This user may have left Wikipedia. Appraiser has not edited Wikipedia since March 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Hi, Appraiser. Your wikilinking on this article will be helpful as I or other contributors expand the lists of historical officholders in the state. Would you, though, happen to know or know where to find the historical party composition numbers for the state legislature? I haven't had much luck. Thanks for your help!
35,600 edits on 22,000 pages!! How do you have time to be a father with all you do? Very impressive. You are an inspiration to us Wikinubies. MikeWeiner476 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know that I got out today, the first day I've had time and taken some photos and will hopefully be able to do more tomorrow. Will upload ASAP. Calebrw (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I have a number of pictures from Faribault and some from Northfield from last November. I never got around to uploading all of them, though. I'll see if I can finish uploading those photos, but at the moment I'm also pretty busy working on an entry for the Masquerade at this year's CONvergence (convention). --Elkman(Elkspeak)20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! the DYK finally went through, and the DYK hook, with no picture though, is on the Wikipedia main page right now. Tho it is the middle of the night in the U.S. The DYK administrator saw fit to directly award the DYK plaque to Lvklock, not to Clariosophic or to me, oh well. But, indirectly then, passing the award on...
Thanks Appraiser for helping out with good quality edits. I liked your late add of a good statement and good reference to Robert V. Kline's site and the other site, i think, in the article, and appreciate your thoughtful comments in the Talk page. It was fun getting the list out, at least! doncram (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your need to do homework on the Aerial Lift Bridge doesn't imply an obligation of Wikipedia editors to provide the content you want. They would need sources, and possibly the same sources you would otherwise use in your assignment. In fact, why don't you combine doing your school work with improving the article yourself? SlowJog (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SlowJog, I think you're replying to a comment that Appraiser moved from the article to the talk page nearly six months ago. In fact, that request was posted by an anonymous IP address. I'm having a little bit of trouble trying to figure out exactly what the user was asking for. (How far drivers are hauled? "Nowhere" would be the answer, because they get all the cars off the bridge before they raise it for ships.) --Elkman(Elkspeak)20:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I failed to carefully read the note and signature information. (And to think, I teased the poster about poor proofreading.) Maybe the original poster wanted to know how far away from the bridge the drivers had to stop. SlowJog (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a method/process for creating location maps for smaller civil sub-divisions within a state (city/county/town/township/village...)? I understand the (sub-)templates, editing the corners/edges, but would like to see a "cookbook" recipe for creating the graphic background. LeheckaG (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have created county maps such as Image:ScottCounty.png, Image:Ramsey.png, Image:Hennepin.png, and Image:Dakotacounty2.png. I first go to [2], then click on MAPS, Reference Maps, enter the state, click GO. Click on Boundaries and Features. Uncheck everything except 2006 county boundary. Zoom into the area of interest. Then "printscreen" to the copy buffer. Then I open my copy of CorelDraw (other drawing programs would work too). "Paste" to new image. Recolor and annotate as desired.--Appraiser (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it's used for cellphones, or at least that was its original purpose when it was built maybe 15 years go. WJBC, for example, has their tower out in the southwest of the town somewhere. I don't think any radio stations broadcast from downtown. But my info could be out of date. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?11:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I posed the original question the way I did, wondering if you would answer it with a quote from Chico Marx in Horse Feathers. Groucho (referring to a pinup that Harpo had hung on the classroom wall): "Is this your picture?" Chico: "I don't think so. It doesn't look like me!"Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?12:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol. The white vertical bars are cell transponders. I believe the circular antennas at the top are for TV though. I'm actually talking out my derriere - I have no idea. It's a cool-looking tower though.--Appraiser (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That it is. The funny thing is, they built it at the lowest point in the downtown, hence they had to make it all the higher. But building it on the hill occupied by courthouse square wasn't really an option. And I'm trying to figure out which cell company first put it up, which is somewhat red-faced as I actually once had a cellphone with them, not that it matters since they've probably changed hands about 20 times in the interim. It's not likely for TV, since Bloomington doesn't really have any local TV stations, they're pretty much all out of Peoria. I'll see what I can find. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?12:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better late that never? This tower is antenna structure registration (ASR) #1008865, file number A0010548, built in 1989, and owned by TeleCourier Communications, whose offices are right under the tower. More pretty pictures at photos.htm. It's at 40°28′59″N88°59′43″W / 40.48306°N 88.99528°W / 40.48306; -88.99528; base is 240.4 meters (789 ft) AMSL; top is 367.8 meters (1,207 ft) AMSL, making it 127.4 meters (418 ft) tall. Broadcast-related stuff on this tower:
Around 119m up: analog TV 51 W51CT Bloomington (FacID 1007) at 6600-7800 watts when it's turned on; officially a translator for 33 KTBN-TVSanta Ana, California, but pretty closely related to 35 WWTO-TV LaSalle. TBN shut off most of their Illinois translator stations (including W51CT) around April 2010, but WWTO-TV (LaSalle's only full-power allocation) flipped to digital and is still performing Trinity's "mission".
Around 96m up: FM 100.1 W261BK Bloomington (FacID 9897) at 19 watts, a translator for 88.5 WBNH Pekin, a Moody network station.
