User talk:Station1/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Station1. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

My Talk Archives

Archive 1

• Discussions from 2007 through 2010 have been archived here and discussions from 2011 through 2015 have been archived here. Please start new discussions in a new section at the bottom.

The article Gaberlunzie (duo) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

They do not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No objection. I split the article from Gaberlunzie years ago only because the info didn't belong in that article. Station1 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Capital Games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Fe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You were correct regarding our dispute regarding Template:Staten Island. My apology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Gladly accepted. Best wishes. Station1 (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I need help writing my "The Grid District" page. I don't know what exactly is advertisement and I'm not sure about "reliable links" because i felt news articles were. thank you in advance. Oliviag220 (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. Station1 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my palpableonal question (and editing) in the James Baldwin article! It was the first Wikipedia comment of my life and I´m blown away by the fact that there was a reaction to it!! :-)))) Because I´m not English native I wasn´t aware of the obviuos "palpable" and it was the first time I didn´t find a word on google or anywhere else except in this article; However, I must seem like an idiot to you but anyway I´ll say THANK YOU!! for your reply :-) Palpableone (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richmond County Family Court, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richmond County Courthouse. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Teblick. Station1, thanks for creating George Dewey Washington!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. You have made a good start with this article. I had not heard of George Dewey Washington before I reviewed your article, but he sounds quite interesting. Please check your talk page to see a link to some articles that might provide additional information. I don't know whether they will be useful, but it won't hurt to look.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Eddie Blick (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Station1 - thanks for your comments on the "Emily Warren" situation. I've moved "Emily Warren" to "Emily Warren (artist)" and am trying to move "Emily Warren (songwriter)" to "Emily Warren" but am having some difficulty doing so, would you be able to help?

Many thanks, Guyb123321 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I can't, for two reasons. First, an administrator would have to do the page move; non-admins do not have the technical capability in cases like this. Secondly, as the proposer and a participant in the move discussion, respectively, neither you nor I should make such a move; the decision is left to an uninvolved third party, usually an administrator and usually after at least 7 days have passed. Actually, you should really not have moved the artist's page yourself, either. Be patient for a few more days, and someone will come along and take care of both situations. Station1 (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Station1, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Station1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pygmy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not done. Discuss at Talk:Pygmy peoples, please. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, harsh default text added by the CSDH script. Any WP:AGF fault is entirely mine, as I used the script knowing what it what it would produce. This would probably be better as an entry at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I have started a discussion here. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem at all. This was just meant as housekeeping to reverse a redirect that had always pointed to the same article, originally at that title, per WP:PRECISE. But if you think there may be anything at all controversial about it, the current setup works fine. Not worth a discussion IMO. Station1 (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Could your please withdraw your opposition to Talk:Keyboard layout/chart? JCUKEN refers to the Latin-script layout. There was Latinisation in the Soviet Union and JCUKEN was officially Latin. The page intro states "This is a chart of alternative keyboard layouts for typing Latin characters". 77.180.202.125 (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. I did not actually oppose the move. I agree with you that a move is required. The only problem was that there was a link to JCUKEN, which article clearly says it's a Cyrillic keyboard, so I suggested a modification. I now see that there is a JCUKEN (Latin) keyboard, so I just unlinked JCUKEN from the article and moved it. I hope that takes care of the problem. Station1 (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I hope I'm not imposing on you, but I could do with some advice. I'm looking to improve 1.FK Nová Paka and was wondering if you knew of any good sports results/stats sites that could provide me with more info. Thanks in advance. LampGenie01 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Not an imposition at all. I'm happy to help any way I can. I'm afraid sports stats is not my area of expertise, however. You could try looking at similar but more developed articles to see what sources they use (check the categories on the bottom of the article for similar articles.) There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports; you could try asking the question on the talk page there. It looks moderately active, so someone there may have a better answer. Sorry can't be of more help. Station1 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed there's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, which has an even more active talk page. Station1 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Consider this the "D" of BRD: I apologize for not reading the target article Amazon (company) first; I had mistakenly thought that the reason for the move was that "Amazon.com" was no longer accepted as an official company name.

