User talk:Famartin

Sleet

Why did you revert my edit? I did specify a source in the edit summary. Can you find a source stating that sleet means ice pellets?-- 3knolls (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read WP:ROLLBACKUSE.--3knolls (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source

You may be interested in: Gannett, Henry (January 28, 1895). "A Geographic Dictionary of New Jersey". U.S. Government Printing Office.Djflem (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loudoun County Parkway

I'm not sure if the 2016 route log is accurate in this case. On pages 16-17, log lists SR 607 as the parkway from Evergreen Ridge Road to SR 7 and then Presidential Drive from SR 7 to George Washington Boulevard. However, if you look at satellite imagery Presidential Drive doesn't intersect SR 7 – perhaps it used to? And the parkway now extends southward from Evergreen Ridge Road to Ox Run Road (where it meets SR 606) and there are SR 607 shields at that intersection. — C16SH (speak up) 23:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt Prediential Drive did. The 2018 route log has no change from the 2016 one, so obviously it hasn't been updated with the parkway completion yet. All that having been said, I would hesitate to use the redirect. The main SR 607 log which the link currently directs people to has a direct link to the parkway in the text, so I don't think its necessary to redirect until we have certainty regarding Presidential Drive's designation. Famartin (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback usage

Hello Famartin, I'm deeply concerned about your usage of the Rollback tool. You restored primary sourced and very poorly formatted content at Lake Shawnee (New Jersey), and the fact that people have queried about your rollback usage on your talk page recently. I note that you didn't respond in the least. Not responding to queries about tool usage is a major red flag. Rollback is for clear and obvious vandalism. Looking at your contribs carefully, it looks like there's other signs of problems, as well. Please consider your usage of this tool VERY carefully before continuing to use it further and also please note that any administrator can remove this tool at any time if problems continue. Thank you for your time, Waggie (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to that set of rollbacks that included Lake Shawnee, it seemed to me that the individual had recently requested deletion of a bunch of other articles because his submission of Lake Fred was being denied - i.e. a retaliation. That suggested to me it was a troll-like action, thus the rollback seemed appropriate. Famartin (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A user PRODded a bunch of stuff that had crap/almost no sourcing, and you declined all the PRODs, then they made an effort to try and remove promo/primary source content and you thought they were trolling? Retaliation for their decline or not, part of the responsibility that comes with the Rollback tool is to make sure that each edit you rollback isn't a net improvement for the encyclopedia. "seemed troll-like" doesn't matter if it's a net improvement for the project. Waggie (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you whining so much? I didn't change YOUR edits. He's a new user, and they are always suspect to me considering the amount of vandalism here. I've been here a long time, far longer than you even, it seems. Cut me some slack for crying out loud. Famartin (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered legitimate constructive criticism regarding tool usage over a period of time (not just the edits to Shawnee Lake), if you see it as "whining" that only deepens my concern. As it seems like my concerns are unwelcome here, I will not trouble you further here and any future concerns will be directed differently. I am sorry it doesn't seem like we could come to some sort of understanding. Best wishes to you, Waggie (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider being called a "major red flag" as "constructive criticism". So your initial post pretty much caused your failure here. I DO see your point, but you are not exactly good at talking to people. If you wanted to have constructive dialogue, perhaps you should've simply asked for an explanation rather than jumping to insults. Famartin (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I asked for an explanation and did not receive a satisfactory response ("...that suggested to me it was a troll-like action", which is not an acceptable reason per WP:ROLLBACKUSE to revert a edit that was a clear net positive), and it is a major red flag to not respond to queries regarding tool usage. If you're not prepared to do so, regardless of how you view the query, then that is troubling. At least you responded to me, you did not give 3knolls any response when they queried you regarding rollback use last month. As I said, if my concerns are not welcome here, then I will direct them elsewhere in future, as I'm not interested in dickering about who's been on the project longer, or whether I'm insulting you by pointing out simple facts and concerns. If you made a mistake that's fine, just admit it, learn from it, and move on and we'll all get on with our lives. Waggie (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you DID NOT ask for an explanation. Do I really need to quote you? Its right there, above. I'll condense it for you: "Your editing behavior is bad. You should stop. An admin can make you stop if need be. So listen to me." I'm starting to find this ridiculous. Famartin (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I did not directly ask for an explanation, my mistake. As for this being ridiculous, I agree. I have alerted you to the issues I am concerned about. It's your choice what to do next. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fleetwood Village, New Jersey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fleetwood Village, New Jersey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleetwood Village, New Jersey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Reywas92^Talk 08:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sands Point, New Jersey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sands Point, New Jersey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sands Point, New Jersey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ardmore Estates, New Jersey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ardmore Estates, New Jersey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ardmore Estates, New Jersey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Comical Corner, New Jersey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comical Corner, New Jersey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comical Corner, New Jersey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bossert Estates, New Jersey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bossert Estates, New Jersey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bossert Estates, New Jersey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Princeton Estates, New Jersey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Princeton Estates, New Jersey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princeton Estates, New Jersey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 17:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of South Brunswick Terrace, New Jersey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article South Brunswick Terrace, New Jersey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Brunswick Terrace, New Jersey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 17:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Orchard Estates, New Jersey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Orchard Estates, New Jersey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchard Estates, New Jersey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hillsdale, New Jersey (disambiguation)