Around 61m up: 945.500 MHz WQDL330, a studio-transmitter link for 100.7 WVMG Normal, shooting the audio over to the WBBE/WVMG broadcast tower at the south edge of Bloomington.
Cell and pager:
Around 122m HAAT: WQCE738, pager service from Supreme Radio in the 474 MHz range
Around 122m HAAT: KSA746, pager service from TeleCourier on 152.520 MHz
Around 90–100m HAAT: a bunch of cellular for Nextel
Probably around 91m HAAT: KRM966, pager service from Metamora Telephone Company (in other words, MTCO/Illinois Valley Cellular) on 158.700 MHz
Also all this:
Around 122–126m HAAT: multiple business radio services (for 32km around the tower) in the 452–468 MHz range, provided by Supreme Radio in Peoria Heights, who also manages a bunch of the public safety stuff on this tower
Around 122m HAAT: WNXX459, business radio (80km around the tower) in the 460–464 MHz range by Supreme Radio
Around 114m HAAT: WPIV287, McLean CountyE911 base in the 154 MHz band, along with about 4 other locations
Around 111m HAAT: KNNK867, McLean County public safety trunk for various departments in 806-817/851-862 MHz band, along with 5 other locations
Around 111m HAAT: WPIX238, Bloomington police base in the 806-821/851-866 MHz band
Around 111m HAAT: WNJF516, Dale Township (Shirley, Illinois) fire department frequencies in the 154, 159, and 453 MHz ranges
Around 94m HAAT: WQAI285, Bro-Menn public safety pager service in the 152 MHz band
Around 76–94m HAAT: WPSM245, a multi-use business by Supreme Radio in the 452–468 MHz range
I award you this Barnstar for your solid, witty, creative, supportive, learned, timely, cheerful, eloquent, and/or otherwise generally great contributions on U. S. National Historic Landmarks' articles. Yippee o yay, we pretty much met our goal of a well-started article for each of 2,442 NHLs by today!
Thanks, and have a great Fourth of July! -- Doncram, 4 July 2008
Thank you for your tireless development of all the NHL articles. I am sure you have edited more than anyone. They look great! By the way, given today's deadline of sorts, I was terribly alarmed late yesterday to find one Indiana red-link (for what is now Miller House (Columbus, Indiana) that you had created (appropriately) in your cleanup of that state's list. Thank you for your attention to detail, everywhere. Cheers, doncram (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dates formated like [[July 9]], [[2008]] will display for each reader based on his preferences (see "my preferences" at the top right of the page). Unfortunately the syntax looks exactly like wikilinks, but that is not the purpose in the case of dates.--Appraiser (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to put you through adding the "National Historic Landmark" category to all those Maryland articles - I should have done so at the creation! Acroterion(talk)20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course, and thanks for the categories. I've finished every National Register property in Jefferson County, West Virginia, land of my ancestors, so there's at least a stub there - there are 73, I think, of which I did 70. I'll add them to the list. Jefferson County is where all of the lesser offspring of the Washington family went to seed and squandered their fortunes on mansions. Acroterion(talk)22:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you changed the infobox for this article. I see (as I did before when I chose the former infobox) that the reference numbers match, but I'm not so sure that's the right infobox. The whole system of Kentury NRHPs confuses me, but I think that all of the different archaeological sites are present within this district.. like as contributing properties. Each individual site is an NRHP, but the district as a whole is an NHL. It appears to me that the district is listed as an NHL but not as an NRHP. Strange, I know, but I can't find any data relating to the district (although I can find individual sites) on the NRHP, yet the district is present on NHLs. Is it possible for a district to be an NHL but not an NRHP? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have always heard that the only NHL that is not a NRHP is the White House. But these archaeological sites are confusing. I plugged 85003182 (from [4]) into Elkman's infobox generator, and then copied the result into the article. I then changed the type to nhl, which should have been there automatically. The result may not be right, and I'm open to alternative ways of looking at this. Feel free to revert my change if you think it's wrong.--Appraiser (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yea used Elkman's tool for the refnum too when I found that page.. but then I searched the NRIS data for Green River Shell Middens, giving no results, while a search for "Annis Mound" did give me a result. Annis Mound is the NRHP with refnum 85003182, but Green River Shell Middens apparently doesn't have a refnum..... but it's listed as an NHL. The article already said the site was Late Archaic period (wasn't referenced though), so I chose the only district in Butler County, Kentucky that had a Late Archaic period.
In my opinion, and this is purely speculation, Green River Shell Middens District is the combination of all the archaeological sites in the area. Each site is individually listed as an NRHP, and the district (combination of the sites) is listed as an NHL but not an NRHP itself. That would explain the lack of a reference number. The NHL guys apparently didn't want to declare all sites as NHLs and thought it would be easier to declare them all at once by making them into a district. They didn't want to go through the NRHP nomination (too much work?) process, so they just skipped ahead to NHL because it's easier to "upgrade" to an NHL than to start out at the bottom and work your way up. It appears to me they just picked the refnum of the first site listed in the new district to write on the NHL declaration because they needed a refnum. They simply skipped over the NRHP nomination by making it an NHL using an incorrect NRHP refnum, and no one caught the error before the declaration was complete.
