User talk:JoannaSerah/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

WPNC

I saw that WPNC talk page tags are being changed to WPUS ones. Is there some move to fold all the state projects into WPUS? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding. Not all the projects no. Just the ones who have state an interest or in some cases that had been declared inactive or defunct. The current list of supported projects can be seen on the WikiProject United States project page. --Kumioko (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

They are not really being folded into the WPUS completely. The WPNC and WPs for some other states still exist as separate entities, just really being supported by the WP US sort of like a project focus group. Just the ones like the WPNC that really had become semi-active (at best) and wasn't being updated much. Article assessments and clean-up weren't really being done by the state project. Being part of the US project helps with this and other things. We can still function independently as well.

I am interested in trying to get the WPNC started back up and active. If you are interested in trying to help out with this, just let me know. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know anything about NC; was just wondering if this would affect WPNM, and whether there was some centralized discussion about this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A discussion was started on each individual projects talk page. Several were left open for several weeks with no reply and were added under the support list due to an apparent lack of activity. This is also true of some that were marked as inactive or defunct. --Kumioko (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know anything about the NM project (I just handle WPNC), but upon looking into it, it looks like WPNM is one of the projects deemed inactive/semi-active enough to be included under the WPUS banner. A discussion was started originally under the WPUS talk page and then, later, a notice and discussion were placed on the individual projects' talk pages. See this discussion for WPNM. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping it was centralized somewhere, but so it goes! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Some inactive NC related projects

I added a discussion to the WikiProject North Carolina page about some inactive North Carolina projects I just stumbled onto. I'm not sure if they are worth adding as subprojects but if not we should put the articles under WPNC/US and deactive the templates. --Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Format question

I'm not thrilled with how this change makes Template:Crystal Coast look, as it adds parentheses which look awkward to me. I'm not asking for a revert...I'd like to find a way to improve. Do you know a way to take out the parens and still achieve the smaller template the edit created? Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  22:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand. The parentheses are not always wanted by some. That's fine. They can be put in subgroups or I can put in the line breaks again. I'll put in the line breaks again to see how that looks. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. I think subgroups would be even better but it's been a while since I did them and I don't have time (well, I should be working on other things) right now. Eventually...  Frank  |  talk  23:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic

Just saw your work at WP:WNC ... great to see someone else in NC who's into a range of stuff. I especially like the linguistics bit ... I'm not a linguist, but I do a lot of copyediting at WP:FAC and I'm always looking for students and professionals with any copyediting skills at all. Send some my way if you know anyone interested, please. Feel free to ask me for help any time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I do like linguistics (it's just so fascinating), but definitely cannot say that I am an expert by any means. My interests are varied and seem to be more so now that I am editing on Wikipedia. Following the rabbit hole takes me to all kinds of places... :) Will take a look at FAC, but generally have been focusing on NC articles. Thank you. Take care. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Good to meet you. If you need copyediting on any NC-related article in any review process (such as WP:GAN), please let me know. (Btw, the WP:FAC page itself is humongous, I generally look at WP:FACL instead.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi JoannaSerah,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

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

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown/Barbecue in North Carolina

Come on in, the water's fine. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'll help out when I can. Sounds like a tasty article :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin Smith (North Carolina)

Thanks for the dead link notification on the above-named article. I will email the guy who runs that websie and get the updated link. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I tried to hunt through the site some, but didn't see any page comparable to it. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

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

Anderson, South Carolina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Anderson Downtown Historic District and Anderson Historic District

Patricia Janus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added: a link pointing to Pittsford, New York

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.

Rollback

Hi JoannaSerah,

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is because after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly: for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Acalamari 10:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look into how to use it and try to use it properly. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 16:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Rollbacker

Given that you've engaged in a protracted edit war over unsourced content, and severely bitten an IP editor in the process with a ridiculous number of templated warnings - then defended the edit war, I've revoked your rollbacker privileges. I realize that you did not abuse the rollbacker privilege during the edit war, but since you cannot identify that this was - in fact - an edit war, you really do not have any business having that privilege. Toddst1 (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I understand. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox election

Since trying to fix the erroneous spacing for four (and presumably seven) candidates had been driving me crazy for several days, I was overjoyed when I saw this diff. But looking at the Arizona primary page (as well as checking a mocked-up version of Template:Infobox election/testcases#9), it looks like the problem is still there. Any other suggestions? (BTW, a workaround – which I actually prefer for reasons of symmetry – is to skip candidate3 info, using 1, 2, 4, and 5 instead. But it would be nice to get the problem fixed anyway.) Fat&Happy (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that a while ago as well and have been annoyed at it. Just now getting time enough to look into it. The extra spacing is still there, yes. And it is not just because the cache hasn't caught up. I have edited the article to refresh it, just to make sure, but so far my edits haven't appeared to correct it, even though some tests I did on my own appeared to do so. The problem is that the code is so sloppy. No consistency between Party name 1, 2, 3 section and Party name 4, 5, 6 section in the infobox template. Trying to correct this has proven unsuccessful as of yet, but still looking into it. I hope to finish tonight. Who knows? lol. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, after I left the first message I saw you were still trying.