The article Hillsdale, New Jersey (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:TWODABS, since there are only two mentions and there is a clear primary topic, this is better handled with hatnotes.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Holland, New Jersey (disambiguation)

The article Holland, New Jersey (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:TWODABS, this is better handled with hatnotes.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstatement of external link

Hi there. Can you explain why you reinstated an external link with this edit when that link contains zero information that isn't already in the article? Links need to add something about the article subject that isn't already in the article, or provide some unique resource on that subject, per WP:EL. Just having a link that covers the same material is not sufficient, and the fact the link covers other roads, which are also covered fully on Wikipedia, is not sufficient. Canterbury Tail talk 12:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally you used the Rollback tool to revert an edit you didn't like, which is something you've been clearly warned about previously. Rollback is only to be used for obvious vandalism. Per WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'm going to remove it again due to there being nothing on that link that is not in the article. Canterbury Tail talk 13:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pine Barrens (New Jersey), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harriman State Park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Donovans Corner, Virginia and other articles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the following articles to which you have significantly contributed, are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted:

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cobbs Corner, Virginia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cedar Green, Virginia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cedar Green, Virginia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedar Green, Virginia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shantytown, Nevada for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shantytown, Nevada is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shantytown, Nevada until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 18:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image captions

Thanks for taking pictures of Pennsylvania roads! Just some advice I wanted to give you when you add photos to the articles, try to make the captions as succinct as possible by mentioning the road, direction, location, and (where applicable) any nearby intersecting road rather than just mentioning the road and direction. Dough4872 03:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

much of the time you’ll tweak them anyway, so I’m just going for very basic and letting u add the details you want. Seems pointless for me to put in the effort when you’ll just change stuff anyway. Famartin (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow along with the changes I made you can do it yourself. All it is is basically “Route X direction [past intersecting road] in municipality”. Dough4872 03:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see, then I’d have to research the municipalities etc, which isn’t something I intend to do til my winter road-trip break. So, have at it Famartin (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Twin Bridges, Nevada

The article Twin Bridges, Nevada has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established with substantive sources, a couple newspapers.com hits for the site of bridges rather than a notable community

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 03:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploaded on Capital Health Regional Medical Center

Hey Famartin, I was reviewing the page Capital Health Regional Medical Center when I noticed an issue with your uploaded image. The image provided is of Capital Health's Hopewell Medical Center, not their Regional Medical Center location. If you need a picture of the Regional Medical Center, I can get one (I live about 10 minutes from there). I will be removing it momentarily, I just felt it was prudent to notify you.

