Jump to content

User talk:Postdlf/Archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Postdlf

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conan (talk | contribs) at 13:22, 22 November 2004 (→‎List of Mobile Phones running Linux). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Who am I? I'm a law boy nee art boy that should be doing his homework instead of contributing here. But what can you do.

My main projects on here have been articles on U.S. law, politics and history, art, and local interest topics in Washington, DC, New York City, and Columbus, Ohio. I'm also quite active in trying to shape a sensible category structure.

I have recently been made a sysop, so let me know if there is anything sysop-esque that I can do for you.

Vandal moves

Be careful when undoing move vandalism. You don't appear to have done it correctly and seem to have deleted Wolfman and Demonslave's user pages, as well as the GNAA talk page. You have to move back and then delete the moved-to page. An admin will now have to undelete these pages and move them back. VV 08:11, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't believe that was because of me—I checked the history of everything that I deleted carefully. I couldn't figure out what happened to their user pages either, but I know that I didn't delete the moved content anywhere. Postdlf 08:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Well I can't find them either, so I'm guessing they were deleted. The deletion log indicates you deleted (e.g.) Wolfman's user page at 7:16 UTC when it was at Wikiwiki...wiki. I could be wrong, these trails are not easy to follow. VV 08:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I'll walk you through what I did: 1) I deleted the redirect at User talk:Demonslave in anticipation of moving it back, but unfortunately did not find where it had been moved to (bad link). 2) I deleted User talk:Wolfman and moved it back there from wikiwkiwkiwhatever, which was then deleted. 3) I deleted Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America, and moved it back from wiwkwikwiwwhatever, which was then deleted. That's it. Demonslave's talk page was the only delete that I did that wasn't fixed, but my deletion only got rid of the useless redirect left; I just wasn't able to track down where it was moved to in order to move it back. I am an admin, btw, (which is how I deleted articles) so I can still view the content of deleted articles and their histories, and restore them if need be. Postdlf 14:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization issue

Hi there -- two things about the Arthur MacArthur article. 1) If these were 19th-century sources, some of the conventions for capitalization have changed since that time, and 2) current use specifies that you capitalize when referring to someone directly with their title, but not if you refer to their position alone: e.g., I spoke to Governor Jeb Bush today." versus "I was present when Jeb Bush was elected governor."

I hope this clears things up. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Seems to make sense. Postdlf 16:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Nga west building.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks so much, – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:59, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

subcategories

I saw your comment on User:Maurreen's talk page about subcategories -- does that mean that this edit should be reverted? Fpahl 07:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Blocking IPs

Hi, I noticed that you blocked a couple of IPs indefinitely. According to the blocking policy, really the only situation for which that is appropriate is anonymous/open proxies. If you are blocking for that reason, please put the {{BlockedProxy}} template as the reason so it will be clear to anyone looking at the block log why the block is indefinite. Otherwise, I would suggest using no more than 24-hour blocks on IPs initially, and consider increasing the time if the same IP causes the same problems again later. --Michael Snow 04:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I was just trying to help us get out of the whack-a-mole situation we get into with the persistent vandals. I've reviewed the blocking policy more carefully now. Postdlf 22:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Fifth grade

This was kept because there was not an obvious consensus to delete. Redirect votes do not count as delete votes. Also the article was much improved since it was first nominate, making the early delete votes of questionable merit. If you disagree with my decision feel free to relist the article on VfD to see if it will produce a clearer consensus. - SimonP 01:49, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

User Sandbox

My User IP changes among various things that start with 66 and the second is either 32 or 245. I started editing Wikipedia in February 2004. This time, for the first time in Wikipedia history, I created my own user sandbox, which is where I put something that I originally planned on putting at Talk:Education in the United States. The reason I put it in my own user sandbox is I think that someone would consider it POV. How did I do at using a user sandbox?? 66.245.79.156 15:24, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Violation

Hello Postdlf,

I have started an article called Pace Academy and I see that you have removed it on terms of copyright violation. I just wanted to know what you saw wrong in it and why you removed it. I have replaced it with an article where I did not take from their website, but I was wondering why it was that even though I put that it came from their website, that you had to take it off. I had said:


  • The PACE Academy's Online Brochure offered on their website describes the following about this Academy: (Original).