FTR, I'm pretty sure it's related to party, not state. When I was testing in the sandbox, putting anything in party5 (without filling any other 5th parameters) made it space correctly; doing the same with home-state5 instead had no effect. And looking at the generated source, there's an extra <p><br /><p> (or maybe the other way around – it's been a couple of days) generated that appears to be before the final </td> for the party section. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, sort of obliquely implied above, but if you do find the fix, it probably needs to be applied to the 7, 8, 9 set also, since that looked identical to the 4, 5, 6 group, though I haven't tested to confirm an error. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I hadn't even noticed 7,8,9, yet. Just fixed this, so will apply it to 789 now too. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So, if I'm interpreting your change correctly, there were errors in both party and home_state (and also the non-U.S. alliance)? Anyway, congratulations. Now I can get something more productive done tomorrow than fighting this some more... Fat&Happy (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Really, it appears after editing it that there were mainly just errors in the party name and affiliation sections with a missing row tag at home state. Not really truly an error at home state, I guess you could say.

On another note, I saw your link to the test page you have and saw where the running mate wasn't showing up correctly. Strange, but the tags appeared correct for the running mate for 4,5,6, etc, but on the first row (1, 2, 3) it looks like it was missing a row tag. Put that in, so it should be correct now as well. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello JoannaSerah, your recent edits at Template:Infobox election seem to cause problems, as you can see at Egyptian parliamentary election, 2011–2012. Could you please have a look and try to fix it? Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

JS, I copied your last version to the template testing sandbox; you can see how it operated in the article RJFF mentioned by editing the article, changing Infobox election to Infobox election/sandbox, then previewing the page (without saving, of course). I may try out some possible tweaks to that version, so you're best checking the edit history to make sure the version is the one with the clear edit summary that it's your imported code. If you are going to work on it in the next few hours, feel free to leave me a message here (you're watchlisted for now) telling me to lay off. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Observations:

1. The article Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 displays fine with your version in both the 2&2 row configuration (matching that used at Egyptian parliamentary election, 2011–2012) and the 3&1 configuration, which is where the problem you were fixing originally occurred. Seems like the introduced error may only apply to the alliance parameter. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
2. The page Template:Infobox election/testcases had twelve sections with various sets of data to compare outputfrom the live version of the template to output from the /sandbox version (section 9 is a good base for U.S. presidential elections). Since there was no test case that included the alliance parameter, I copied in the infobox from the Egyptian election as section 13. The setup they have there makes visual comparison for differences fairly easy. 04:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Oh, yeah, I didn't notice any differences between the live version and your version in any of the original 12 cases. 04:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

More may follow. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had checked that while editing since I did have to make changes to the alliance name section, but guess I missed it. Honestly, looking back, I know I should have edited it in sandbox first. Just thought it would be an easier edit than it turned out to be. Sorry. Anyway...This has been fixed. The Alliance row should break correctly now. The break style that was in there originally under the Party name and Alliance name sections were adding extra line spaces when only one person on the line existed. Now it shouldn't. Tried to look for other problems before I saved, but if anything else looks strange, just revert and let me know. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

We edit conflicted; as you were typing the above, I was just entering "OK, I see it looks good now, so I'll stop." Funny, I've made changes to a few templates, but not many. This was the first one I've bothered to figure out how to use the sandbox for. (Not this change; the one a few days ago adding a delegate_count).

Out of curiosity, can you explain in "Templates for Dummies" terms the difference between using an actual pipe character and using the {{!}} template, which seems to be the major difference in versions? Fat&Happy (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I cannot say I am an expert at wikitemplate formatting and programming (hence the many edits I had to make). Plus, the code for the template is very sloppy, not consistent from one section to another. That was one of the main things in trying to track down the problem. Party name 1,2,3 was different from 456 and 789! JoannaSerah (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as using the actual pipe character |- in instead of {{!}}: the {{!}} character really only translates to a cell piping. It would be the same as putting in just a | . What was called for there was the row pipe character |- , not a simple pipe.

Basically, what appeared to happen is that, previously, the ! template was called which just created a new cell and then was followed by ENTER which created a new line. It really didn't create a new row, it just put the start of the next cell at the beginning of the next line. The infobox template, then, skipped this ! template when more than one party name or alliance name existed.

