I have also listed Little Punjab and various Koreatown redirects created by you where "Korean won" was substituted for "Koreatown" up for discussion. See here and here for these discussions. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Dabifying should be fine. Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Delaware Valley

added a link pointing to Watershed

Philadelphia

added a link pointing to Watershed

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Just letting you know I've nominated Filipino café, Filipino coffe, and Filipino cafés for discussion here. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LGBT culture in New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public health emergency.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prospect Park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New York Fashion Week, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CFDA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page before changing the article. Thank you. - BlueboyLINY (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Somehow both of our edits got reverted at Long Island, didn't seem like we were edit-warring. NeutraI (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@NeutraI: No, of course we are not edit-warring. Both of us are trying to express fundamentally similar thoughts, and BlueboyLINY, who has a habit of disruption, is warring with both of us. I have now reverted their edits; if BlueboyLINY wants their way, they will need to express their thoughts on the article talk page and try to persuade us. Castncoot (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks; if said disruption persists, should we escalate the situation to an admin board to get more eyes on the page? NeutraI (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Castncoot (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Economy of New York (state), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capital District.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Pennsylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Endowment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia editors claimed that the images don't look good on a laptop. I personally use my phone and liked where they showed up. When I looked on Surface Pro it looked better to move to other side so I made the cha he for those using PCs or Surface Pro or laptops. I don't use Apple so I am not sure what it looks like OneMoreByte (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Please look on a PC, Surface Pro or laptop to see why I moved see. Images over. I had not done so until recently and see what others had injected to my placement. I use phone so the change was not for me. Thanks for caring. OneMoreByte (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I now see you moved tens of images. Moving does make the images NOT align with the content in the Surface Pro laptop PC versions. Please point me to hr Wikipedia rules that require images be on right side. I am not as experienced as you so I am willing to be educated. OneMoreByte (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Never assume that someone else is going to see the images and text on their browser in the same way you do. Standard procedure is to right-align, with left-alignment used sparingly to demarcate features which may stand out further and do not interfere with visual layout on any browser. Unfortunately, there are way TOO MANY images on this page and the only answer is to trim this load by removing several (numerous) images— not to left-align them. Your left-aligning is unfortunately making things worse. If you want to help, the best way here would indeed be to entirely remove images that you find excessive or problematic in terms of allowing proper layout of the more pertinent images. Perhaps try keeping just one image per section, that is a fairly good metric to follow. And once you remove the great majority of these images, you’ll see immediately how much more professional, encyclopedic, and visually friendly and uncluttered the page becomes, allowing the reader to digest the images that truly ARE pertinent. Thank you for understanding. Best, Castncoot (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chinatown. Binondo and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 1#Chinatown. Binondo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: That must have been a typographical error. The intention was obviously “Chinatown, Binondo” to be redirected. (So a comma was the intended punctuation mark.) Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Manhattan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington Heights.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Castncoot. I noticed that you recently edited the Citadel LLC page, so perhaps you might be interested in looking at an edit request I posted for Peng Zhao, the CEO of Citadel Securities, which is found here: Talk:Peng_Zhao#Education,_Philanthropy_and_Boards. If you agree that the edits improve the article, I would appreciate it if you could implement the request. Thanks so much. Cduffymul (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for adding the paragraph about Peng Zhao's involvement with Kartemquin Films. I wonder if you could take a look at the other bullet points in the request and consider adding those as well? Thanks again. Cduffymul (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I don’t have time for that,,I’m sorry. Best, Castncoot (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Castncoot, I am wondering if perhaps now you have time to revisit the rest of the edits I requested to Peng Zhao’s page. I would like to update the page to keep it relevant. Thank you for your consideration. Cduffymul (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't. But if you don't have a conflict of interest with the subject, then perhaps you may consider editing the page yourself. Castncoot (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit made significant changes to population data. This one fixed a typo. This one changed population density. They all had the edit summary "clar", one that you use with tremendous frequency, appearing in 435 of your last 500 edits. I will freely admit that we all end up with variations of generic edit summaries for generic edits; I do it myself. But can I suggest having a greater variety of edit summaries that go beyond "clar" to provide some greater clarity of what you're doing. Alansohn (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Will be more conscious of that, thanks. When going through these edits fast, it seems the most unremarkably efficient thing to do unless an edit really stands out. But will keep it in mind, particularly on the topics you’re more likely to be editing as well. Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I usually look at almost all of the edits on my watchlist, but it helps every editor to have a bit more insight into what's changed in the article based on each edit. Alansohn (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As in this edit, you've been updating population density, while other editors have been removing the numbers and replacing both parameters with "auto" to let Wikipedia do the calculation. Where are you getting the numbers from? What is the source? Alansohn (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• WP:CALC. I’m actually taking the time to calculate each density per square by manually dividing the 2020 census population figure as the numerator and the quoted land area as the denominator. (Nobody lives on water and many coastal communities’ borders extend into the ocean or large lakes, so only the quoted land area counts, and the 2010 densities quoted appear to have used this algorithm as well..partially because I myself had calculated a fair number of those myself as well.) In several instances so far, I have found that the density was never updated from the 2010 figure, even if the 2020 total population figure had been updated, and on some others, the quoted density number is actually just plain incorrect, whether land are or total area had been used as the denominator. And the “auto” function automatically delivers the density per square kilometer as a direct conversion from the density per square mile figure. Have you actually seen one where both the population per square mile AND population per square km have been recently calculated for 2020 (or even had been calculated during 2010) using the auto function, because I have not seen any as such; and obviously on those entries where that has been done, I’m saved the work and don’t need to calculate either. Castncoot (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • In previous years, the Census Bureau made these calculated density numbers available. I haven't found this for 2020, yet. Alansohn (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    • One other issue that remains to be sorted out Alansohn, is the updated rankings by updated population and also density figures within the state of New Jersey of the 560+ municipalities. Would you happen to know the Wikipedia function that figured these out in previous years? Would these (hopefully not) have to be re-ranked manually? Castncoot (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Alansohn, I wonder if User:DemocraticLuntz, who has significant topic experience in this matter, could offer suggestions or help updating New Jersey municipality population rankings, a 2020 Census template to pull data from to create a “2020 Census” subsection, etc. Castncoot (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
      • That's worth a try, but the data DemoracticLuntz was able to pull was only for population. I also thought of you when I noticed that the auto feature when used for both Imperial and metric units does a density calculation based on dividing population by total area, not land area. There had been an inconclusive discussion here about a year ago on the topic. I had that the double auto would be a useful alternative, but I think that a source for density (and ranking) is more important now. We should both keep on trying. Alansohn (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