Hello, I need help. I created a talk page for Steptoe Butte and added a template tag, but the template code isn't showing up properly and now I can't seem to edit my mistake. (Boy, do I feel stupid.) Could you help me? Evening Scribe (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 26 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frogtown, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I noticed that but I was using dialup and each page took about 3-4 minutes to load so I couldn't fix fix it. Thanks. Calebrw (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Not that you don't already know, but I thought I'd cc this to you.)
Hello,
The Saint Paul, Minnesota article is being prepared for GA Nomination ahead of the 2008 RNC and the attention the article will be receiving (and in some cases already has).
Other editors and myself have been working on the article lately and we would like to you to help. If you have additions, comments, concerns, questions or other feed back, it is all appreciated. There is a peer review already set up and detailed checklist of issues that need to be fixed is on the talk page. These items can be crossed off when completed. Feel free to add to the list and sign your username, so that we know who added it.
Any help is appreciated. Also, if you would like to work on other articles directly related to Saint Paul, especially those that link off the Saint Paul article, that would be great too.
That map has serious problems, and I have revised the article that contained the map, and it no longer corresponds to what the article says, so I have removed the map from the page. "Iron range" is not a generic name for northeastern Minnesota. It is a specific area in northeastern Minnesota where iron is mined. It is no more correct to say that Grand Rapids, Grand Marais, and Duluth are part of "iron range" than to say that all of northern California is "bay area." You make the opposite error with your definition of Red River Valley, which certainly includes the eastern portion of some counties that you cut off on your map. As a cultural region, RRV includes all of the Fargo-Grand Forks media market (not to mention southern Manitoba). As a practical matter of geography, RRV means "Red River basin," which certainly includes more of Minnesota than your map shows. Your map shows central Minnesota as barely encompassing St. Cloud, when in fact St. Cloud and Stearns County are the major center of Central Minn.
Furthermore, the map suffers from color balance problems. Some of the colors are much hotter than others and thus regions do not catch the reader's eye equally.
Anyway, I hope you take into account my suggestions here and in the revisions I have made to the article and make a new map.Bellczar (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK with me that you deleted the "regions" map. I made it merely to conform with what the individual region articles already said about boundaries. You have changed several of the definitions in ways that may or may not be better, but they no longer agree with the definitions used in the individual articles, and none of what you have done is cited to a published source. Also, you need to proofread. e.g "Southwestern Minnesota includes the Buffalo Ridge is the eastern portion..." Buffalo Ridge is a specific geographic region defined by elevation that can clearly be seen on a topographical map or satellite photo. "Southwestern Minnesota" has no defined meaning other than it being a vague area in the southwestern part of the state. The Red River Valley region is defined in its article as an area obtained via a specific treaty. If you would prefer that it include the entire RR watershed area, that's OK, but you need to define it that way throughout Wikipedia and cite a source. Same with "Central Minnesota." It was defined as being bounded by certain features. You have changed it to a vague area, unsourced and mostly undefined. I won't be making another regions map, but feel free to make one if you can.--Appraiser (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appraiser -- I'm a "rookie" with Wikipedia. On the Hill Library page, all of the information I added this morning is factual and backed up via citations. It's also very important to the story as the Hill Library has literraly transformed itself from a physicaly library to one of the more used online libraries in the nation. All of this was done under the former leadership of our incredible president. I'm more than happy to re-write per standards. Could you please guide me as to what I should do? Thanks. Michaeledmonton (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Regarding the NRHP renaming proposal discussion, I appreciate your eagerness to get the bridges and tunnels proposal resolved sooner instead of later, but all of the changes will need to be consistent. That particular rename could still change as a result of the conclusions of the other discussions. It would be a poor use of an administrator's time to make the change in the category name and arrange to change the categorization of the articles included in that category, if a different new name gets selected a few days hence. Additionally, the CfD process would be more efficient for everyone if the category rename requests could be submitted as a group with a reference to the concluded discussion on the Wikiproject talk page.
I'm using some articles for references from the Star Tribune archives that I got off of highbeam.com. 1. Is this legitimate to do this? I don't see how it wouldn't be since they are real news articles. But 2. Should I provide a URL to the article? If someone who does not have access to high beam clicks on it, they won't see it. 3. If I should not link the URL's, do I need an access date (using cite-news template)? 4. What I've done for now is put the URL's in, but commented them out in case I need to go back and reveal them. Thanks! WxGopher (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination would be to cite the paper version of the Star Tribune. You may not get all of the information from highbeam.com, but I presume it gives you the date, title, and author, which could point someone to a micro-film version (do they still do that?) in a library. Leaving the <commented> link to highbeam wouldn't hurt. But I agree with you, that you don't really want a link to a subscription service in the References section. I've done similar things with Google Books; I try to get enough information to cite the real book. Just my .02--Appraiser (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do have enough information for a full cite, so I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a problem w/o the URL in there. I'll stick with this method then, thanks. WxGopher (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh WOW! Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of it. Given my bad habit of putting in what I know/can figure out and leaving the rest for others, I'm surprised no one linked me to it/thwapped me with it before. TravellingCari03:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - writing to let you know about the plight of the Bardwell-Ferrant house at 2500 Portland Ave So in Minneapolis. It's vacant, in foreclosure, and has been invaded by thieves who ripped out fireplace mantles, broke stained glass windows and tried to strip out all the copper pipes. MLS 3582456.