However, there must be some other redirect category we can add. The admittedly vague {{R from alternative name}} is the only one that seems obviously suitable; would you object to that? Do you have any guidance on whether this should be printworthy (probably not) or unprintworthy (maybe)? If the latter, perhaps {{R from other disambiguation}} or {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} would be better. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

No apology necessary. What you did was perfectly reasonable. I agree {{R from alternative name}} would be suitable. My inclination is that it is probably printworthy, because it still is the company's legal name as well as a reasonably common name that some people might look for, rather than "Amazon (company)". In fact, that's why I reverted. But I don't feel especially strongly about it one way or the other. Station1 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey. You moved the page Public Service Staff Relations Board to the above mentioned one. That's all fine and all except for one thing. Instead of Sector it was supposed to be Service. Could you amend as appropriately? Thanks. --110.93.236.75 (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

It says "Sector" on the website you provided. Are you sure it should be "Service"? Station1 (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I just checked again. It is Sector, not Service. --110.93.236.75 (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Station1 (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louis Bennett (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Carmel Cemetery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I assume that you are either going to find a source for that information or remove the dead link template. Right?
Vmavanti (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I assume you're talking about Perdido (song). The source is Basilio Serrano, "Juan Tizol: His talents, his collaborators, his legacy", Centro Journal 18(2): 83–99 (2006). If you prefer to unlink it, rather than leave the dead link template, that's fine. But a source is valid whether it's on line or not. There's a guideline about that somewhere. Station1 (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• See also Talk:HAVE DRILL. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks. Station1 (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, please don't move any NRHP-listed or other courthouses on the issue of (City, State) vs. (State) disambiguation; please consider these disputed by me (and I think others); it should require a wider consensus. There are definitely two sides. There has been a de facto peace with respect to these, that neither side is making moves, pending some super-big wonderful RFC or other consensus-creating process, which might or might not ever happen. I think you are aware of this but I could refresh you about the history.

I noticed a short while ago that you moved one courthouse page but that it was a page I myself had moved about a year or two ago, so I was going to let it go, as effectively undoing my own move. But just now I saw you moved Williamson County Courthouse (Franklin, Tennessee), which had been created at that name and had never moved. I returned it. Could you please undo any other recent moves, and not make any new ones.

I would be willing to do the big RFC battle if now is when it absolutely must happen. Otherwise, please abide by the peace.

Unrelatedly, I think I noticed we have been agreeing with each other in some AFDs recently, by the way. --Doncram (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm delighted that we've been agreeing. Let's do it all the time! Re the courthouses, I do remember the history. There were 2 or 3 discussions on your talk page last year I think, asking you not to make those moves, as well as Talk:Douglas County Courthouse (Wisconsin) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#What are, or should be, the disambiguation guidelines for buildings, since archived, as well as discussions elsewhere about USPLACE not applying to qualifiers. The consensus is that just the state is needed for county courthouses because the location is already specified in the name. The policy is WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. There's further evidence in that the large majority of editors title their articles that way when they create them. When you change them to the longer title despite being asked not to, it's appropriate to restore them to the previous title. I didn't notice you created Williamson County Courthouse (Franklin, Tennessee) (although I should have guessed), but I do agree that when articles you create are boldly moved by me or anyone, you are certainly within your rights to revert those moves, and I will not move those again without a WP:RM proposal. Station1 (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Station, Can you tell me how you were able to get this edit summary made. I also help at the WP:RMT but I have to manually type the edit summary. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Just as an example from today,

"Lauren Esposito (scientist) → Lauren Esposito (move · discuss) – disambiguation not needed. Coderzombie (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)"