Feralfighter

I removed your last edits to the article—please follow the instructions on the copyright violation notice. You can't simply edit the article until the copyrighted material has been removed from the history. This requires a complete deletion. In the meantime, you can create new material on a temporary page—please reread the instructions given at Pace Academy and don't remove the violation notice again.
As for why I put the violation notice up in the first place, you reproduced writing verbatim from a copyrighted website. This was obvious copyright infringement, and attributing the website as the original source does not excuse it legally. Nor could you claim fair use, because there was absolutely no reason to use their precise wording other than so you didn't have to write the text yourself. Postdlf 05:55, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

North Carolina category

About the people you removed from the North Carolina category, and who belongs where: Is this just a difference of opinion between us, or is there some kind of policy on the matter? Maurreen 13:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See generally Wikipedia:Categorization—there are guidelines regarding triviality and whether something would be better off as a list, etc. I believe the same is also mentioned on Wikipedia:Categorization of people. But it's mostly a matter of common sense for the reasons I mentioned on your talk page, and clear overwhelming practice—have you seen a lot of that kind of categorization going on, of plugging articles in every category that is merely mentioned no matter how insignificant to the subject? I had assumed this was a mistake, so I really don't know what the reasoning would be for classifying a Chicagoan and a Massachusetts musician as Category:North Carolina base-level topics, or any people, for that matter, as base-level topics to a state. Why did you stop there? Why didn't you add James Taylor to Category:University of North Carolina, Category:Martha's Vineyard, Category:London, and Category:California? Those are mentioned in the article, too.
It gets positively ridiculous if we just add every article to any category that is mentioned in an article. The categories cease being useful because they get lost at the bottom of articles in a list of trivial classifications, and because the categories themselves would end up being flooded so much by mostly irrelevant articles that you couldn't find the articles that are actually about the category. And even if North Carolina was important to the subject, it doesn't mean that the subject is important to North Carolina—please use subcategories. There is a Category:North Carolina people. But if you really want to link everyone who had any ties to the state, why don't you make a List of people associated with North Carolina, which you could then annotate with "lived there 19XX-19XX", "born there," "died there," "visited every other weekend," etc.? That would avoid all the pratfalls of categories. Postdlf 18:41, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism by 24.250.217.87

I saw that you permanently banned the IP, 24.250.217.87, for vandalism. He is back vandalizing now; see his contributions page.

Concerning Governors of Utah

Regarding your comments on my "blurbs" about the governors of Utah, I would like to bring to your attention that the content is in the public domain since it was paid for by the public's money. Plus, that content wasn't stamped as copyrighted content. Please re-instate the content and I would make a mention somewhere there that it is taken from the Government of Utah website

  • The content was stamped as copyrighted content—the bottom of the website said that it was copyrighted by the State of Utah. Now the works of the federal government are in the public domain under U.S. copyright law, but nothing prevents a state from owning a copyright over its works. The content will not be reposted. Postdlf 16:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I live in the State of Utah and this topic is going to be on the ballot this coming election. The state wants to have a copyright on intellectual property produced taxpaers money. The issue will be decided in Novemeber, but until then , regardless of what the state stamps on its website it doesn't have copyrights or intellectual property rights on anuthing produced using taxpayers money.
    • You have the law backwards. While the state can decide to submit its works to the public domain, until it has done so, they are presumptively copyrighted under federal law. Especially since there is a copyright notice on the state's website, unless you can point to a specific contrary provision of law, we must accept them as protected from copying. How hard is it to rewrite them? Facts aren't copyrightable—it's just the specific expression of the facts that is. BTW, please sign your comments with ~~~~ (four tildes). Postdlf 19:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Violation II

Hello Postdlf,

This is feralfighter again. I forgot to tell you that I have permission from the Director of Pace Academy to put this information up on the website. I guess I should have told you that before, but now I remembered, and so I think that may help with your repititious copyright violation notices.

Thank you, --Feralfighter 09:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I will e-mail him to verify. If I get a positive response, I will note it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, where the article is currently listed. Even if this is verified, however, I would still recommend a rewrite of the article's content, as wikipedia does not permit language that appears as an advertisement or otherwise POV—the content must only reflect objective information about the subject. Thanks! Postdlf 13:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Any Luck Yet? I have decided to rewrite it when I get a chance, but I am really busy right now. Speak to you later! --Feralfighter 01:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • No response as of today. If Pace Academy does not respond by tomorrow, it will have been 11 days since the article was posted and 7 since I e-mailed them, and the old article will be deleted. Please wait until this gets resolved one way or another—if permission can't be verified, we have to delete the old so that the questionable material does not remain within the article's history, and so you can start from scratch. Postdlf 01:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey Postdlf, I think that we should let it go now. It seems as though they will never email you back, and so I think that I will stop pursuing it. I might start from scratch, but I don't think I will fight to have the "copy-and-paste" version allowed anymore. Thank you for your time. --Feralfighter 18:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re: Categories