Please spread the word to fellow preservationists.
Here's the problem: not all of the HCRH is a NHL. Some of it is only a RHP, and some of it was not even listed. --NE203:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stay civil. Articles should be in both categories, that's the rule here and you should know it. Sportspeople who competed at the Olympic Games competed also at other events, that's why we do not subcategorize in this case. Regards. - Darwinek (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incivil is assertion of my mis-use. The practice which is now in use is broadly used and accepted per general precedence there by the whole community in all sports. As I said before, normal subcategorizing doesn't apply there as the Olympics is just one of the events in which sportspeople compete. Honestly I don't care if a certain category has 20,000 articles. We have templates like {{categoryTOC}} to solve that. Or maybe we should make subcategories to cats like Category:1965 births. How about "American actors born in November 1965"? - Darwinek (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No and you have no right to change the policy which is currently in use, unless you change yourself thousands of articles, which would be the violation of our consensus habits. I repeat to you, it is a silent consensus - a precedential use. Half of consensuses there on EN WP are silent, without proper discussion. And you perfectly know that, I assume. Can I point you to the policy permitting the use of diacritics in article names? No. Why? Because no such policy exists, and there are more than 100,000 articles which use diacritics in article names. So, if you want to start a discussion about this and change the general precedential use of both categories, do it at involved WikiProjects to get strong feedback. I would like to point out that I am not the one who invented this policy. It was there long before me and will be long after me. When I started editing sport articles about three years ago, it was already there and is in use to date. - Darwinek (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Appraiser. Pardon a note out of the blue. Saw your note elsewhere about this panel and may have some additions if you'd like them, in part from researching an article about Wikipedia recently. If this is for the 2009 conference let me know your focus and if would like suggestions. I sent you some email on another topic. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to have your input. The purpose of the outline is to show the programming committee that the topic would be of interest to a wide range of attendees and to help the panelist organize our thoughts (currently in the brainstorming phase) for the panel itself, which will be in July, 09.--Appraiser (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Done for now. Added history and Stallman, Google's effect, number of users who contribute, and two nice books (and pardon because these are a little more detailed than what was there, ok to edit). Good luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I note that you tagged Image:Tim pawlenty.jpg with a {{copyvio}} tag and just wanted to alert you that this tag is specifically for articles. At one time, images were tagged with {{Imagevio}}, but that tag has itself been deprecated. Currently, blatant image infringements are tagged with {{Db-i9}}. Otherwise, suspected image violations should be tagged with {{Pui}}. They are listed at WP:PUI for investigation. I have removing the listing of this image from WP:CP and moved it to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 August 25 for further examination. Thanks for detecting the potential problem. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that my response here will be adequate. Additionally, it seems like the instructions for image deletion require you to mention your request at the image page, so that people will know about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image was taken from this web site. In order to be Public Domain, it would have had to be produced by a U.S. govt. employee in the course of his duties. User:SEWilco inquired about who the photographer was. See his note at Talk:2008 Republican National Convention#Photo of Palin. It is not Public Domain and has not been adequately released. I have asked for it to be deleted from Commons, but that has not occurred yet. In the meantime, we shouldn't be publishing it.--Appraiser (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where on commons was this requested? My understanding is that photos on house.gov sites are assumed to be the property/copyright of the agency/rep's office in question. rootology (C)(T) 16:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are two versions and two requests here. The response from User:SEWilco's inquiry leads me to believe that the photographer was not a govt. employee. Being the property of a congressman is not the same as it being a work of the U.S. government, which is what would be required to be PD. I frequently work with National Historic Landmarks where non-free photographs are often hosted on government websites. We can't assume that a photo is PD without the attribution of a photographer.--Appraiser (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia General Notability Guideline and Sarah Palin
A controversy related to certain entities related to Sarah Palin has arisen in the Wikipedia community. This includes articles involving Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church. Discussions are heated because of the political environment, and allegations of censorship.
I argue as follows for inclusion of articles on some of her former teachers, pastors, churches, and schools, but not inclusion of others.
The Wikipedia:Notability policy allows for articles on persons or entities known only because they are related to major historical figures in some circumstances.
The teachers of historical figures, thinkers, mathematicians, painters, scientists, etc., are all notable for their relation to the ideas or actions of the historical figure. This is especially true if the teacher made controversial statements, and the same kind of controversial statements are what made the historical figure notable.
For example, suppose writings of the philosophy teacher of Socrates were discovered. The teacher would be known only for their relation to Socrates. But no one would argue that verifiable information about “the philosophy teacher of Socrates” would be of intense intellectual interest, and if anything, would be valid for a Wikipedia article. In fact, if you noticed the link for philosophy teacher of Socrates, you likely would want to see who it is and what their ideas are.
