Archives

FEB2005-JUL2006 AUG2006-

I'll be away for the next few days (starting 29 August 2006)...might get in to see how things are going, might not. —ExplorerCDT 13:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will archive complete or inactive discussions from this page once each month. Active discussions begun in one month, but completed later will be archived in the later month. —ExplorerCDT 16:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, welcome aboard to WP:NJ! Feel free to use the group to help with any New Jersey-related goals you may have in filling in the gaps and expanding the details for the state. I saw that you've been adding notables for Sussex County. My only question is if it's justified to do this on a countywide basis, and not at each of the individual municipalities. If it should be done at the county level, presumably it should be done only for the most notable individuals. Have you seen this done elsewhere? Alansohn 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason i chose to do it on the county level rather than the municipalities is that as you may know, new jersey's municipal boundaries have a history all their own...for instance, if someone were say born in 1753 in Newton, NJ (That is Newton Township) when Sussex County was formed, they could be born in practically two-thirds the current county...which would be modern day, Andover borough, Andover Township, Branchville Twp, Byram Twp, Frankford Twp, Franklin Twp, Fredon Twp, Green Twp, Hampton Twp, Hardyston Twp, Hopatcong Borough, Lafayette Twp, Montague Twp, Newton town, Ogdensburg borough, Sparta Twp, Sussex Borough, and Wantage Township. And the municipal lines are redrawn every few years (the last that i know was in 1996). Setting it up by municipality could be deceiving. I don't know about putting such lists on county sites, but practically every university has a list of notable (and some not-so-notable) alumni. I used that as an example. I think as far as municipalities go, there should be lists of notable people for major cities and towns, but for each and every one of New Jersey's 566 municipalities...it could, given the historical oscillations of boundaries, be confusing and demand too much research. —ExplorerCDT 03:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction, Montague Township wasn't part of Newton Township (1751-1864), it was split off from Walpack Township (which had the other 1/3 of the present-day area of Sussex County in 1753) in 1759. Sandyston was split off in 1762, and Pahaquarry in Warren County in 1824. —ExplorerCDT 03:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aristocrats alphabetise their names not by the "de" or "von," but by the thing they are of...in this case, Baron de Gunzburg is alphabetized under Gunzburg. Only the lower classes emphasise the preposition in the title. —ExplorerCDT 04:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not worth the energy to me at present ot argue about this one. I am most familiar with both European custom and American custom and I can tell you for a fact that it is most often alphabetized by the "de" in this country where titles have little meaning. Check the telephone book for a clear example where even case and spaces are often ignored. Most English speaking persons will look for it under "de" Not "G". Wikipedia's practice is to follow "common" usage. So for a book on peerage you would be correct, but not here. Doc ♬ talk 14:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Phone books are so lower-class. I encourage you, in common usage (which does not have to be mutually exclusive from Wikipedia's policy on accuracy) to look at the Social Register as a greater indicator of "usage" in this regard. —ExplorerCDT 14:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position. Also understand that it is not the social registry that guides policy here on Wikipedia, so unless you are just looking to toot your horn and be out of step with consensus here, I suggest that you follow the norm for the turf you're on. Doc ♬ talk 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but the social register is a more appropriate, and I would think more substantive guide than say your local yellow pages. Especially with regard to social norms. The problem is that there are no established norms on this regard, and even if a norm is popular, it does not make it correct. Last I checked, accuracy seems to be more important around here. Just because some social climbing arriviste emphasises the "de" in their name to toot their horn by saying "hey, my name sounds aristocratic", does not mean that they should be incorrect by thinking their last name starts with "d." Beaumarchais was one of those social climbing arrivistes, adopting and emphasising their title and we still find him under "B." Do not presume that American usage is the only English usage. Further, I find your accusational tone with regard to "tooting my own horn" to be indicative of an unfortunate pattern of incorrect arrogant presumptions on your part. —ExplorerCDT 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You prove my point by the suggestion you made: "*People with multiple-word last names: sorting is done on the entire last name as usually used in English, in normal order and not (for example) according to the Dutch system that puts some words like "van", "vanden", etc... after the rest of the last name. Example: [[Categorie:Nederlands voetballer|Basten van Marco]]; [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Basten, Marco van]] → [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Van Basten, Marco]]