I respectfully disagree. Is there a page where the preferred method is stated? It seems horribly redundant to have Washington DC in Political Divisions of the US and Washington DC (cat), when Washington DC (cat) is in Political Divisions of the US. Cats need overhauling anyway, but is there an article setting this forward? --Golbez 01:46, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I do thank you for mentioning it to me, just in case I am wrong. :) --Golbez 01:46, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
The last time I remember the issue being discussed, it seemed to me that the consensus was in favor of how I have explained it, at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Article in category and parent of category. At the very least, I have never seen an argument against it advanced further beyond unelaborated assertions that it's redundant, and I also haven't seen any argument as to why curing this supposed redundancy is more important than all the reasons I put forth on your talk page. But I think my earlier comments on the categorization talk page were more clear. Postdlf 02:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re: Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse

As near as I could tell, this page violated item 5 of the "other pages" case put forth on the Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion Page regarding empty categories. As this page was deleted, at least one admin agreed with me. I personally believe a category is not even needed for this topic, as a single article could easily cover all aspects of the scandal. If there had been content on this page, I would have probably recommended it for deletion based on the rules for deleting small categories with little potential for growth. I am open to your thoughts on the matter if you would like to explain why you think the category is necessary. Indrian 02:40, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't know that there is an actual need for it, but the reason why I had asked was that you listed it for speedy deletion three minutes after it had been created, and without explaining why in your edit summary or on the category's talk page. It clearly wasn't a category that had fallen into misuse, because it was new and I notice now that it has since been recreated by its original author. It has remained empty, however, but still I think that unless a category is nonsensical or is clearly misspelled, etc., it isn't really grounds for speedy deletion. Especially since categories listed on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion that get no objection tend to get deleted pretty quickly anyway. Postdlf 04:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mendocino County, California

How good are your fact checking abilities? Did you actually check any of the towns 63.197.235.94 added before reverting them all and saying "your test of our fact-checking abilities worked and has been removed"? I know that most of them exist, having personally been to more than a few; was there a specific town you thought was not factual? I haven't researched the whole list, but enough of them do exist that I reverted them all for now. Please be careful with that rollback button. ~leif ☺ HELO 04:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • The anon user copied data from Fort Bragg, California as "Levinville" and changed some numbers such as the population, but left others so that there were more households than there were people. Levinville isn't even listed in the 2000 U.S. census, so it couldn't very well have 2000 census data, and "Levinville" and "California" together get NO google hits. That was the falsehood to which I was referring. I then checked several of his additions to the county page and they were likewise not listed in the census, and so were neither municipalities nor CDPs, and considering the Levinville page, I saw no reason to trust the anon's information. Postdlf 05:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I have checked most of the remaining Mendocino County communities on google, and they seem to check out, but "Levinville" is still unexplained as anything other than fiction. Regardless, I think it was totally inappropriate of you to remove my comment from the anon's talk page, especially without waiting to see my explanation first. Postdlf 05:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, when I replaced you message on their talk page I thought it was totally inappropriate to greet (what appeared to be) an innocent newbie with a message indicating that none of those places existed. But I haven't heard of Levinville either, and I now agree it's likely a "made up place", especially if they created an article for it with bogus info. But when I stumbled upon this situation I saw no record of that page, and seeing as how you had removed a large number of places I knew to exist, I figured that you were the one in the wrong. Apologies for removing your comment on their talk page, and for my somewhat rude tone above. ~leif ☺ HELO 18:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • S'alright, I appreciate your apology. From your side, once an article is deleted it no longer shows up in a user's contributions, so it wouldn't have been easily evident that was what I was reacting to. I guess we both acted a little hasty.  ; ) Postdlf 18:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clairvoyance (album)

Why have you deleted this? Surely this would have been better placed onto WP:VfD! Someone might have improved it. I'm actually going to do this right now. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Speedy deletion reason #4—very short articles with little or no context. It didn't even tell who the artist was, let alone construct a sentence. Postdlf 12:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletions

The only justification for the deletion of Meaning and Knowledge was that is was not notable. Currently according to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy lack of notability is not a valid reason for removing articles from Wikipedia. I am thus listing all articles that are VfDed for that reason on Wikipedia talk:VfD decisions not backed by current policies. They will stay there until the time that new policies are implemented or that the community decides that my actions are inappropriate. In either case the articles will be clearly listed and can at that point be easily deleted. I will do so myself if a proper consensus is achieved. - SimonP 00:59, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • I posted comments regarding Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current policies on the Village Pump. As I explained there, I personally think this was a highly inappropriate unilateral action for you to take, but let's see what the community has to say. Postdlf 01:02, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads-up. I've left word on the link to the Village Pump section that you sent me. - Lucky 6.9 02:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Years in fashion articles

Hello, were you planning on adding written content to these articles? Yes, by I have need of fix the corset artikels first. But the corset artikels have need of suport from Years in fashion. Haabet 06:20, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

Unprotection of Tom King

FYI, I unprotected Tom King (actor), since it had been over a week. Should the page be speedily deleted now? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:33, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Poll

I have created a preliminary version of Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current policies/poll. Your comments would be much appreciated. - SimonP 17:08, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

63.197.235.94 possible vandalism

I had a number of messy changes through a number of pages from this URL. This person has a characteristic style - each edit is entered individually, lots of place names and Mueseums as a characteristic spelling. Contra Costa County, California had 20 unsatisfied links entered, with bad link names, but useful in a way - but entered a railroad museum that looked phoney, turned out to be a museum located in a restored railway station. Entire text of Mount Diablo State Park was duplicated (but not from the edit page - by cutting from the article display) and placed in a new article "Mt. Diablo State Park". A lot of the stuff entered looks legitimate, but consists of 20 unsatisfied links. Be alert. I reverted the article for Mendocino County, California, please inspect the edits and see if any merits inclusion. I embedded a message in the CoCoCo article, see the talk for that page for my message to this user. I have been going through restoring the revisions with proper spelling, syntax, and external links and I am coming to the conclusion that this is not intentional vandalism, just not good work. I am leaving the Mendocino County, California article to persons more knowledgeable about this county. Best wishes, -- Leonard G. 17:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Interesting...it's great that you caught that. I hope you and User:Leif can work together on watching this guy because you seem to be familiar with the area. The only reason why I caught that anything was amiss was because, while routinely checking new articles by anon posters, I noticed that one entitled "Levinville, California" had "Fort Bragg" at least once in the content rather than "Levinville", and the demographics given were internally inconsistent (listing more households than the supposed population). A little research showed that not only was there no actual census listing and statistics for such a place, but 0 google hits. Making a fictional place article by copying text from a valid one and changing some numbers makes me think that this is more than just bad editing. BTW, I think you should copy your message from the Contra Costa talk page to the anon's talk page. If nothing else, it places a record in one place of the problems people have had with that IP. Postdlf 17:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Of the three towns they added to Sonoma County, California, one does not exist (los lomas). There have been two bogus towns on the Mendocino county article from them now, among many other legit ones. I think this is deliberately subtle misinformation/vandalism and the user should be blocked if they don't explain themselves real soon. I guess I'll keep trying to verify their contributions for now... ~leif ☺ HELO 19:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Categories

I don't know all the subcategories. In my view, adding an imperfect category to an article is better than leaving the article without a category. Maurreen 17:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't agree&mash;it still requires someone else to go in and fix it afterwards. Why not do it right the first time? I don't know all the subcategories either. So before I categorize anything, I search through the structure to see where it would best go. Could you please do the same? Postdlf 05:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea and a sit down

On the archived VfD page, you wrote: " The result of the debate was DELETE. 10 votes to keep, 6 votes to delete"

Isn't that a keep?

I came here to make the same point. I see that you actually did keep the article under its correct title of Nice cup of tea and a sit down, but the anon's wrong version above seems like a plausible misnomer, so I'll make it a redirect. If you want to smoke crack, feel free, but don't handle VfD while under the influence!  :) JamesMLane 08:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You caught me. I was smoking crack.  ; ) I was working through VfD by copying and pasting the boilerplate language at the top and missed that I didn't change it to "keep". Good thing I executed the right result at least... Postdlf 13:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zod

Why have you redirected my little article about the Zod rune to a General Zod page?Diablosnuevos 00:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Because an article about a single item from a single video game is highly likely to be deleted if I were to list it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. The strongest association of "Zod" is to the Superman character. If you want to include more specific information about the item, I suggest you do so on the page for the video game, if there is one. What are the chances that someone is actually going to search for "zod" the video game rune independently of wanting to know about the game itself? Postdlf 23:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WP:VFD/HS