If Sarah Palin had a meteorology teacher who teaches the controversial idea that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Since Palin is notable for her controversial position on global warming, that teacher and their ideas would become notable.
But Palin’s high school astronomy teacher, even if he or she had controversial views, would not be noteworthy, as Palin is not known for her astronomy policy.
Arguments for The Alaska Pipeline put forth by Governor Palin, and for the War in Iraq by Vice Presidential Candidate Palin, explicitly included both being God’s Will. The former is consistent with the ideas of Larry Kroon. The later are explicitly the stated controversial ideas of her teacher in this area, Ed Kalnins. Ed Kalnins thereby becomes notable by his relationship to the controversial ideas of Palin, not just by his relation to Palin. This makes Kalnins notable in itself, while a former pastor of Palin who did not teach this would not be notable.
All of the teachers, schools, churches, or theories that teach controversial ideas, if they are the same as controversial ideas by which Palin has become notable, are thus notable.
They are notable for their relationship, not just to Palin, but to the policies and ideas by which Palin has become noteworthy.
Churches and pastors of Palin that are not linked to controversial policies of Palin are not notable.
That is always a difficult term to describe. In the U.S. and Canada, the term Indian almost always refers to native Americans or First Peoples. In those places people from the country of India are often called [[east indian]s. When I was in graduate school, many of my peers were from India, and the term East Indian essentially mean't people from the Western part of India (strangely). Nevertheless people from India are so diverse, with so may castes, ethnic groups and languages (29 languages and countless dialects) that they don't see themselves with one identity, or one name. In the U.S. they would not call themselves "Indians", but would say that they were from a given region of India, or from a clan. I believe that in the England and the U.K. the term East Indian is used very similarly as to the U.S., but that the term "Indian" is also used more frequently to mean someone from India also, which is not the case in the U.S. Atom (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah; I'm not sure where that sentence came from; I just put it back the way it was, since the other uses of Indian in the article are not referring to people from India. Feel free to change that sentence if you want to.--Appraiser (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course people from India are Asians, but if you use that terminology in the U.S., large numbers of Americans would (incorrectly) say that you were nuts. "Japanese, Chinese and Koreans are Asians -- not people from India!" Atom (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note on my talk page. There's surely plenty of work to go around on this project. I too appreciate your efforts and those of the other regular WP:NRHP contributors. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Appraiser --sure, I still have access to that vantage point and can take a new one, but it may take up to a month because of a string of trips I'm going on (the office is my fiance's, not mine, and I have to go when I'm not at work and its quiet there --so usually weekends). I'm out of town this weekend, and gone for the next two weeks after that for a wedding. But I'm more than happy to do a photo from there. --Bobak (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Currently, there is no problem. My stated concern is for the initial block and what the implications of that block will be. I realized today that WikiWorld has possibly never experienced the current situation (volume, wheel warring, etc.) and all the other stirrings at Sarah Palin and related articles. While I obviously support a candidate to be my president, I am reluctant to join the fray. One more voice, and a novice voice at that, is un-necessary. (I may "be bold" and make a few edits.) I respect your Seniority and experience. I think a terrible thing happened when the article was blocked. Whether it was for political reasons or some other less troublesome reason, it was a mistake that needs to be discussed and some rule-of-thumb determined as to a solution. (I'm not in the least bit worried about punishing well-intentioned editors). But, blocking all except some is not a solution that fits for me. Maybe after the election, WikiWorld can look at what happened and look for a better solution.--Buster7 (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you felt disenfranchised. It is very rare for an "undeveloped" article to be fully protected. But I suppose it's very rare that a complete unknown character suddenly becomes very likely to become the most powerful person in the world. If they win, her rise will have been unprecedented. Although I wasn't involved in the protection/unprotection disagreement and I made very few edits to the article while it was protected, I don't think the result was terrible. I think it was protected for about a week, during which time a lot of editors researched the material and wrote profusely on the Talk page. By the time protection was lifted, it was clear that 3-4 daughter articles were needed to distribute the details of the pertinent issues. There was also heavy traffic on the Administrators Notice Board about the issue. I find it interesting that some "conservative" members of the electorate believe that the process has created articles about Palin that are left-biased and "liberal" members feel that the process has created whitewashed articles. I'm sure that if McCain/Palin win, in the long run these articles will become good-quality balanced pieces, as many other high-profile biographical articles are. If they lose, she may fall back into obscurity and that won't happen. High quality articles don't happen over night and I think these get better every day.--Appraiser (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The category articles were not about the buildings, but rather their function as an administrative group. You should not have moved the category. MSJapan (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I would says yes it is true, adequately sourced, and relevant, I agree with the statements and I agree the deletion may be an attempt to "cleanse" the article of negative connotations. I note that the deleted statement appears in the main AG article and was not deleted. I consider the WSJ an unbiased source and probably a secular source is better than any religious source. I will see, though, if I can find the Christian sources you asked for. clariosophic (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appraiser, I saw that you edited the article after my response to your statement in the talk section of the article. I assume that you saw my inquiry to your statement. Can you please respond? When you do, it will very much help me (and other editors, as well) if you would reconcile the inclusion of that particular sentence in the lead with Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view, particularly the section about granting certain facts undue weight. Thank you. --SimpleParadox21:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've started converting List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota to the illustrated list format, using the county list generator. I figure this might give me a better way to organize the photos I've taken but haven't written articles for yet, since I'm way behind on writing articles for everything I've photographed.