When you click the word "move", that type of edit summary should pop up automatically in the Reason field. If you move the article manually, however, you have to type an edit summary in the Reason box. Station1 (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I really appreciate your kind and detailed reply. Clicking this makes this error message. so you just copy the edit summary and post it on the Swap tool or am I missing something ? regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I only move pages that any autoconfirmed editor can move, so I'm not familiar with the Swap tool, but yes, it sounds like you could probably do that. Station1 (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Wish you a great day/night ahead. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the help; I don't often use the WP:RM process, so I had absolutely no idea that anything would break. One of those odd situations in which not edit or delete others' posts without their permission has to be ignored :-) Nyttend (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of heads of state of Angola#Requested move 2 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have time to research at the moment. Station1 (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello there. I moved the article to make the spelling consistent with other Safavid articles, and due to the fact that several major Safavid-related sources use the Modern Persian variant 'Sadeq(i)' instead of Classical Persian 'Sadiq(i)', just like '-eh' is used instead of '-a', etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm not familiar with Persian. It's just that every source I've ever seen uses Sadiqi. I had never seen Sadeqi until just now, but I do see that it is sometimes used, although Sadiqi still seems to be more common, and the spelling used in all refs that I used in the article. Please feel free to start a requested move. If there is consensus to move based on consistency, I will have no objection. Station1 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, if you go to the "Pine Mountain" disambiguation page, you will notice another ridge mentioned which also occurs partially in Virginia. Thus, your move of this article was inappropriate, and I am reversing it. Famartin (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Famartin: you are absolutely correct about Pine Mountain (Grayson County, Virginia). I should have noticed Pine Mountain (Appalachian Mountains) is also partly in Virginia. It would have been better to just revert the move, since the history is now at the wrong page, but since you're the only one to edit it so far, I think we can leave it. Pine Mountain (Virginia) is now a partial disambiguation page, so I'll point that to the main dab page. I was just in the middle of fixing that up, so I'll add back the Grayson County link. Station1 (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I see you beat me to the dab page. Sorry for the mix up. It looks like things should be ok now. Station1 (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Good day. Regarding the recent move you made of a barrio of Puerto Rico, we've been naming them "barrio, municipality, Puerto Rico - in MOS this states "the extra text is a disambiguation tag"

See discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ymblanter#Puerto_Rico_subdivisions. Thanks. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. My understanding is that barrios in Puerto Rico are not actual municipalities but more like neighborhoods. But I am not that familiar with San Juan so please correct me if that is wrong. If they are neighborhoods, they generally use only their name as the article title, unless of course they require disambiguation. In that case, they would use Name, San Juan as the article title. WP:USPLACE applies only to actual cities and towns, in which case the article title would be Name, Puerto Rico, like San Juan, Puerto Rico. The basic policy on this is at WP:Article titles, which says article names should be concise and no more precise than necessary. I moved Hato Rey Sur in particular because there was a move proposal at Talk:Hato Rey Norte where that was moved from a longer title, so they should match. I hope this explanation is helpful. Station1 (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The barrio is a second-level division for administrative purposes.1 Thanks. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not exactly the same as in states, but it sounds to me like a division of a municipality (non-self-governing) would be like a borough or ward of a city. They would take just the plain name, like Brooklyn, or if ambiguous would be disambiguated by a comma followed by the municipality, like Second Ward, Houston (a/k/a/ Segundo Barrio). Station1 (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about this move. I should have left it Hato Rey Sur. I'm not too sure how to fix it. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem. You can just move it back if you want. As long as no one has edited the redirect in the meantime, any autoconfirmed user can move an article over its redirect. Station1 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I saw the gaffe and immediately tried to fix it, then had a WiFi failure. Took several minutes to re-establish, and save both an edit to a talk page and that typo correction (but yours had already gone through by then).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy to help. Station1 (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for your creative contributions! Micrapow (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Station1. Before you revert people make sure you're not introducing error back. I removed it for a reason, because it was causing error and redundant to what {{Infobox album}} already implements. Now go to the bottom of the page Ravipops (The Substance)#External links and see the error-warning what you returned is emitting. Thanks. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: Thanks. I didn't notice the warning and didn't realize based on your edit comment. How do we get the article title to appear in all italics? The parentheses do not represent disambiguation in this case. Station1 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. I had to add a "noerror" parameter to DISPLAYTITLE. I think it's ok now. Thanks for noticing the error message. Station1 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I was writing a response, edit-conflicted. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. You are wrong with your reasoning, as the following example may help to show. If there was a scientist called, let's say Meghan Markle, then she may have an article at Meghan Markle (scientist). By your logic we should move that to Meghan Markle because the Duchess of Sussex is not currently occupying that page title. I'm sure why you can see why our policies would not support such a move. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. That is exactly the same argument @King of Hearts: made using Libel (film) and Libel (Defamation) as an example at Talk:Charles Babcock (architect). Unfortunately that discussion was closed before I had a chance to respond. In both those examples, there are at least two articles that could hypothetically claim the same title. Meghan Markle could be the title of at least two articles, as could Libel. In those cases, we must decide which, if either, is the primary topic. In my example of John Doe, Jane Doe, John Roe and Jane Roe, we have a case where only one article could use the title John Doe, even though someone might land on one of the others by mistake due to similarity. I think that is a closer analogy to the Charles Babcock situation, because no one has suggested that the other three Babcock articles should be titled Charles Babcock, or anything other than their current titles, or were primary topics (unlike the Duchess and Defamation, which do claim primary status). If that argument were to be made, it would be a different discussion. That is why I only commented about all four articles being at their best title rather that !vote in support or opposition. Similarly, but even more obviously, no one suggests Billy Frank Jr. or Billy Frank (cricketer) would be titled Billie Frank. Station1 (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It is clear there has already been a clear consensus and numerous complaints about your eccentric preferences, so I think the burden of trying to start a new discussion is upon you. For now please leave the existing consensus in place. If you see any broken links or other minor problems we should of course fix those but not use this as an excuse for tendentious editing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to reduce the backlog at WP:RMT DBigXrayᗙ 10:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Its interesting when we talk about how readers actually get to articles at you noted here. Certainly when you make observations based on how the views suddenly changed (as opposed to most users speculation) it can actually be noted how a move affects/would affect readers. One point that does frequently come up is that when an article gets lots of views (like Nosedive) it can either be argued that readers are happy with the article or landed there incorrectly and when an article doesn't get lots of views (like Red Meat) people are not landing there incorrectly or the few that do are not happy with it. Again in both cases you pointed to views of other similar articles to show that they might well be correctly placed.