Just letting you know that I thought you might be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools, as well as what I wrote on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 05:43, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Requesting guidance

Hello. I want to make sure I don't make a mess of things, so I clicked Recent Changes looking for an admin and spotted you right away. Since you're online you get the question.  :-) On 10 OCT I tagged Mens Mental Health as a possible copyvio. The author claims to be the copyright holder of the main article, and also claims fair use for a section drawn from another source. I've looked into it and believe both claims are valid. This will be my first use of admin abilities so I want to make sure I understand what to do. If I'm right all I have to do is revert the article to the original edit, delete the temp page (just a copy of the original, with a note added) and leave a message on the article's talk page. Will that do it or am I missing something? Thank you for any guidance you can give me. SWAdair | Talk 07:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It sounds like you have the right solution. I actually don't have too much experience dealing with copyvios, but from what I understand, you seem to have the right process down. I haven't really looked at the original article, but based simply on its title I would additionally consider whether it should be merged elsewhere, or perhaps simply moved to a new title. Postdlf 07:42, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pike County, Ohio

The mising communities in Pike County, Ohio are all townships. I don’t know why Rambot didn’t create these articles from Census data. To answer your question about source data, I got a list off all townships in the 88 counties of Ohio from the office (website) of the Ohio Secretary of State. The list went into Wikipedia at List of Ohio townships. Originally, I created articles for the townships in Hamilton County, Ohio while updating things about the Cincinnati area. I updated Pike County when I created an article for Beaver Township, Pike County, Ohio while trying to encourage a Jr. High student from there to contribute to Wikipedia. Lou I 14:51, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Minor league baseball teams

Hi, I have a simple category question. I noticed some minor league baseball teams are in Category:Baseball teams, some are in Category:Minor league baseball teams, and some are in both.

Should there be a consistent categorization scheme?

Thanks,

Econrad 17:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, most of the articles simply haven't been moved to the proper subcategory yet. I don't know why anyone would put them in both. Postdlf 17:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mitsubishi subsidiaries categories

Just so you know, the Mitsubishi companies are not subsidiary companies. They are part of the keiretsu. I think the best name for the category should be either "Mistubishi" or "Mitsubishi companies". Christopher Mahan

  • Do they merely use the Mitsubish trade name, but corporate entities owned by Mitsubishi? I guess I misunderstood then. Postdlf 22:00, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licencing

I was looking at the U.S. city/state articles and noticed that you've made a number of changes specifically in adding categories. I've chosen to multi-license all of the rambot contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike Licence. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case. -- Ram-Man 18:28, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

List of Mobile Phones running Linux

Why do you restore List of Mobile Phones running Linux? This is useless title.

Arlington, VA racial data

I'm not sure why you reverted my edit to the Arlington article. the casual reader is no doubt confused when he/she reads the current version, and I feel my simpler version is better. Better to explain things in 3 words than 30 words, you know? 'Native American', 'Pacific Islander' and other negligible groups shouldn't be included if they are , e.g. 0.03% of the population. That's just silly. Also, the census racial data are estimates, so figures like 45.975% may as well be rounded to 46% for the sake of simplicity and easier reading.

Oh and by the way, I used the 'White non-Hispanic' data provided by the Census. The current version no doubt confuses people in that regard too. We should aim to be succint and straightfoward, not so convoluted that we lose and confuse people! BSveen 18:57, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • I disagree entirely. Even if the data are estimates, it makes a lot more sense to include what the census has reported than to decide you can somehow make a better figure yourself by rounding off. Second, "negligible groups" are nonetheless part of the demographics. It would be silly to list racial groups showing 0.00%, but otherwise the information is real, valid, and relevant. Third, this demographic information is part of an extensive project for all counties, municipalities, and CDPs in the country. As a reduction in information would be quite a significant change of convention for countless articles, I suggest you list your comments on the Village Pump or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Counties. There are too many people involved in maintaining these articles to allow for a unilateral format change, particularly one that reduces information. Postdlf 19:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I won't pursue this further, but it really wasn't "reducing information". It was changing that bit of the article from a confusing mess that the casual reader wouldn't understand at all, to a straightforward, simple-to-understand piece. And I don't see why a group that has 0.003% of the population should be included, it's just a waste of space and confuses people. The goal of an article (any article) should not be "let's see how much we can confuse people", rather it should be the opposite, which is what I was trying to do. But anyway, you won't heard from me on this again, good day to you. BSveen 19:23, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Postdlf/Archive2&oldid=7764911"