Note: Really, I believe I could have just put a dash after the {{!}} template. Writing {{!}}- for |- is only really needed if you need to escape out the | character (if you can't use a pipe for some reason). I changed it to just |- because the ! template was not needed and |- shows up much more clearly in coding. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. When I first looked at it a few days ago, I thought the templated pipe was unnecessary; when I'm sure of myself, I'll make all sorts of cosmetic changes "while I'm in there", but when I'm unsure I follow the "if it ain't broke..." approach. I just find multiple sets of brackets hard enough to debug (heck, I have trouble getting them balanced correctly in complex Excel formulas), so having all the unneeded extra ones both frustrated and irritated me. I realized the alliance change added the hyphens after the pipes, but I missed it in the earlier ones. Anyway, thanks for fixing it. And the explanation. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I still have problems on my Egyptian page. You know, there is a 2x2 box using the sets 1,2,4,5. But the third party (party4) erroneously shows the name of the first party. Could you please try again and fix it? Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that party4 shows party1 in several boxes (compare e.g. Russian presidential election, 2012). I cannot see why. I am not that fit at editing the infobox template synthax.--RJFF (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I fixed two three "typos". Seems to have taken care of the issues documented here and at the template talk page. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. When I copied some info over to the other sections, I missed changing some tags. Thank you for catching this. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. That's been my favorite programming error for years (as evidenced by my originally catching only two of the three instances in the same statement), so I immediately knew what had happened when I read the error report at the template talk page. (I glanced at 7, 8, 9 – but given my track record, maybe we should both recheck that too? ) Fat&Happy (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A Word of Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for all of your work on the Wilkes County Wiki article and other Wilkes-related articles. The articles had been filled with vandalism, puffery, and blatant advertising, and as someone who's not very tech-savvy I was unable to fix many of these issues. I really appreciate the time you have given to editing Wilkes-related articles and regularly monitoring them. Personally, I think it's obvious that someone is deliberately adding in public-relations information that is unsuited for an objective encyclopedia article. Again, I think you're doing a real service here, as previously the Wilkes County article (and especially the North Wilkesboro article, with which I continue to have issues regarding puffery and PR boosting) were an absolute mess. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. There have been a few users that have done strange things over time to these articles (and many other Wikipedia articles. You'd be amazed where the Wilkesboros appear sometimes!). May just be the same person using different IPs. No way to really tell (at least, I don't think so). Glad to have you watching the articles as well. If you have any trouble or questions about anything, just let me know. Happy editing... :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk:184.3.95.118

When you run a search here it labels this IP as static. It is possible to have a static IP's set up on a DHCP router. see here... which is most likely the case.--Nickvet419 (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Fair enough. Thanks for the link to that tool. Will revert that to yours, then. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It just concerned me when two IPs in the same range at similar time periods had similar inappropriate editing. Seems to have quieted down for now, though. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Jank Frudge & Pochester Roets

Hoo boy, Joanna; bet you didn't know what you were getting into in regards to dealing with the "owner" of said articles. It can be said that in my fair city an entire poetry movement may be based around other poets' encounters with said individual and their resulting distaste. Your presence is welcome at least by me in editing such articles because at least you'll be a neutral voice. Look out for wikilawyering and sock puppets. Mickeymephistopheles (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Seems to happen some with musicians, artists, writers, poets, etc. here on Wikipedia. Not to that extent usually, though. Part of it, I think, is just not enough people paying attention to the article. Thanks for the encouragement. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't help noticing this sarcastic entry regarding two specific entries to which I and others have contributed. This sort of "discussion" is both inappropriate, unprofessional, and offensive to all the contributors and to the subjects of these articles.

Personally, I don't know who else has edited these articles, though it's clear that the sock puppet calling himself "Mickeymephistophels" suggests they've been the been the bane of his existence!

Be forewarned! "Mickey" is a known agitator and disgruntled "artist" on the fringes of the literary scene whose declared goal is to see the entries (for which the letters are transposed in typical teen fashion) mentioned purged from Wikipedia. This person is motivated by envy and petty, misguided, misplaced anger. His "encouragement" to you is simply an attempt to use you as a surrogate for their agenda.

More importantly, you seem to be under a misimpression about Wikipedia. Unlike the Britannica and other print/online/CD encyclopedias, Wikipedia has the wonderful and (so far) unique advantage of being able to be comprehensive and INclusive vs. limited, EXclusive and elitist, devoting its pages solely to major public figures, movements, inventions, places, etc.

This is NOT to say that Wikipedia should be the proverbial "mile wide and a foot deep." On the contrary, because space is limitless, WP can be MILES wide and as deep as it needs to be for each entry. Some entries many never be much more than stubs. But as a literary historian/scholar, I (and others) WANT to know about some London cafe that had a reading series frequented by a number of well-known writers/musicians. Or a literary magazine from Australia that played a role in being one of the early publications in which a number of important writers were published.

Which is also to say that there are shifting standards used by several of you. Sometimes you insist that entries be "noteworthy," yet all sorts of trivia can be found on Wikipedia, including full plot summaries of countless films! I'm not complaining about film plots -- just noting that you've exceeded the Internet Movie Database in comprehensive summaries!