" Thus "de Gunzburg" should be alphabetized by the letter "D". Thanks for giving me the direct citation. Doc ♬ talk 14:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to see that Beethoven is the exception NOT the rule. Niki de Gunzburg is not an exception but follows the rule. Doc ♬ talk 15:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. See the talk page at the Gunzburg article. Every other European noble follows the rule, from Hindenburg to Beaumarchais (who wasn't really noble, he just married into it) being alphabetized under H and B respectively, and not by "von" or "de"...why do you refuse to let Gunzburg be alphabetized correctly? You are being so OBTUSE it is aggrevating, and you are bordering on vandalism because of your obtuseness. —ExplorerCDT 15:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the mirror, you are doing everthing that you accuse me of. The issue here is the Wikipedia standard and you are trying to follow what is given as only an "exception" not the standard. I've listed this for RfC as you are too intent to see what is here. Doc ♬ talk 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've recommended you for Administrator inventervention into vandalism...but in the end, I'll win. The guidelines I've cited show that you are incorrect. Please provide me the link for the RfC—ExplorerCDT 16:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment on ElKevbo's page about the issue of sourcing the same thing over and over. Take a look at this diff here [1] (ignoring the edits you made in between my edits). Basically, to sum it up, set a name for the first instance for the source (in this case I named it "years" from Throughout the Years). <ref name="years"> then the whole citation with the /ref at the end. Then for each instance that follows, just put <ref name="years" /> (for some reason there needs to be the / at the end of it, not sure what its purpose is, but...that's what works. I'll try to update a few more like that but I'm on a wiki-slowdown for awhile as I'm in training at my college and have only a few hours to spare throughout the day/night. Hope that helps, Metros232 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, maybe when I'm done I'll try to learn the method and commit it to memory. But if you have the spare time, please save me! :P —ExplorerCDT 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'll put my hand to some tonight. Question, I noticed there's been some edits going on with the alma mater and the feminist perspective, now that the alma mater is in WikiSource, do you think it'd be fine to take the alma mater out? It's just going to get some more edits like that, it's already in WikiSource, and it'll save room (well, in terms of kb, maybe like .5 at most, but it's long so takes up a lot of physical space). Any thoughts on that? Metros232 02:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer to keep the alma mater up there. It is after all, a tradition. —ExplorerCDT 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... referred to the definition of santorum (little s) created by Dan Savage, which you can [Santorum_controversy#Public_reaction_and_criticism|find here]]. It was most definitely vandalism and you were right to revert it. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 07:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the big rewrite - especially getting rid of the neologisms listcruft as I mentioned on the talk page awhile back. I think all the pieces are there, they just need some, well, editing. I am about to move cities so I don't have a huge amount of time the next week or so, but if you take the task I'll help you where I can. Sirmob 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm in the process of moving myself. Perhaps, we might have to hold this off for a week or two longer. —ExplorerCDT 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've created a page User:Simrob/Princeton to explore changes. I think my plan is to print it out and do some paper editing... Sirmob 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought, frankly, that inserting any single source of ranking invites insertions of other rankings, and soon you have a repetitive series of ranks which add up to ... nothing. But I suppose there are a variety of approaches. We can see what works best. - Nunh-huh 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of those rankings are meaningless anyway, and only designed a.) to sell magazines (namely U.S. News & World Report, a bad excuse for imitating Time Magazine or Newsweek), and b.) for college administrators to market their colleges. It's a symbiotic relationship. Since intellectualism is something rarely quantifiable, the methods by which statisticians derive such rankings is immediately suspect...even before getting to their motives. —ExplorerCDT 01:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (Retrieved from "User_talk:Nunh-huh")