        As far as I can recall (no time to wade into the Census API to confirm), the Census Bureau doesn't directly publish official density numbers. My tool (which I haven't used since I got asked not to have it run fast and automated [I believe if I do it slowly and check each page after update I would still be able to use it but haven't had time to finish up remaining states]) has been updating with official Census area numbers [from a different area of the Census called TigerWeb], and taking the population numbers. I think it then sets density to auto from there. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

        • @ Alansohn: per this edit, I just tried moving the single-auto function for density to double-auto at Holmdel Township, New Jersey, but this leads to spurious entries, and therefore I reverted it back to single-auto, where density per sq mi is calculated manually using WP:CALC and the auto function is applied only to density/km2 calculation. I don’t believe this is problematic, but more pertinently, we don’t have much choice now. Castncoot (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
        • @DemocraticLuntz: are you using a template which pulls data populating into a paragraph for Census 2020 demographic data, detailing each municipality’s demographic characteristics including race, gender, age distribution, same-and opposite-sex married couples, median household and per capita income, etc.? Castncoot (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
        • By the way, the reason I ask, DemocraticLuntz, is because we (including Alansohn and myself) are in a quandary as to how to pull data to populate and publish a paragraph detailing 2020 demographic characteristics for New Jersey locales. Would you happen to know how other U.S. state articles are accomplishing the same task? Any suggestions you have would be much appreciated, thank you. Best, Castncoot (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
        • Never mind, I see Alansohn was able to pull 2020 Census demographic details to compose a Census 2020 paragraph for New Jersey counties, that’s great. Is the same format available for New Jersey municipalities as well? Best, Castncoot (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The QuickFacts pages have data for land area and population density based on dividing population by land area for both 2010 and 2020, such as the QuickFacts for West New York, New Jersey, where the population per square mile for 2020 is provided directly as 53,231.4. I edited the article to plug in that number and the density per square kilometer calculates correctly to one decimal place. I had used the double auto before see here, and the result is the heavily rounded data of 40,000 per square mile (15,000 per square kilometer), which calculates based on total area (including water). I've been able to come up with some wording about population change, because I was able to find this source from the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development which has the population data for 2020 and 2010. Now the question is how to find a canned table that has the data for population density or to figure out how to download the details from the Census Bureau, probably the same way that DemocraticLuntz had done with population data. As a solution, using the double auto is a bad method because of the use of total area and the rounding. Taking the data from a source that does the calculation is better than doing the math ourselves, but now we need to find a way to semi-automate the process. As an update, the QuickFacts pages are only available for municipalities with a population greater than 5,000; most articles would have the data on the page, but not all places have QuickFacts pages, so a source is needed. Alansohn (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Wow, thank you Alansohn for pointing out the pre-calculated density per land area in sq miles yielded by QuickFacts, I had never scrolled down that far before. So I’m glad we’re on the same page rejecting the double-auto feature, which would give density numbers that are far off the mark on coastal cities whose municipal boundaries extend into the large bodies of water (including the ocean) and yield figures that are completely useless and misleading. Semi-automating is certainly needed, but until that can happen, I obviously don’t mind using the pre-calculated QuickFacts density per sq mile value and then using a single-auto feature for the density per sq km only. For municipalities with less than 5,000 people, I can continue to derive the density per sq mile manually, and then use a single auto for density per sq km. Castncoot (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The QuickFacts data would cover the two-thirds of municipalities above 5,000, and we can handle the rest. I will continue to see if there is a way to download this data using the API from the Census Bureau. Thanks for all of your efforts. Alansohn (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much. Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears you're accusing me of being a sockpuppet after I made a couple of good faith edits on New York City. I'll continue the discussion on that talk page[1], but please refrain from throwing around accusations like that in the future. I'm just trying to get bad sources out of US city articles. I looked in the edit history to see if this has been controversial in the past, and clearly I missed something. Sorry for that. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bling Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmopolitan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