I have some interesting examples of this:

• In the case of 911 and 999 the "911" article got 123 hits per day where "910" got 15 and "912" got 8 [1] and similar points for 999. They now both get views that are closer inlin with others [[2]].
• In the case of Lewis the article got less than 16x the views of the DAB while most other examples the article gets more than 100x that of the DAB[[3]].
• In the case of Skye the Isle of Skye redirect traffic for it compared to the article was 1 to 6.4 compared to 1 to 1077 for Islay[4].

What we can see is that in the 1st examples many many people were landing on the wrong article, in the 2nd example compared to the others many of the internal searches for "Lewis" were landing on the wrong article. The 3rd is also interesting since redirects tend not to be used much, either many people were searching for the island by including "Isle" or many people were either following internal links or links from external sites (which seems unlikely given it was moved back in 2008). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out. They are interesting cases. I do agree that careful pageview analysis is often valuable in determining whether a title is causing problems for significant numbers of searchers. As I've mentioned before, my observations are that most people get to the articles they want with no problems, or at most minimal effort, like clicking on a hatnote. In fact, although I participate in RM discussions, I very rarely initiate any, as not being worth the effort. That was not always the case, but between Google and our much improved search engine, titles are less important than ever. By way of example, I looked at the first three items you link to above where I participated. It looks like Malcom is causing about 10 people per day to click through the dab page who otherwise would not have to, and Adulterers is causing maybe 3 people per day to click through the hatnote. Nosedive is slightly worse, causing about 50 people to click through the dab page, but that's still only 2.5% of those trying to get to the article. Although not ideal, not a tremendous problem either, relatively speaking. Station1 (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes I see that Nosedive gets around 40 views a day compared to 1,609 for Nosedive (Black Mirror)[[5]]. This means less than 1 in 40 access the episode via search yet with the Skye example in 1 in 6.4 readers got to the article via the "Isle of Skye" redirect which as noted is higher than the next highest viewed article, Skye Edwards why do you think that redirect got so many views? Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The short answer is I don't know. But here's an interesting chart showing pageviews of Skye and Isle of Skye so far this year. Note that after the roughly month-long transition period in June-July after the page move, the ratio of redirect to article is about the same. The redirect(s) are certainly getting far more views than most redirects do. Both Skye and Isle of Skye each have hundreds of incoming wikilinks, so I can only speculate that if close to 15% of readers are coming in via those links, that might explain it. Station1 (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I should probably explain the situation better, since you're coming into the middle of it and there's been a lot of lies and deceit in a particular user's harassment of me. I'm addressing the misguided revert you made on the "Nocturnes (Debussy)" talk page. Every time someone reposts that thread, they contribute to the harassment and slander of me. Here's the history.