I'm going to do it on a county-by-county basis, and so far I've done Aitkin and Anoka. That only leaves 80 counties, since Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Rice, and Scott already have their own lists. So, if you want to take on a county at a time, feel free. :-) Don't forget to check disambiguation links and properties that were added to the National Register after I did the database download. That's where the fun begins. --Elkman(Elkspeak)03:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a worthwhile pursuit. Do you want to leave them in the main list for now? I'll do some, and I'll start with "M"s and ascend the alphabet, so we don't duplicate effort.
I've been wasting far too much time trying to keep Sarah Palin (and sub-articles) neutral. I'm sure some of the editors are either paid or unpaid staff on the McCain campaign, so it truly is a waste of time for me to try to maintain NPOV.
Other than that, I've been reading all of the individual articles about National Historic Landmarks and collecting data here about issues that need to be resolved. If you need a change of pace, you could tackle any of those that interest you.
I think we might as well leave the individual county tables in the main list right now, unless there are any that get so big that they might need to be split off. St. Louis County might fit that description, since there are so many sites there. (It's a big county.) Dividing the effort might be useful, too. I'll probably focus more on the counties that I have photos for, at the moment.
Also, thanks for the reminder about {{National Register of Historic Places}} -- I saw where it was moved, but I never updated the generator. I've fixed it now.
Good luck trying to keep Sarah Palin neutral. Political articles are a minefield I don't like to cross. I'm still rather undecided about this year's election, so I haven't picked sides, but keeping the muck out of Wikipedia articles is about as likely as keeping the muck out of political campaigns in general. --Elkman(Elkspeak)16:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the state list to see if Cook County merited a separate page. What is the protocol for the outline format? Both Grand Portage and Height of Land Portage are listed under Grand Marais, which is maybe 50 miles away from either. Cook, like some other northern counties, has a territory which is "unorganized", that is, not part of a township or city, and the county government is the first level of government in those parts. Kablammo (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. My arbitrary criterion is that I'll break it out into its own article if it has more than 30 entries (so Cook wouldn't qualify). But all the others should be table-ized in place, using [Elkman's County generator. If you use it, take care to preserve disambiguation pipes that have already been fixed and any links to websites or photos that are in the old list. I think it's OK to correct the city if it's wrong. I'd even change it to "10 miles west of Springfield" if that's most accurate.--Appraiser (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The draft table gives, as location for remote places, the "nearest city" without making that clear that, while the NRHP infobox generated for a specific place shows more clearly that a "nearest city" is given. You should feel free to correct that in the table, hopefully supported by adequate documentation of the correct location in the corresponding NRHP article.
I understand that the generated tables include delisted NRHPs. I would like to know which ones those are, so that i could move them to a separate table below the main table in each of New York's counties, which i am still working at table-izing. Is there any way that I can get a report out of NRIS which identifies them, and the pertinent info such as delisting date? This is not likely to be an issue in any one county, but at the level of Minnesota or New York State there are surely some delistings to be identified. Cheers, doncram (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found a way to verify delistings without going through the weekly lists. I'd just say, if in doubt, leave it in. When articles are written, the researcher will figure it out and move delisted ones to the supplementary list then.--Appraiser (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does the researcher find out if a property is delisted, at all? You can't be suggesting we go back through weekly listings to 1980 or whenever. As far as I know there's no direct way to check about a delisted property at NRIS directly. I guess there is a clue in the difference between Elkman's individual NRHP generator, which does not show properties that have been delisted (unless you know the original refnum and search by that) vs. the list-table generator, which includes delisted ones mixed in. But it would be weird as a general matter to suggest editors compare and contrast that way to infer which might have been delisted because of the differences between generators, like reading tea leaves. doncram (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that creators of the list articles check all the weekly listings; that's why I said, if in doubt, leave it in. But when actually researching and writing an article about the site, contributors are going to look for newspaper articles or primary websites, and try to produce or find a photograph, right? That process should expose any delistings, I'd think.--Appraiser (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you've seen the extensive talk page section on this issue: Talk:Sarah_Palin#Pay_cut_as_mayor_disputed. Basically, the point is: it looks as if the NYT was confused about the $64000 figure. The TPM source is borderline for BLP, but it was only being used to vouch for the offline Frontiersman source (a paper Palin once worked at), which has both the 10% figure (to $61,200) and the later re-raising of the salary. Look it over and decide; I think the version before your edit was fine, but you may want a different version. But if you insist we can't use TPM, I'd support deleting the factoid entirely, because it is pretty clear to me that $64K is wrong. Homunq (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta go now, so I'm going to delete the factoid for now. No offense, feel free to restore it, as long as you don't use the exact $64K number. Homunq (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. I wasn't aware that the NYT was in error, but that was the citation given. I think a new source is needed if the statement's going to stay. When I looked at it, the TPM link wasn't working, but I didn't try to fix it since it doesn't meet WP:RS anyway.--Appraiser (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re: your edit that says they're not all in parks, can you have a look at this discussion I started on the talk? I think you're mistaken as the houses location in city parks is part of what allows them to be members of the HHT. Thanks! TravellingCari13:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Appraiser, if you and Elkman and your friends or anyone you know is interested and missed this note, MinnPost's first birthday party is tomorrow. I plan to be at Trocaderos for the debate on Friday, September 26, sometime, probably only a few minutes, between 7:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. In case cost is the only obstacle, which it is for some people including me, I forgot how much but some membership levels are quite inexpensive. I hope this note is within Wikipedia guidelines--the mysterious they--born of the necessity of being vendor neutral at W3C for about eight years--will get me for anything and I don't plan to ask Mr. Wales about this one. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I have other plans though. I'll be recording the debate, assuming that John McCain can talk about foreign policy while thinking about a solution for the tanking economy. Wouldn't you think a president could do both?--Appraiser (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a candidate be consulted? Also, can you please remind me why KDBuffalo(sp?) is somewhere in the directory User talk:Appraiser? Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user:KDBuffalo was evidently a sockpuppet. There was one time an IP block of my work ISP in an attempt to block him, I believe. The name came up when I asked to get the ISP unblocked.