There were three different edits made to the article for Lakewood Township, New Jersey with the edit summary "reloc" that rearranged sections in the article without any further explanation or justification. WP:USCITY is not a policy, but as a guideline it serves a useful function to structure articles on a consistent basis. There may be reasons in some cases to stray from these suggestions, but it's not clear why this would be the case here. Was there some bigger purpose here for your reorganization? Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this article had strayed off any norm, including that of USCITY. Arts, Sports, and Parks and Recreation had been listed ahead of core topics including Demographics, Government, and Education. Best, Castncoot (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Reywas92. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Philadelphia that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

What a disgusting accusation. To be clear, city articles DO NOT need to be filled with pictures that represent every religion's houses of worship. The article says less than 1% of Philadelphia's Christians are Mormons, so why must an LDS temple be pictured in the article? The share of other groups is also small and there's no need to clutter the article – including in galleries – with pictures for all of them. In fact, there's a whole Religion in Philadelphia article where they can go and where I've moved them. I also undid the typos your revert reintroduced. Also, as you were warned above, please stop saying "clar" in every edit summary. Most of your edits are not adding clarification, and this is worse than no summary at all. Reywas92^Talk 14:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Include all or include none. It's just that simple. Do you realize how many people your edit pisses off? Now kindly exit my Talk page, thank you. Castncoot (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Literally just you it appears. I'm not Catholic but I've never seen anyone suggest it's undue weight or a violation of NPOV to include an image of a downtown historical and architectural landmark but not other less significant buildings. Start a discussion on the talk, WP:Cities, or NPOV noticeboard. Reywas92^Talk 15:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Whatever religion you or I follow or don't follow is irrelevant to anything. Philadelphia is a large and diverse city, and even 1% = 16,000 followers, unlike s town with a total population itself of 16,000. Get consensus to add your preferred image then, you know the rules. And if you get consensus to add one religion or demoninational representation in isolation, then I have no problem with it. What I don't understand is your opposition to a relatively compact gallery of diverse religious abodes. The Architecture section actually has a larger gallery when you consider the total sizing of the gallery images there. So what's wrong with having a smaller gallery in the Religion section? You mentioned the LDS temple, which I think is actually remarkably large and with an ornate exterior at least. It must be one the largest such temples on the U.S. East Coast or even anywhere outside Utah and its neighboring states. Castncoot (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hotel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gymnasium.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Of your last 500 edits, 340 of them have the edit summary "clar". It's totally meaningless when you use it for everything. How am I supposed to tell what you did in your 13 edits to Train station when 10 of them just say "clar" and one had no edit summary at all??? Show some respect for your fellow editors and use actual edit summaries. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you Trains, I found it kinda funny and annoying that "Clar" is used for a ton of edits. The NYC Wiki page is full of issues and "Clar" won't describe it. Castn, you are a funny silly goose! Señor Jakob (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Why was this edit necessary? All it does is shift the source for 2020 in the infobox to its own line, needlessly expanding the size of the infobox. Alansohn (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It’s both a functionality and style issue, Alansohn. 2020’s figures, being the most pertinent for most people’s needs, are the ones that need to be most immediately conspicuous and available to the reader’s eyes and fingertips, and which I believe should stand out readily rather than being grouped with 2000’s and 2010’s figures. On the other hand, I have the same question for you about retaining the excess references on the 2010 figures in the demographic tables as well as in the lede. In my humble opinion, it’s time to pull back on the prominence of 2010’s and 2000’s citations, as well as completely retire mentions of 1990’s figures in the lead section. Castncoot (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philadelphia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rhode Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jersey Shore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ocean Grove.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assimilation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Please note discussions on talk page regarding name change. Famartin (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I will confess that I am not an expert in any way in image sizing. But Help:Pictures serves as a useful guide that may help. My understanding is that we should be letting Wikipedia handle image sizing in conjunction with the image size settings chosen by individual readers. It appears that different readers will see images render differently depending on their device, browser and their various settings. While we may try to fiddle with images to make them look "right" on our screens, we may only end up fixing the view for ourselves while making it different or worse for others. My bottom line is that we should probably avoid playing with image sizes. Alansohn (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point. What I will say though to my understanding per MOS is that on mobile, they should take up no more than 50% of the width even after any margin manipulation. That's a fair standard, I think. Beyond that, it's simply aesthetic preference, where of course there's never a correct answer.