AnUnnamedUser had been harassing me. I didn't report it, I just dealt with it myself. At one point he tried to divert a thread where people including me were having a perfectly reasonable peaceful conversation. AUU's diversion was intentional, designed to deplatform. He posted something and signed it with my user name, making it look like I was saying or responding to something I wasn't because I didn't write it. He actually took a previous post of mine in another thread, modified the words, and presented it in this new diversion thread. This of course is a complete violation of WP rules. I had the right to delete it and I did.

He then engaged in an edit-war, constantly reposting it and changing the post each time. Finally he stopped and went away. But the next day he was back and restoring it again and even added a "reply" to this fake post of "mine". The reply was insulting and more harassment.

A lot of other things happened which I won't go into here, but suffice to say:

1. I have the right to delete damaging, slanderous (libelous), and harassing posts about me,

2. I have the right to delete fake posts that make me say something I didn't,

3. I have the right to delete my own posts (which this at least "appears" to be),

4. I have the right to edit my own posts, and

5. I have the right to not have the same person "replying" to something I don't want to say, for everyone to read and think God-knows-what about my character.

Chuckstreet (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I can understand that you feel strongly about this. Certainly no one wants to be slandered or harassed. I did look into some of the history of this, and, very frankly, I don't see it the way you do. That's certainly not to say I'm right or you're wrong, just a different perception. You can certainly delete any forged statements that use your name. As to others' comments, though, you should not delete those without permission. If you think they need to be deleted, you should contact a disinterested administrator, perhaps at WP:ANI. If you're right, they can be removed by a neutral party. By taking it into your own hands, you may experience unintended consequences. I wish you well. Station1 (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I could have added: 6. I have the right to delete other people's posts on my own talk page for any reason at all. Anyway, I just laughed a moment ago because I thought "Hey, you just deleted my post, and told me not to delete other's posts!" :-) But you disagree with some of my points above? All that was in the ORIGINAL thread this guy created was a faked post from me, making it look like I was responding to his DRN notice. The "notice" was as bogus as my reply. I certainly had the right to delete it and I did. He kept bringing it back and changing it and adding to it with more harassment. Gerda Arendt replied to it before I could delete it again, but she doesn't mind. So you have to understand, I'm still trying to delete the original forged post, that's all. Maybe I shouldn't even put a blurb in there explaining what happened to it... I think I'll get rid of that (or I could put a link to a copy of this explanation). I could even post a request to have entries in the edit history removed... I may have to do that eventually, but it'd be nice if this all calmed down. Chuckstreet (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Station1,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Wakowako and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged Randy Jackson (Jacksons) for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Wakowako}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Wakowako (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Someone just moved Randy Jackson (singer) to Randy Jackson (Jacksons) without leaving a redirect. I just restored Randy Jackson (singer). No objection to deleting Randy Jackson (Jacksons), or it could be redirected to Randy Jackson (Jacksons singer). - Station1 (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Station1

I noticed your recent edit on the Williamsburg Bridge page on the location of the other area bridges.