In other words, you invoke the "noteworthy" standard when you want to start the process of eliminating an entry based on your personal feelings. The rest of the time, you overlook the very sort of "flawed" articles you pounce on!

Not that WP hasn't been beset by vandals, pranksters and average Joes and Janes who just want to be able to see themselves and tell their friends they have a Wikipedia entry.

You and others who share your philosophy of editing are doing us ALL a major disservice in the way you edit and in your recommendations to purge entries.

It may be a bit heartening that a site sprung up devoted entirely to articles dumped by WP! However, this is not a Wiki itself and offers users NO opportunity to update, amend, and correct entries. And, as useful as the information may be, not many contributors want to have their work available only in "The Wikipedia Knowledge Dump" (WikiDumper.org). How would you like to have to move all of YOUR contributions moved over there because someone like you has decided your contributions aren't "significant" enough?

Again, the whole POINT of WP is that it CAN include the important and the (seemingly) insignificant! The abundantly-referenced and the barely-mentioned.

Another quarrel I have is your removal of inline links which you've decided are unnecessary and, at best, should be relegated to footnotes. Unless the footnote is going to provide additional info (in which case the page begins to resemble a thesis), there is NO reason to resort to footnotes when you can link to an external site which may or may not merit a WP entry of its own. If it DOES merit one, that doesn't mean that the author(s) of the article in question has the obligation to create one -- that's not his/her job.

There is NO injunction against inline links to external sources. This is apparently your personal preference. I and many other users of WP would rather click (while reading the article) on a link to an external page and read about, say, Joanna Sera than have to jump down to a footnote to click to the link.

Finally, the particular entries "Mickey" notes had been on Wikipedia for years before several of you came along. It's curious, to say the least, that you and a few others would suddenly start, in effect, threatening these entries (as well as others you yourself mention) with purging unless the contributors somehow demonstrated their "noteworthiness" with numerous "citations." As noted, this criterion is subjective and relative to the subject's importance to the user, not to you!

And I need hardly note that every bit of useful information hardly comes with a plethora of citations. There would be few doctoral dissertations if everything had abundant references that could immediately be retrieved!

By the way, I've revised the Patricia Janus entry that seems to one of those troubling you. Checker (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there is just so much wrong with that little essay you put here. I agree that the way Mickey worded the section heading on my talk page may not have been very appropriate. Unfortunately, your opinion of what Wikipedia should be does not fit with any of the consensus about Wikipedia style and inclusiveness. I know there has been a debate for a long time now in what to include and not include, but there are some things that are consensus for what should be included or not. I know there is a lot of trivia out there, but that doesn't mean it should be included, just that editors have not gotten around to taking it out yet. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for info about this.

You think there are shifting standards, but many of these guidelines have been around for several years. Just because editors haven't run across these article pages to correct them yet, doesn't mean they fit the guidelines. Many editors when they are tagging an article or editing it for some style guideline will explain why they are editing that way or point to the relevant guideline. Ignoring the WP guidelines in favor of your or your group's preferences would be simply disruptive editing.

I don't know how you have gotten the idea that this is just personal preference on my part. Some other editors have tried to correct the pages, but have been thwarted by a few editors who believe like you. The main thing I have to point you to is the WP:ELPOINTS section of the WP:EL page which does state that inline external linking like what was on those pages is inappropriate. I have pointed this out before on some of my edits. Your claim that many other users would rather just click on an inline link is solely your opinion. Wikipedia articles NEED footnotes. You deride the use of footnotes as making it look like a thesis. Well, yes! WP aspires to be an encyclopedia that looks professional. It doesn't want to be merely a collection of links like some personal sites appear.

None of what you discuss above is anything like the WP Manual of Style has stated that I can find. You make claims about what WP is or should be. Please back that up by citing something on Wikipedia that actually states that. Otherwise, please don't get into an edit war over something on which your argument fails. Wikipedia doesn't want to include lists of every little thing out there. See WP:NOT I'm sorry, you're just wrong. Please review the links and let me know where I need to look for more info. If you want to debate about what Wikipedia should include, I'll try to find those pages for you.

The only thing else I can say is that WP cannot be used as just another website for the history or promotion of the Rochester Poets group. You could very easily set up your own wiki website just dedicated to them if you need to. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, just reading over your statement again and want to reiterate the need for actual citations. Please review WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia absolutely needs to have info that is verifiable. That is a foundation stone of Wikipedia guidelines. Your comparison to doctoral dissertations is not relevant and no one ever said that citations have to be absolutely immediately accessible (i.e. online). That would be preferable, I suppose, but not necessary. There are many books, newspaper and magazine articles that are not "immediately accessible", but are perfectly able to be cited. Unfortunately, not a whole lot in the Rochester Poets articles were really cited with verifiable information. If you have actual reliable sources of info, then they need to be put in the article, in proper reference format, so that others can check it out if they desire. I would hate to see a doctoral dissertation that didn't have any verifiable references. Even those are professor and/or peer reviewed. Why are you acting shocked if anyone asks to actually have some proof of the statements being made? Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC) updated JoannaSerah (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved comments from User page.