This Image [here]

The image could be used for Capital Health System or Capital Health Hopewell Medical Center if you want to create one. Etriusus (Talk) 00:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of unsourced material to Hanover Township, New Jersey

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hanover Township, New Jersey, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

go away pest. Famartin (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of unsourced material to U.S. Route 422

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at U.S. Route 422, you may be blocked from editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bug off pest. Your edit was just undone again by someone else. Famartin (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who has promised to quickly source it... Something you refused to do even when given multiple days. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because I knew he'd get to it. He's the master of these articles, not I. I didn't add the information initially, I just fixed your removal of it. Do you not realize that the purpose of removing unsourced material is after its been tagged for a long time, or if its in dispute? Neither was the case with what you removed, you just decided to blank it. Stop being a pest. Famartin (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disputed it... Therefore it was disputed. The requirement to add a reliable inline citation falls on the one who adds or restores the information, whether for the first time or the 100th. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any notation about a dispute, I just saw a citation saying it wasn't cited. Bug off pest. Famartin (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If text is removed it has been disputed/challenged, now you know. You understand that calling me a pest is a WP:PA, right? I don't think I've ever had someone so casually repeatedly attack me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disputed your removal. Suck it up buttercup. Famartin (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You understand that disputing it came with an obligation to source it, right? You can't restore unsourced text without a source, that is disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back behavior

He's clearly WP:HOUNDING you. It's his forte and has done it to various other users on multiple occasions. It is indeed harassment. 222.239.144.142 (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lincoln Park, New Brunswick for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lincoln Park, New Brunswick is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln Park, New Brunswick until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of county routes in Elko County, Nevada

Hello, I'm looking at this diff [1] where it appears that you copied and pasted from [2]. Is there any public statement that Elko County documents are released into the public domain? Rs chen 7754 23:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I’m aware. I didn’t intend it to be published in that form. Can you hide that revision?Famartin (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is possible, but I am concerned that since much of the notes and some of the descriptions columns were left verbatim that it would still be a copyright issue. I am also concerned that it might not survive AFD on notability grounds. --Rs chen 7754 19:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are noted on several mapping sources. Plus, there are quite a few lists of county routes elsewhere. Famartin (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the copyright issue, I have reported it here [3] just to get some additional opinions from admins who regularly work the field. That doesn't necessarily mean the article will be deleted. --Rs chen 7754 01:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, not even giving me a chance to rewrite it first? Can't imagine why my time on Wikipedia continues to shorten with each passing day... Famartin (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do have that ability here. --Rs chen 7754 03:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, that's the talk page. Famartin (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the page location that the copyvio template suggests, and it is linked from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 February 14 so it is likely to be found. Alternatively you could comment at the Copyright problems page. --Rs chen 7754 04:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker alert. Rschen I do understand and appreciate the effort to keep Wikipedia in a good, quality and stable state, and especially in compliance with copyright laws. I respect you both and no dings are intended towards either of you. As someone who knows enough about copyright law to be dangerous, I plan to follow this case and hope to learn from it. I agree with asking the question on the copyright forum, but I honestly don't see the need to blank the article page, or push any additional big red panic buttons, unless and until the experts there say otherwise. My thoughts are similar to the ones Scott expressed there, even if this is determined to be a copyright violation, it is definitely in the gray area between copying basic facts and material containing original thought. Any tax paying resident of Elko County could march into the county courthouse and demand to see this exact information, and the county would be obligated to provide it. It's certainly not as egregious, or placing Wikipedia in the same legal jeopardy, as copying paragraphs of text from Disney's latest promotional blitz. Dave (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the phrase "according to"

I just modified your recent edit in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania by removing the words "According to" in the text that you recently added which reads, "according to the PennDOT, as of 2016 ..." This style of wording is not normally needed on Wikipedia since the citation indicates the source of the information, which in this case is an official source. Please stop adding the phrase "according to" your edits. You should consider removing it in your previous edits as time permits. Thanks FFM784 (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your problematic edits and user page criticisms

In fairness, since we're handling this online and not in personal communication, I'm going to try to assume that you're a reasonable and constructive person who wants the best and is not engaged in misguided and frivolously sabotaging edits. That said, your edits and comments alone are misguided and frivolously sabotaging--and not consistent with any policy, so let's address them:

1. On upright imaging (from MOS:IMGSIZE): "Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified. This ignores the user's base width setting, so upright=scaling factor is preferred whenever possible." Preferred whenever possible.