Congressional Democrats will not vote for a massive bailout bill unless McCain votes for it too. No one wants to spend that kind of money to fix the problems caused by McCain and Phil Gramm[6][7] and Democrats surely don't want to take the blame for it while Republicans run the other way. If it is must-pass legislation to prevent financial collapse, then McCain will have to vote for it too.--Appraiser (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. There's at least one other instance of the same person's sockpuppet in there (I was mentioned by that person by name on your talk page and they gave me a barnstar). If there's time I will try to look that up tomorrow. The papers all say Republicans joined the fray but all I can relate to is the loss of Washington Mutual (in San Diego near Pacific Beach their office is what I call the "beautiful bank" and JP Morgan Chase can't close on a house on time in my experience, but I'll live). -SusanLesch (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Town Hall Brewery maps.google.com 1430 Washington Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55454 (612) 339-8696 October 11, 2008 Saturday at 12:00 noon (midday) Meetup RSVP
Muddy Waters maps.google.com 2401 Lyndale Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55405 (612) 872-2232 October 10, 2008 Friday at 10:00 PM (at night) Alternate meetup RSVP
Too bad this edit of yours removed the founder of Mars, Incorporated two years ago. Minneapolis might have been mentioned in today's PR Newswire burst about the Mars acquisition of Wrigley. I suppose I've made similarly unfortunate goofups. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Appraiser. In section "McCain-Obama" above I mentioned I'd look this up. One of the accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kdbuffalo caused an autoblock during your RfA (partial archive, or see edit history for this page on January 8, 2008). I apologize for any sign of mistrust but I use my real name on Wikipedia and am a female--most trolling and so on is carried out with women users, from what little I know. At least one other account in that category was active about a year ago, as you said during RfA, without any sign of vandalism. We all know that social engineering is a powerful force online. I guess because of some unrelated events I've come to question--if only a bit and only sometimes--all the barnstars and encouragement I received from you when I first joined Wikipedia. So even though it has negative aspects, I thought posting this note might help clear the air. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think the kudos I have expressed toward you were sincere? Is that because you can't attend the Meetup that I planned? I am sorry about that, but I had no idea who would or wouldn't be able to attend; I set it for a day and time that was convenient for me. Take care.--Appraiser (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could be, and am probably one of the few Wikipedians who has met you in person, four times I think. I enjoyed very much swinging on your childrens' swingset at your house. Last fall WikiProject Minnesota started to become a liability for me rather than what had seemed to be a hugely successful WikiProject. Sour grapes? Maybe so. Do you mind if I ask a senior sysop to check user? -SusanLesch (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...for inquiring about the edits I've made to the articles on several members of Congress who have taken the highly unusual step of cutting a TV spot endorsing a public official who awaits trial for two Federal grand jury indictments totalling 24 counts for official and politicval corruption. It is niotable that, in spite of their stances regardiung corruption, they chose to endorse Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá. My edits are being reversed by an editor, claiming NPOV violations, but refusing to explain his rationale, denying readers access to the fact I included and, equally important, allowing me to improve my wiki skills as an ocassional contributor on a wide range of subjects, many of them Puerto Rico related. Pr4ever (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Ned Ryun, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! . I didn't deprod it, but someone else has stating that it should go to AfD. QuiteUnusual (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've been watching it. They've added a couple of third-party sources and created two other marginally-notable articles to link to it. I'd still rather not see such crap on Wikipedia, but I'm not going to pursue it any further.--Appraiser (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Appraiser. Thanks for welcoming me to WP:NRHP. I'm looking forward to working on southeast MN projects, among others. I'll definitely use any tools and templates available, and I'll ask for help. I'm busy offline for another week or so, but I should soon be able to give this more time. I do have a digital camera. I'll put it to use. Regards, Hurrmic (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the history is useful, for various reasons: for example, it is sometimes useful to see a diff to a particular comment, or users should be able to access their own contributions to the page.