The comments below were placed on my User page. I have moved them here where it is more appropriate. I updated my User page with what I was currently working on. Another user, Cyberdat/Checker, commented on this statement. This is what I stated:
Trying to clean up Rochester Poets and related articles despite resistance from "Owners" of the articles. Looks like it and several articles were created by either fans of or members of the group. Several need major work to clean up and wikify. Especially the Frank Judge article. Also, Patricia Janus, Dale Davis (poet), Cornelius Eady, James Lavilla-Havelin, Vincent F. A. Golphin, Patricia Roth Schwartz, William Heyen and Anthony Piccione. And I have no clue why there were so many semicolons used in the articles.

There is no resistance from the "owners" (you mean "authors/contributors" don't you?) other than frustration and annoyance at your continual meddling and "improving" the articles according to what are conveniently changeable standards.

Nor is there much to "clean up" in the sense of bogus or un-noteworthy information or sock puppets (a favorite scapegoat when self-appointed editors don't agree with other authors).

All of the articles could be expanded. But you seem to have made it a personal project to focus on poets based (or formerly based) in Rochester, NY. ALL of the poets you name were recently inducted into the Rochester Poets Walk Project which also includes the likes of John Ashberry, W.D. Snodgrass, E.E. Cummings, Anthony Hecht, Robert Creeley, and many others. As I believe is mentioned in one or more of the articles -- unless you edited them out. All of them are well known poets internationally, nationally and/or regionally.

You seem to imply you're a poet yourself, so you should certainly recognize some of those names, and there are MANY notable poets who many of us in the literary community may not recognize. That's no cause for you or anyone else to declare them un-noteworthy or their entries "puffery"!

Which gives rise the question of why you've focused on poets so far from North Carolina! Did you once live in the Rochester area? Did you have some falling out with the Rochester literary scene and now want to correct that with your "clean up"? This all looks a bit odd, as does the comment from Mickeymephistopheles, a well-known disgruntled musician/would-be poet who has openly expressed his intention to see his imagines "enemies" removed from Wikepedia.

I trust you'll refrain from enabling this angry, petty individual. I'll continue comments at his comment on "Jank Frudge & Pochester Roets" (cute, adolescent word play!). I'll also post notices on the other contributors' User Pages so we can see what their opinion is of your "clean up."

By the way, the semicolon is an often-maligned, much-misunderstood, but very useful punctuation which, as you should know, replaces a conjunction when the author does not really want to specify "and", "but", etc. It's sad that too many college profs and high school teachers never learned how to use it and have attempted to denigrate it to their clueless students. Checker (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is somewhat related to the discussion above about the Rochester Poets, so also see my replies there. I don't get why you keep insistingly implying that there are constantly changing standards flipping back and forth about what Wikipedia guidelines are consensus. That is just not true.

As far as user Mickeymephistopheles goes, I don't know them from Adam and not sure what edit warring you have been involved with in the past with him. Funny that both him and you accuse each other of using sock puppetry. I don't want to enable anyone who is out to perpetrate merely disruptive editing.

The fact is that some editors/contributors have been acting like "owners" despite being shown Wikipedia guidelines. All you have to point to is what you think a page should look like, not any WP guidelines.

I don't know anyone in the Rochester area. I haven't been out of NC a whole lot. I just enjoy literature and poetry. I joined up to help out with WP:WikiProject Poetry a few months ago and just ran across those pages and saw they needed cleaning up to Wikipedia standards. They were not, despite your claims. I don't have any "dog in the fight" regarding preferences of poets/poetry in the area. And it doesn't make any bit of difference if I've been there or not. That is irrelevant to the changes I made.

I hope you do post to other users' talk pages. Especially ask for help from admins and other WikiProject talk pages.

As far as semicolons go, I understand they have been maligned and I do understand their use, but didn't feel that it was necessary to use so many of them on those pages. They were over-used. Some of them were not always used appropriately, either, I don't believe. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:71.12.93.247. Thank you. That user's edits are not WP:VANDALISM. Toddst1 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Greenville, South Carolina shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the edits by IP 71.12.93.247 on the Greenville, South Carolina article, I must respectfully disagree with the warning I received. I was concerned that it might look like edit warring, so I have held off editing the article some. The IP continues to simply revert a correct edit without explanation. A discussion was going on on the talk page of the article (See Talk:Greenville, South Carolina#Education. I was not the first one to revert his edit and instead of going to talk page to discuss, the IP has chosen to simply revert without any explanation and moves info on the article to be under a wrong heading. I have given them plenty of warnings and have tried to get them to go to the talk page, but they have not. I do really try to assume good faith with most every user, but this one continued to post disruptive edits. I tried to be nice and posted a welcome message and then notice to use edit summaries. Only afterwards did I start to post warnings for disruptive editing as they continued what I do consider vandalism. If that noticeboard wasn't the appropriate place, then please direct me where. The article Talk page was already being used. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree. However, if you continue edit warring on that article, you will be blocked. In addition, it's really bad form to WP:BITE newcomers like that IP. I can't defend either your edits or the IP's - neither are sourced. You're both one revert away from a block.