2. Sizing of images up to 1.3 (and sometimes beyond) is discretionary based on the page. It's wrong for you to say I always use 1.1. I have used both larger and smaller (under 1) when appropriate. But if 1.1 works (and it did and does in these cases), then that's what should be used. If you feel it was not an appropriate sizing, then you need to articulate specifically why, not just hammer home your (inaccurate) view that images should never be upright or enhanced beyond 1. That's not the letter or spirit of the policy.

3. The only policy issue here is your apparent assumption that every community and town warrants inclusion of fairly unremarkable photos of roads and highways. When realistically only one or two images can fit on many of these pages, that often (and maybe even usually) is not the case.

4. Your interaction needs to be more constructive. Comments you make like "cease and desist" and "will be rolled back" are not the way to approach me or other editors--ever, and especially when you are forcing positions not supported by any policy. Keystone18 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responses below:

1 - NO, you don't get the "whenever possible". It doens't mean "put it everywhere." It means, if YOU HAVE TO, for A GOOD REASON.

"Preferred whenever possible" means use it unless there is some compelling reason not to--and there rarely is.

2 - It doesn't matter anyway whatever size you use (I've seen different ones you've used, I was just giving an example), its NOT NECESSARY.

I suppose we're saying the same thing. 1 appears standard (and probably works for the pages you and I have interacted on), but they can be expanded or reduced based on their visual impact on the page as a whole.

3 - Well, when YOU'VE actually been to each town etc, then we can discuss. As it happens, MOST of these articles were almost entirely absent of imagery.

Available images should probably be addressed on each page, but I think you may be right. If you weren't, I would have removed the images, and I did not for this reason.

4 - My response to you has been based on your apparent disregard, as pointed out by Magnolia, that you've repeatedly ignored users who've previously told you not to add upright where its not needed, which is most places.

Not true--and this is a glaring example. I never used upright imaging myself until another editor interacted with me about it--and he or she was right. I adjusted my approach on it accordingly.