If you're not confident doing that, or if it bothers you, I'll ask elsewhere; otherwise, here is the process:
Check the deleted revisions of the main talk page (Special:Undelete/Talk:Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008). In some occasions, there can be unwanted revisions containing vandalism that have been explicitly removed and that shouldn't be restored later in the process. But according to the logs, that shouldn't be the case, though there are probably the redirects created during page move vandalism.
Restore the lost history (i.e. the old one). According to the logs, it is here (if not, it is there). Note: some unwanted revisions may remain deleted.
Restore the history (i.e. the recent one) of the talk page. Note: some unwanted revisions (for example the redirects created during page move vandalism) may remain deleted.
OK. I can see the revision history prior to October 23 here, and I can see the history from October 23 to October 28 here, but I don't know how to get them to combine. After the old one is renamed to the correct name and the new one is restored, will they combine automatically? And will the current content of the page be restored too?--Appraiser (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they will combine automatically, and the current content will be restored (once its attached history is restored). This case is relatively simple, as the two split histories do not overlap; in the event that the repair is incomplete, the history split can be easily fixed netherless. For further information on the history merge process, you can see WP:HISTMERGE. Korg (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thank you very much for the restoration. Now I realize that I forgot to mention that the last edit should be reverted to the last pre-move version... :) Best regards, Korg (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A-- some time ago I submitted an article for DYK on an NHRP site of some sort or another. The hook source was challenged because it goes to the search engine on the NHRP database, and the user must search from there. As a matter of practice do you think it would be better to recommend that authors of such articles give search instructions in the footnote for use of the database? I have started doing that on mine; Height of Land Portage and Red River Trails (fn 84) come to mind. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought the NRIS database was pretty lousy. It is quite unforgiving, difficult to navigate, and impossible to link deeply. Your instructions certainly help the reader/researcher - good idea. Now, if you have time, there are about 15,000 articles that could use the same format. :) --Appraiser (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appraiser, Re: New hotel in Edina, I would never think of spaming a Wiki article. I watch this article and Undo spam frequently. Check my contributions. Dennis Fernkes (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It caught my attention because mentioning a hotel that may not be built for ten years seems odd. Is there a newspaper article to use as a reference?--Appraiser (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I prefer using percentages in demographics: for example, listing percentages allow us to compare percentages between smaller and larger communities without looking to the source. Nevertheless, the importance of using percentages is quite insignificant in my mind, and I can't imagine it becoming a big deal to me, as long as we continue depending properly on sources as we've been doing :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering where you got the name "Apollo Mission Control Center" from. Isn't this just the name of one of the rooms of the historic landmark? I never hear NASA call it anything buy Mission Control Centre, Houston or MCC-H. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the name chosen by the National Historic Landmarks program [9]. It's not clear to me if the "Landmark" is just one room or not. Is your issue that the article covers more than just the one room? If so, we could leave the infobox as-is but rename the article to a broader scope (like Mission Control Center, Houston).--Appraiser (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got your note at my talk page. By all means, please fix up the Traveller's Rest (West Virginia) article and another one to address what must be 2 separate places named Traveller's Rest. I am not clear about them at all, and am not able to do much wikipedia for a while now anyhow, so please go ahead. Looking at the one linked here, I see i did edit it in the history, adding HABS pic but it is no longer there, perhaps correctly changed. I haven't checked what to see whatever is now linked in the WV NHL list. However, surely each of the two places should include a "see also" type link to the other one, and/or other mention of how there is another place of the same name in the same state. Thanks! doncram (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Thanks and good job/great work, to have gotten through all the NHLs twice... I have been noting your progress as I have a good many of them on my watchlist.
Hi! Would you please take a look at the Blue Mounds Fort article? I just made some minor changes.One of the editors had started it in August 2007 and then forgot about it.Another editor told myself about it and I was able to redirct the article.The editors told me it was okay to do it. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago, you added links for party IDs for members of various Congresses. I honestly don't care either way about having the links, but your edits also put the party IDs in italics, which makes no sense. In other words, you changed "Robert Dole (R)" to "Robert Dole(R)", when it should be "Robert Dole (R)". I don't know how to change these other than going Congress by Congress, copying and pasting into Notepad, finding and replacing (once for Rs and once for Ds), and copying and pasting back. I see you used AWB, a tool I know nothing about. Would it be possible for you to go back and de-italicise? Otherwise, I may just revert you edit. It just means more to have the IDs look right than to have 535+ links to the parties per page. Thanks. -Rrius (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On some level I just don't get that. I guess my question would be, consistency with what? The italics version is weird and is harder to read. There are many older Congresses that do not use italics (links for that matter), so I don't see where this is controversial enough to bring up for community discussion. I was hoping you would help, but if you won't, then I'll just have to figure out whether to continue on the tedious cut-and-paste method or just revert your edits. The difference is preservation of the linked "D" and "R" labels. Those are also not consistent across the articles, so I don't think that matters either way. -Rrius (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones are you looking at? When I finished them, they were all the same. I haven't been working on them for quite some time; perhaps a new standard has been established.--Appraiser (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]