By the way, what is your plan for New Jersey municipalities in terms of detailed demographics for the 2020 census? You did an incredible job with 2000 and 2010. Is 2020 not formulable in a similar manner? Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Largely agreed about images. In terms of detailed 2020 data, I've been trying to figure out how to use the API to extract data, so that it can be formatted similar to the way that was done statewide in 2010. This has turned out to be much harder than anyone realized. Still working on it.

Got it, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Met Gala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Castncoot, I reverted your edits to the above article as you didn't add a source. Feel free to add it again once you have a reliable Source. Nobody (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Castncoot If you want to add the content, then you should have a source. It's on you to add/find a source if you want the content to stay in the article. Without a source it doesn't matter if it was a 'notable factual event'. Nobody (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the source! Castncoot (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of gay villages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rochester.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

While part of me appreciates seeing them splashed all over the place, another part hopes that its intended to spur someone to go out and take a better photo of something a little more "townly" (such as a municipal building)... I'm not completely comfortable with my road photos in so many main infoboxes. While I definitely like them on municipal articles, I prefer they stay in their relevant section (the transport section). Just a comment I'd pass along. Famartin (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that your work is so far superior to others' that I don't have much of a choice. A lot of the other stuff that's out there is pure and simple junk. Also, a lot of the historical stuff belongs in history, and therefore find themselves high up in the article anyway. Likewise, government buildings can go under government. Your pics on the other hand often afford so much on the context front that they give the reader an immediate orientation as to what a municipality physically looks like in its layout. The other stuff is secondary and can then follow. So until people start matching your work in overall superiority, there doesn't seem much choice here. Best, Castncoot (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

In this edit to the article for Ocean County, New Jersey, you stated that the county had "... a 2022 United States census-estimated population of 655,735, its highest ever...", comparing the 2022 estimate to the number from the 2020 United States Census. The decennial census -- in 2020, 2010, 2000, etc. -- is intended to be an enumeration, and the count stands once its final. The data from the census for decades past won't change. But the numbers for the Population Estimates Program, which is done in the years between decennial censuses, is not stable.

The number you cited of 655,735 for 2022 is an estimate, and no more than that. You can see the source for that number at the 2022 NJ county estimate listing, where Ocean County had an estimate of 655,735 for 2022 and 649,741 for 2021. But if you look at the file for the 2021 NJ county estimate listing, the Census Bureau said that the county had a population of 648,998 in 2021. Even the Census Bureau doesn't stick to its estimates, and the 2023 numbers will show a different estimate for 2022, a number that will change every year for the remainder of the decade.