Exactly. Which is why avoiding these pseudostatistical ratings makes articles sound less like admissions brochures... - Nunh-huh 01:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I requested and received full protection on the Rutgers University article because of the recent edit warring regarding the alma mater. Please bring discussion to the talk page of the article at Talk:Rutgers University. The protecting admin said:

Protected Rutgers University: Users engaging in edit warring. And everyone, please don't call everything "vandalism". Voice of All.

So please take this to the talk page and hopefully both sides can have a positive discussion. Thanks, Metros232 23:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 24 hours for incivility on my talk page. You know the drill if you want to ask to be unblocked. Metamagician3000 09:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not in keeping with blocking policy to block someone when they point out you're wrong. Don't worry, Meta, you're dead wrong, and you're only compounding what will end up happening to you in the end. There's no talking sense with people like you. Eventually, and soon, you'll probably be banned for such nonsense. —ExplorerCDT 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• P.S. There will be no apology, because I don't apologise to people who are blatantly in the wrong and unabashedly oblivious to their wrongness. —ExplorerCDT 15:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you - the comment on User talk:Metamagician3000 was inappropriate, but not worthy of a 24 hour block by the person directly involved. violet/riga (t) 15:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two online catalogs that I find useful for classification and nomenclature issues. The New York Public Library "CATNYP" catalog is at http://catnyp.nypl.org/ & the Library of Congress catalog is at http://catalog.loc.gov/ - Nunh-huh 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much. It will be a considerable help. —ExplorerCDT 21:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I hope they're useful, though of course, sometimes they're not :(. -Nunh-huh 21:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty ridiculous to me. I'll run it by User:Dpbsmith, who's the closest there is to a guru on higher ed topics on Wikipedia. JDoorjam Talk 02:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the heads up on the Afd for New Ivies. Cornell Rockey 19:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When unprotected, update to 2005 endowment number, $496,292,000 [2]

Hello ExplorerCDT. This user conduct RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/D C McJonathan did not meet the threshold for 2 users certifying an attempt to resolve the dispute in 48 hours, and has been deleted. Thanks. -- Samir धर्म 00:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Thieme: Received your message--I will look at the Paulins Kill page. I was going to add a link to the Theodore Frelinghuysen page. By the way, I am not Nan's husband, but in fact I am her nephew! She is married to my father's brother (my father passed away almost four years ago, by the way). My mother and I were in the area just this past June. Thanks for your message! A.T. Horsfield 07:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad too see most instances of this person's vandalism are being reverted almost immediately, but I think some people are encouraging this individual by saying this person is "clever" or "funny" (and you are not the only one). This vandal is on a tear and although the IP address traces back to Griffith University in Australia (and thus likely a shared termninal or server), the peculiar style of vandalism seems unique to an individual; one that apparently thrives on doing this sort of thing several times a day and getting favorable commentary in response.Rblaster 03:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a lot of shitty vandalism, his I actually liked. Sure, it's not nice to egg him on with compliments, but heck...it's not every day you see vandalism that makes you laugh. —ExplorerCDT 03:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote me: Being new around here, you might want to consider that you aren't too familiar with the policies and guidelines, conventions, etc. to be passing judgment on articles at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. First off, whoever tallies the votes later probably will not take your vote seriously or give it much weight in considering the keep or delete simply because of your novice status. —ExplorerCDT 11:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, hi! And thanks for the welcome. I am indeed somewhat new, recently challenging deletion for the first article I wrote (and won), and became much more knowledgable about things, although admittedly not as knowledgable as you. Regardless, I will ignore your rude dismissal and continue to contribute as I see fit, judging articles in the future as I have done til now: strictly according to WP guidelines. If you see where I may have judged an article incorrectly, please let me know. Otherwise, the way I've read things, newbies are normally ENCOURAGED to get involved, even in AfD discussions. How else will they become something other than a newbie?Guyanakoolaid 09:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point and agree, however. You'll need a bit more experience in editing before some AFD counters will count your votes (far more than contributing to only two articles before jumping into the AFD waters). Forgive me if it may have been rude, but your insertion into the AFD in question, smacked of being ignorant of several policies and guidelines and the applications thereof. —ExplorerCDT 16:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look in a coupla days, ok? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine by me, thanks. —ExplorerCDT 21:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a lot of good work there! Keep it up! Rolando (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Ivies Cornell Rockey 15:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Cornell article's structure better than the Rutgers one. The main thing I think I would change about the Cornell article is moving the "history" section up to right after the introduction. --jacobolus (t) 20:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't personally contributed to the Grease Trucks article, but considering your contributions to the main Rutgers University article I thought you might be interested in this. The page was already deleted on March 4, 2006 for lack of notability:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grease Trucks