As far as where to discuss? If the IP doesn't see the discussion on the talk page, then it's customary to open a dialogue - not a pile of templates - with the user on his or her talk page. Piling on templates saying their edits are unconstructive or vandalism, is remarkably bad faith and almost always fails to solve any problem. Toddst1 (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You're right. I should have tried harder to elicit discussion from the IP instead of warnings. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Salisbury National Cemetery

You were correct to delete that information, because the school WAS near the cemetery but now it's just a building, so the statement had it backwards. It is true that in a sense the cemetery was moved. The article said nothing about where most new burials are taking place. I have taken care of that and if there is more that can be added to that, I'd appreciate some help.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'll see what I can look up on it. It struck me as odd since I didn't know of any school there unless there was an old segregation-era black elementary school somewhere nearby. Do you know what school it would have been? Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I only know it was the vocational school and that it was a black school back in the day, but I've forgotten the name. I'm at home and prefer to limit myself to a few select web sites.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: perhaps that wasn't the school. Maybe the annex is near a school.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, just thought of something. I think I know what they were talking about. The Wiley Lash Head Start Center building. It is a just a block or two away from the original part. That was a vocational building at one time, I think. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, on a side note, since you stated you only use certain websites and I see on your user page that you are from NC as well. I wonder if you use NC Live any? and if so, what you think of it. I use it and Google News a good bit to find info for articles. I use other sources, but generally start there. You should be able to access that from home as well through your local library. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I could, but I only do it when I'm AT the library.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

So I see you put the references in a template. I tend to forget when I'm not using free online sources. Obviously I could have found them online for free once I knew the dates, but it was too much trouble. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I don't mind doing that at all. You did the most of the work in finding the sources. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I still haven't found how many spaces are available (not all who will be buried there are yet, but when they said it was nearly full, they meant spaces that weren't reserved were running out) in the original location or how many are buried in both locations. I'll ask someone next week.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Provisional Scansion Style Sheet

Hi, JoannaSerah. I recently commented on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry#Scansion Example, and I've since created this [see now this -pw] preliminary replacement style sheet. I'm not quite sure what to do with it. I've posted this on Stumps's talk page...

"I'll let you decide where it should go in the short term. I'm certainly not going to start altering the standards of a wikigroup (of which I'm not even a member!) without some consensus -- though I fear at this point consensus might merely be what you and I happen to agree on. So I see 3 possibilities:

1. It stays in my sandbox until ready, meanwhile we alert the talk page to go there and comment/edit. Possible risk: it will seem too private (though that is not the intent) and people could be discouraged from contributing.
2. I paste it into the talk page, which allows for discussion and edits there. Possible risk: No one wants to edit it there either, because it's viewed as my comment which normally should not be edited by others.
3. You or I start altering the actual section in the wikigroup page proper (but I've already said why this is unappealing to me at this early stage).

Then of course, if either course #1 or #2 is taken, if anyone should make contributions to the notes their authorship will be obscured by pasting it in to the main page. As collaborative as Wikipedia is, preliminary collaboration seems quite difficult to me. If you know of a better way, let's do that."

...but he's only semi-active and hasn't responded yet. In the mean time, I wonder if a better solution wouldn't be to spin the whole section off onto its own subpage, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry/Scansion Style. Then it would be publicly available for comment and editing, comments would be tied specifically to it (not to the project as a whole), and we could still link to it from the project page only after it was sufficiently vetted. Thoughts? Phil wink (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I will have to look into it a little more before I can comment more about this. I am leery of forking that out into a subpage simply because I don't think the section is really detailed enough to warrant its own page. And it is perfectly appropriate to have the discussions consolidated to the WikiProject Poetry talk page. It doesn't require a separate talk page, I don't feel. If it does get branched out, though, I wouldn't really oppose it. The problem is that there are about three different pages that all have some say in this. Your solution seems appropriate, but will have to think about this a little more. Thank you for your work. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Much obliged. Let me know... Until then, I'll just play in my sandbox. Phil wink (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I replied on the project talk page. May not have covered everything in my reply, but would agree with you that, as far as I can tell, your style guideline suggestions are correct. I think that option 2 above (paste into talk page) would probably be best just to cover our bases. I know we should be bold, but on a project page, I would still prefer more input, I would say post the suggestion and then give it about a week or so. If no one else has commented, then we should start updating the project page. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Catamount800

