think I like what he is proposing, but I may be overreacting. Thanks. Horologium (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Locations make a difference.

Believe it or not, Ft. Myers and Ft. Myers Beach are different places. They are 2 different cities. So why is it excessive to put a Wikilink to Fort Myers, but the one to Fort Myers Beach in the same section is ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fort Myers is linked just two very short paragraphs above that sentence. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio? has the statement, "'Excessive' is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly appear needlessly on the viewer's screen." If one interprets a link appearing twice on a screen as excessive, then the second link would be excessive. I won't fight you on that, however. In any case, I think you should avoid linking to redirects rather than directly to the article. -- Donald Albury 23:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I always looked at each section as a stand alone. But you rationale makes more sense.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My Change

Hello, I added that link to brush away that citation needed sign. That link had useful information too, and I did not use it to advertise anything. I do not care for advertising. City-Data.com is a resource site that can be useful to Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please explain it to my talk page. Thank YouDr.Sorcerer (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. I see prominently displayed ads taking up a lot of the screen space on the city-data.com pages. I have asked for a second opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. -- Donald Albury 00:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:House-of-Refuge-Biscayne-Bay.jpg

This is a tricky one! But I found your reasoning to be quite sound here, and agree with your tagging of the image. I don't think there is any copyright problem here, and it certainly qualifies as fair use in any event. Keep up the good work! Cheers--DO11.10 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)