It seems that soon after the deletion, on March 10th, this page was recreated (usually this is ground for speedy deletion). I have put a merge tag on the top of the article and think that this should be trimmed and put into a small part of the main Rutgers article. It alone is not notable enough to warrant an article. I'd merge it myself but I haven't been that big of a contributor to the main article so I think someone else might want to do it. Either way, if it isn't merged within a reasonable amount of time I'll be forced to put this up for afd again and considering that it is recreated material and does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability critera it will most likely not succeed.--Jersey Devil 01:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The process wonkism to overturn the AfD decision of Len H. Tower Jr. has been successful, and the new discussion, along with my criticism of the process now being followed, can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard H. Tower Jr. (second nomination). Please note that previous votes/comments are not being taken into account. See you there. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ExplorerCDT: Looked at the Paulins Kill page and your additions are great--you added more information than what I had! However, I noticed something. You included a wonderful postcard of the Paulins Kill from 1905. On it, it says the location is Baleville, NJ. The postcard got the location wrong--the place is Balesville, NJ, with an "s". It could be that Baleville could be correct, and that it was renamed Balesville, but I doubt it. Find out what you can--I am sure it is Balesville and that the postcard got the name wrong. A.T. Horsfield 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Balesville is an older usage, a variation based on the fact that the hamlet was named for both Bale brothers who settled...Peter and Henry. However, modern parlance and common usage is Baleville. —ExplorerCDT 15:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting, I have always known the place to be "Balesville" and nothing else. My aunt has lived in Sussex County all her life and called it "Balesville," in accordance with the older usage. I do not dispute what you say, just sharing what I know about it! --A.T. Horsfield 05:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it seem awkward that all the 500 unniversities in their rankings have a link on their page to that Chinese uni, while there is no link from Princeton to Oxford or Cambridge? I think that this is a kind of self promotion that goes on my nerves esp. snce I don't know how to stop it (how t start a debate on the entire issue of this ranking thing) and I have serious doubts about anything from PRC. I am 100% that they picked the criteria that will suit them and that they even don't follow those criteria.

Your contributions, such as the ol' navy officer are a grace for the Wikipedia crowd. They will always be more informative, if informative means what you think: tons of words and no selection criteria. I consider the other way around, hence I admit my mistake, which was wasting time for an ungrateful community. I will not do it again. Thanks for the enlightment. Keep up the good work!--Luci_Sandor  03:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• When Oxford or Cambridge puts together a ranking system, then they'll be linked from University websites. It's not self-promotion. Tons of universities offer a ranking of their peers in certain subject areas, etc. The SJTU ranking is actually more informative and the criterion (Though heavily math/science oriented and neglecting a bit of the humanities) is rather comprehensive...much more so than the oft-cited, yet statistically-idiotic U.S. News & World Report Rankings which are nothing more than a marketing gimmick to sell magazines. —ExplorerCDT 21:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we seem to have a lot in common, ran across you more than once on here, thought I would say hi!--Caligvla 08:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenia

While you gone, I had to dig back through the history of Harlem Renaissance and revert the article by a year and a half to undo the effects of you copying encarta's article into wikipedia. Since you've openly admitted copying material from other sources into wikipedia in the past, I only hope that you've already learned better since and aren't going to continue the practice. I'm not going to put in the effort to check every single article you've worked on; you can do that for yourself. If there's anything left that violates copyright it's just going to be a ticking bomb to make more mess for editors later. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• this wasn't you? Answer me on a page, not in edit summaries, please. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, this as compared to this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you call it a case of mistaken identity? User accounts on wikipedia are not like lineups, it's your account, not a vague resemblance. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]