Thanks for the advice. I am still learning about Wikipedia. I am glad you enjoyed the article. There is a lot of history behind the policy. Catamount800 (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure no problem. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I deleted the Wiki clean up box because our school ambassador had told us to. Every person in our Public Policy class recieved one of these boxes and our articles are really great. We are graduate students and we write great papers or articles. People are trying to get our ambassador taken from our position and he believes that the person that posted the box is going around to every student he helps and putting them on there because our ambassador passed our articles and helped 2 of us get our page on the Main Page under DYK. Please explain on my talk page if you believe that the box should be there and what I need to improve the article. If not, I am going to delete it again. Thanks again for the help! Catamount800 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. If that is so, then your edit summary taking that out needs to point to some discussion about that, such as on some administrators noticeboard (WP:ANI or the like). And discussion about the tag put on the article really needs to be discussed on the article's talk page, not on a user page. Just deleting it as you did, without explanation, seemed inappropriate. I will take my discussions about the tag there. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

More Vandalism...

Just thought you'd want to know there's been more vandalism of the North Wilkesboro article. Someone has, yet again, changed the town's population and other statistics to absurd figures. The Wilkes articles seem to be vandalized more than just about any other subject on Wiki I've seen. Just FYI. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. If you see blatant vandalism such as this, you are free to correct it as well. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have seen others more vandalized, but it is very intriguing why some one has chosen to obsess over Wilkes-related articles. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi its Dale Embry

Rick Hendrix reached out to me today. I sure hope you can help us get a solid wiki on him. I have no clue what I am doing. I work for Rick and put this up years ago.I have tried to correct it, remove bad data and help with the conflicts of Rick Hendrick. I keep getting asked by Rick to get the notability guidelines off the top. I just do not understand what else to do. I have included info below. On several of the topics.

President Bush Lifetime Award- http://sogospelnews.com/index/content/articles/hendrix-nelon-award/

On the Order of the Long Leaf Pine we have been round and round about that one. The governors office has provided data many times. Rick did receive this in 1993-but ceremony was delayed and held when he received a gold record in 1994. Claire Ennis-Chief Records Officer (919) 707-0612 claire.ennis@osc.nc.gov

If you have an email I can send you pics of the colonel award and key to the city and proclamation etc...

I am going to update the congressional run data and add a website. The www.rickhendrix.com was taken offline May 10,2012 for overhaul. Rick Hendrix Energy and the music site are conflicting. We are building one home for all companies...

I read where you do not really like to get into writing etc. But it would help me and Rick if we could get someone to fix this page.

Thanks Dale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalestorian (talk • contribs) 07:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look at it. I do write articles here and do like to write, it is just that correcting vandalism takes up a good bit of time around here sometimes. :) I, too, think he is notable enough for inclusion, but more/better sources are usually needed for a lot of articles that have those notability tags put on. Thank you for the reference for some things. I agree with you about the Order of the Long Leaf Pine. That has been a discussion regarding who is listed there as well, since we can't find too many people listed except for some newspaper articles. Unfortunately, we can't find anywhere that the state publishes that. I don't think calling up some assistant at the state really qualifies as a reliable source, unfortunately. I'll see what I can research on him on my own as well. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Some changes

Joanna Please dont laugh. I did what I could. I clarified the run for office. I deleted the quarter of a billion record sells link. That site has become a joke as of late. I added the Rick Hendrix Energy site until rickhendrix.com is relaunched. Please let me know what else I can do.

Thanks Dale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalestorian (talk • contribs) 07:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the article and see what I can do. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Old Rick Hendrix site

Joanna THANK you!! You have done more for this in a day than anyone could do in years. I know you are going to unplug my computer keyboard when you see the web link I attempted to remove. I was trying to get any reference to the old rickhendrix.com down. Rick sold that company to a group and they were asked to remove the site due to incorrect data. They had it listed Rick won awards his artist won.They had things in his about me that were not true. Rick bought the company back from its lease and cannot let it represent him as it was written by the potential owner. I spoke to Rick and we will relaunch the site later this year and it will be accurate info from his office. We just took the site down recently and started trying to get data on the wiki correct. I listed a billboard article in that spot...It list Rick Hendrix was an artist up for bluegrass song of the year, writer, producer and his label. I was going to add another ref to Garth Brooks and his GLADD song Rick promoted in the early 90's. But I was afraid of messing up your outline.I listed the article below. What I was trying to do was create some ref source in that slot until our accurate/real website is back up to prevent two citations be listed and needed in the article.