Use the 2020 numbers as official numbers, but be very careful in attributing to the estimates any more meaning than that. Alansohn (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to respectfully disagree here. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Yes, estimates are dynamic and will be revised and updated, and when they are, we respond in kind dynamically as well. Taken in the extreme, when it's 2028 or 2029, I hope you won't be insisting on not giving updated importance to those figures, rather than perseverating on 2020's numbers. The only relevant point here is that these are indeed official U.S. Census estimates at the respective times when they are published. Castncoot (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The only relevant point here is that there was a 2020 United States census and that the numbers for 2021 through 2029 are merely estimates, which fluctuate -- often wildly -- from year to year even for the same data year. You can say with certitude that the 2020 data for Ocean County was "the highest recorded in any decennial count" and this number won't change, but the numbers for 2022 will change. Census estimates should be listed, and every single article for a New Jersey municipality has been updated already to include the data with a reference, but making comparisons between decennial data and numbers from the Population Estimates Program needs to be done carefully and with a strong measure of caution and a clear degree of explanation. Looking ahead to 2028 or 2029, I hope you won't insist on micromanaging the pixel sizing of images in infoboxes any more. Alansohn (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither of us is going to convince the other of our perspective here Alansohn, because each of us clearly understands and yet doesn't share the other's perspective with regards to the utility and relevance of frequently updated and sourced official U.S. Census estimates. So how about searching for middle ground in the approach? My thought would be not to mention Census estimates in the lede through 2024, but then from 2025 onward through and including 2029, to mention the 2025 Census estimate as the only interdecennial Census estimate in the lede. Castncoot (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The estimates will be included in the settlement and historical population infoboxes, so the data is present in the article. By 2025, enough time has passed to make the estimate far more meaningful to discuss in the lead. I'll set a reminder for around May 2026, when the 2025 estimates are available. Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monroe_Township,_Middlesex_County,_New_Jersey&diff=prev&oldid=1158209996 This edit] added detail regarding the high school cricket team into the Demographics section. I understand what you were trying to do, but I think that the details about the high school team and other cricket activity in the township better fit in a Sports section. Does this make sense? Alansohn (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it does make sense. Since I couldn't find a sports section, I placed it in demographics. But feel free to place it elsewhere. Castncoot (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paulsboro, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul House.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Koreans in New York City, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, please explain why you reverted some of my edits at the New York City article, thanks. Eyei04 (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Random edits, no explanation, undue exhibition of one professional team, please don't do these things, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Overseas_Chinese into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC) Thanks. Castncoot (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not the photo you need to credit (that's provided via the photo's page), but rather the text of the caption that you copied between articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Thanks. Castncoot (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit reinserted an image about the Stonewall Inn / Riots, which includes three references. The latest incarnation of the article for New York City includes 13 (by my count) separate references related to the Stonewall Inn / Riots / Monument.

• There are three in the lead "The Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, part of the Stonewall National Monument, is considered the historic epicenter of LGBTQ+ culture[50] and the birthplace of the modern gay rights movement.[51][52]"
• Three more in the image caption "Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, a designated U.S. National Historic Landmark and National Monument, was the site of the June 1969 Stonewall riots and the cradle of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.[131][132][133]"
• The paragraph about the incident includes seven additional references "The Stonewall riots were a series of spontaneous, violent protests by members of the gay community against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Lower Manhattan.[134] They are widely considered to be the single most important event leading to the gay liberation movement[131][135][136][137] and the modern fight for LGBT rights.[138][139] Wayne R. Dynes, author of the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, wrote that drag queens were the only "transgender folks around" during the June 1969 Stonewall riots. The transgender community in New York City played a significant role in fighting for LGBT equality during the period of the Stonewall riots and thereafter.[140]"

In an article of this size and scope and given all of the places where it appears, it's hard to tell if these are 13 separate references or if some are duplicates. As this has been a strong interest of yours regarding this topic, can I suggest that you review the sources, combine exact duplicates and reduce the number of sources to address the overkill. I'd be happy to do that, but I hope that we can minimize any back and forth in edit summaries needed to reach a consensus. May I also question why references are needed at all in images if the underlying facts are sourced in the article? Alansohn (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh please, feel free to edit those as you see fit. I believe that the reason that as many references found their way as they did into the pertinent articles and image captions in years past was driven by a demand by many editors in the space to augment the base of sources to avoid removal of content based upon a lack of supporting information, or alternatively as an ultimatum for the content to be allowed to stay up. This has resulted in the overkill situation you are referring to with respect to these references, and unsurprisingly (inadvertenty) duplicated and otherwise repeated refs unnecessarily within the space. Over the years however, perspectives on the subject have changed dramatically, and I believe that the level of defensiveness needed to include salient content has dropped very significantly in tandem. So please have a go at it, thank you. Castncoot (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I honor you for working to resolve the dispute pending on the New York City article talk page. This type of dispute resolution is not too common anymore on Wikipedia. Kudos! TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, TheLionHasSeen! Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit removed a source with the edit summary "That source is comparing a city to sovereign countries; let's stick to a more apples-to-apples comparison for now." As a city-state roughly comparable to New York City in area and population, why shouldn't a comparison to Singapore be used? Alansohn (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Great question, I think Singapore and Hong Kong are reasonable to compare it to, it was more Monaco that I had an issue with, as Monte Carlo doesn't constitute the majority of Monaco. But then moving beyond that, I also thought it would be better to parse out separately commercial retail rents from residential apartment rents and compare alike entities rather than conflating them. Castncoot (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jenifer Rajkumar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craftwork.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)