5 - And, if you want to talk about a policy you seem to have, its an inherent love of and promotion of the Lehigh Valley, even mentioning it in places where its completely irrelevant. Like Lower Merion Township. Plus, adding unimportant statistics about the metro to many different articles where they were not necessary. OK, we get it, you're a fan of the Lehigh Valley. I tolerated that even though it was obvious and a bit ridiculous. But this image thing, which many others have mentioned apparently, is where I'm finally gonna push back. Famartin (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at Lower Merion Township. Not immediately aware of what you're referring to, but if it is unnecessarily referenced, I'll remove it. Keystone18 (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How should I respond to this edit revert on Allentown, Pennsylvania article? It was denoted as vandalism, yet prior edit summaries state otherwise. Should they be brought to the noticeboard? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess revert it. Were these left-aligned photos in the past? My thought is maybe to not force the issue in articles that you don't edit much unless its really a problem (Keystone18 has a very special relationship with Lehigh Valley articles and Allentown in particular). Famartin (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could both of these editors be working together offsite? Their actions seem to be the same verbatim, especially with disregard to other editors. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to 47thVols whatever... they might be now. At one point a while back I unsized photos on the transport section and 47thVols actually thanked me (only to have Keystone18 revert it). So, at that point, they probably weren't. But as the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so its possible they might be working together now. Also possible that Keystone18 just saw something 47thVols was doing that was annoying to others and decided to emulate it. Famartin (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to avoid involving myself in your discussions, but I feel that I have no other choice but to respond at this juncture because the assumptions made about me in your posts above are untrue. The edits that I have been making have been done in good faith and have, in no way, been undertaken online or "offsite" with @Keystone18:, as you incorrectly speculate above, @TheLionHasSeen:.
Whether or not you have intended to do so, your continued discussions about me and your repeated incorrect speculation about my motives has reached the point where it feels defamatory. Several of your posts about me (previously and above) appear to violate Wikipedia's No personal attacks and Canvassing policies, and may, unfortunately, have veered in the direction of Campaigning on TheLionHasSeen's user talk page with @Famartin:'s advice, "You’re basicly gonna have to go on an edit war with him and take it to the MOS talk page before he stops." That phrasing, combined with "The enemy of my enemy" reference above, seems to contradict Wikipedia's standards of "Assume Good Faith" and Civility.
We are not "enemies"; we are editors who sometimes will agree and sometimes will not. So, I am writing to you both now to respectfully ask that you remove the original "Question" post above and each of its subsequent response posts from Famartin's user page, that you both take a step back and consider your own behaviors toward me and toward other Wikipedians, and that you both refrain from personalizing commentaries about your fellow editors moving forward. I am respectfully asking you to do this before this situation deteriorates further. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Kind Regards, 47thPennVols (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly given up on this place, so we hopefully won't be interacting in the future. Hard-headed people bent on the letter of the rules rather than the spirit and who obviously have personal missions which don't respect other people's work, like you @47thPennVols: and @Keystone18:, have helped me to realize Wikipedia no longer deserves my time and attention like it received in the past. So, I'll kindly ask you to stay off my talk page from this point forward. In a way you should be happy... I've given up trying to restrain you two and you're free to run amuck without me bothering you. Famartin (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans," I have respectfully asked you to just remove this entire question section from your talk page because I honestly am trying to help you. I don't want to see you face another block or, worse, a ban because you have done a lot of good work for Wikipedia. But, instead of just removing the defamatory content as I asked, you have chosen to respond to my request with another personal attack on my character. So I am now asking you again, respectfully. Please remove the original "Question" post and its follow-up responses. Removing all of this unnecessarily negative content will solve this particular problem and will be consistent with Wikipedia's "No personal attacks policy" that states that "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor." Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Kind Regards, 47thPennVols (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My lack of commentary, and lack of engagement, has showed that I bow'd out of the conversation; why are you coming back two days later to start a fire for something we—Famartin and I—both left alone in good faith? This conversation could be seen as edgy and somewhat inappropriate at best to any administrator, and the responses two days later by you, in addition to shoving policy down two expereinced editors' throats, is quite baffling when we have both left the matter alone. If we cull this, it would just make Martin and I look bad, as if we were in the wrong; we assumed in good faith initially, as found on Keystone18's user talk; it had to lead to alternative measures to get the point across, and the same was about to happen here by me requesting a sockpuppet investigation—again, in good faith. If anything, escalating this wouldn't go well, not for us, but for you by your overly-aggressive responses and demands. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, it is also quite hilarious how you bring up Famartin's block from 2014 - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me leave it at this; since this is their talk page, they can leave this up and you might consider this a general disparity; they can remove this at your own request—not demand; they can ignore this conversation, as I have two days ago, before you ignited a fire where I—in good faith—was intending to do a sockpuppet investigation in good faith by the similarity of articles being edited, and alleged behavioral stances; or, you can escalate this yourself in your own displeasure. We do not have a dog in this fight which we did not start. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Fall 2023

Volume 10, Issue 1 • Fall 2023 • About the Newsletter

Features

• A New Future for Road Articles Online

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi 1979 → on 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Schneider Crossroads, Virginia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Schneider Crossroads, Virginia, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schneider Crossroads, Virginia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Strathmeade Springs, Virginia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Strathmeade Springs, Virginia, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strathmeade Springs, Virginia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bowman's Hill Tower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baldpate Mountain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tracy, New Jersey

The article Tracy, New Jersey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of Tracy being a current community. At best, it used to be a train station.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]