http://tcncountry.com/G/garth-brooks/

I can look for other stuff

Thanks again for your help. Please advise Dale

sorry Dalestorian (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I know it all takes a little getting used to editing and following the Wikipedia guidelines. I'll work on the article to see how to reorganize and expand it when I can. I will see what I can look up. One thing to remember is that the information put in the article must be able to be verified, especially for biographies of living persons. If something is not cited well on the article, don't be offended if someone else quickly takes it off (even though the fact might be true). It needs to have a source cited and those references need to actually show what is put in the article. Doesn't mean that it has to be online (that would be helpful, of course, but not absolutely necessary). If you know of any newspaper/magazine articles that are not available online, they can still be used. The only other thing I would have to point out is that we really need to maintain neutrality in editing the article. Since he is a promoter, it may be easy to edit in non-neutral wording, promotionalism, advertising, etc., especially with any possible conflicts of interest. But don't really worry too much about that if you have well-cited information. Neutral language can be easily fixed. Just wanted to let you know what it is about in case others give you notice on that. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Rick Hendrix

Joanna Hi, I spoke to the Long Leaf Pine and Governors office. The Governors office has him listed, the society does not.They are going to add his name to the list when it updates. I sent them copies of the award. I have a question.If I send you copies of the awards! Colonel Award, Key to the city? How do we use those as sources to revert the article back to the last edit that listed all of the awards? These things were in the early 90's.Most of these sites are gone or purged data.The news articles are not even in some archives.But I have the actual awards and certifications and dates. Do you have a place or email to upload these items for references? Thanks Dale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalestorian (talk • contribs) 18:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia really needs published sources. Just saying you spoke to someone is not a good enough reliable source. I don't know if a photocopy of the award really counts. You may want to pose this question at the reliable sources noticeboard. They may be able to point you in the right direction about this. It may involve opening an OTRS ticket.

I know that news articles may not be online accessible. But if you can find out any articles that do actually state that the awards were given, then they can be used. It doesn't necessarily have to be something online. It just has be cited well so that others can check on it and see if it confirms what you say. If you need help finding specific citation information about articles you know of, just let me know and I'll see what I can do. Also, if you know of a reliable source website that used to state the information, you might want to check out the Internet Archive. It may have an archive of the page. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your help on North Carolina Wine Festival. I actually went to it this last Saturday, had a blast. Being in Tanglewood Park, photos were quite difficult. I took several but haven't found the time to look at them and have little hope that they would be good enough to include, but we will see. On my user page, you will find a couple more I'm working on as well, if you feel the urge to further NC culture. This includes the infamous red slaw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Summers are usually filled with wine festivals. I could have an interesting time. :) But, then again, my wikiediting might suffer, lol. Look forward to helping out with other NC articles. Not sure about the red slaw one, but will see what I can find. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still hammering away on two articles: User:Dennis Brown/D.H. Griffin Companies and User:Dennis Brown/Barbecue in North Carolina which are both in need of someone with more finesse than I have. Both are getting closer, would love to see them in mainspace soon, even if incomplete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look into them and see what I can do. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

[1]

Thank you! I had no idea, not used to tables on here! And if people stopped adding pre-production films even after they've been asked not to I wouldn't of had this problem :( --Τασουλα (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Tables are something a lot of people have trouble with, so don't feel bad. It just takes a little getting used to. Happy editing! :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You rock

Thanks for your help! I've got several more in the works, including User:Dennis Brown/Texas Pete Twin City RibFest and the premature but still in mainspace Barbecue in North Carolina, so I appreciate all the help I can get! I persuaded a new editor to help on NC articles as well, User:Berean Hunter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

IP comments about Conover, NC

Gourd Lady

This is the City of Conover. We've included The Gourd Lady in the notable persons because she is the most notable person that is living in Conover besides the NASCAR drivers. Here is a website if you want to know more about her http://www.50sixty70.com/sparky.htm,http://www.observernewsonline.com/content/gourd-lady-leno-bound-again. As the City of Conover we much appreciate it if you would leave Miss Sparkman on the Notable People article. We have named many buildings after her, including a community center.

Thank You, City of Conover, North Carolina 101 1st Street East Conover, NC 74.254.113.126 (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Major Businesses

This is the City of Conover. We have contacted Wikipedia and they have agreed to let us put the businesses back on the page. As the City of Conover we would like for you to keep the section on Conovers wikipedia page.

Thank you, City of Conover, North Carolina 101 1st Street East Conover, NC 74.254.113.126 (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am replying to both of the above comments about Conover, North Carolina since they are really related. First, I don't actually have any reason to assume good faith from comments by an anonymous IP editor claiming to be the "City of Conover". I have no way of knowing if you are who you say you are, especially since you give no name except "City of Conover". Regardless, concerning the article, I don't always take out redlinks if they have reliable source citations, but generally speaking, especially with regard to "Notable people" sections, the person added needs to have an article. Please consider Writing the Article First. If you think "The Gourd Lady" is truly notable enough for inclusion, you might consider going through the article for creation process and create one for her. As far as your strange claim of 'contacting Wikipedia' for permission to add the businesses section back, please note that Wikipedia is driven by consensus and more often than not, those type edits have not been kept. It isn't necessary to tally every business in the town. Really, comments about specific articles belong on that article's talk page. Thank you for your interest. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)