I don't think it really matters in this case how the bridges are referred to locally. I, a person living far away, looked on a map and I'm sorry, but "further downtown" means very little to me on a map for that area. (my map reading skills are pretty up there) Which "downtown"? Brooklyn? NYC? Manhattan? Long Island City? Yes, I can figure it out by studying the map, but "to the southwest" makes my eyes look in a specific direction, that is, directly to the two bridges in question. Are you okay with reverting it back? Kenyoni (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a very reasonable point. "Further downtown" was not my first choice. Until recently the article read simply "The others are the Queensboro, Manhattan, and Brooklyn Bridges" and that would be fine with me. On 18 Dec, another editor changed it to "The others are the upriver Queensboro Bridge, and the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges below it." A second editor changed that to "The others are the Queensboro Bridge to the north, and the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges to the southwest." On 20 Dec I changed "southwest" to "south", which is also ok with me. That was then reverted to "southwest", so I attempted a compromise. Southwest is technically correct if you look at a map, but so is south, and since the East River runs generally north-south where it separates Manhattan Island to the west from Long Island to the east, the bridges are usually referred to as being north or south of each other.[6] "Southwest", to the best of my knowledge, is WP:OR, so is not acceptable. I'm fine with "south" (in fact prefer it) or with the original pre-18-Dec wording. Station1 (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Howdy. How can NYC not be located in the southeast part of New York state, yet Long Island is? GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. It definitely is in the southeastern part of the state, just not at its southeastern tip. If you want to change it to part, no objection. Station1 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• See Talk:Malbone Street Wreck#Requested move 15 January 2020. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your bold defense of an outcome – keeping Idles pointing to Idlès – that no one, yourself included, supported at the RM. Accordingly, in the spirit of strictly adhering to protocol, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 18#Idles and invite you to participate. Conifer (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2020‎ (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I think I might possibly be detecting the tiniest hint of sarcasm. Rest assured, I did not object to your bold redirect because of Protocol, but because sending people who want the band to a dab page where the band is buried, is worse than sending them to a town that has a hatnote right at the top. Your original proposal was a good one, which I fully supported. I think the closer (one of the best, btw) also recognized that, but couldn't fulfill your request due to objections, so did the next best thing, suggested a discussion at RfD. The opponents' desire to redirect to the Idle dab did not achieve consensus any more than your proposal. Now that it has properly gone to RfD, it looks like we may have an outcome of an Idles dab page. Not the very best outcome, but certainly better than redirecting to the Idle dab page. Station1 (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for correcting my error on the New York City article.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Nice work, btw. Station1 (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For assisting with New York City. TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Canadian stations)#Go station naming regarding station naming conventions for Go Transit. Cards84664 00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Like you suggested, I uploaded my correct map on Wiki Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_York_City_enclave_in_Ellis_Island.png. Can you to replace the wrong map with this my map with the exacts boundaries of the NY enclave in the NJ state on this important small and historical island. Thanks for the possible help. Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Forza NYCFC !!. Thanks for uploading. Your map needs to be somehow incorporated into Template:Ellis Island. Unfortunately, I'm not very skilled at that. I'm pinging epicgenius in case he wants to comment, since he created the template. Station1 (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me Station1. I will take a look at this soon. epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Station1, in regard to your recent edit at Talk:The In Sound from Way Out! (Beastie Boys album)#Requested move 10 May 2020, that is not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the community. The guideline is clear that the dab page should remain and not be deleted. Since you didn't alter your rationale, how do you suggest we proceed? Please keep in mind that a proposed title must be clear of content, content-free, and that dab page is not content-free. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The dab page can and should be deleted. That is the intent of the move proposal. There is no reason an admin can't just delete a useless dab page, if there is consensus to do that (obviously, consensus in this case is not yet established). There are no other possible articles with the title, and if a hatnote is added a dab page serves no purpose. The guideline is just a guideline, and adding a template to a dab page that will always be useless is simply cluttering WP and wasting other editors' time. The RM should just play itself out. It may fail, or a closing admin may take your opinion into account and retain the dab page, or may act according to the original proposal. Station1 (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that WP:ONEOTHER says "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed". I think what might be confusing is that it also says "If a disambiguation page does not appear to be needed because there are only two topics for the ambiguous title and one of them is the primary topic, but there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Wikipedia now or in the future" [emphasis added], then the {{One other topic}} template may be added to the dab page. In this case there are no other topics, so no need for a dab page. Station1 (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, we are in agreement about all that. I have until recently been having the dab pages deleted under similar circumstances in successful RMs. However, Tavix called me to task on the subject pointing out that neither you nor I have a crystal ball where "there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Wikipedia now or in the future" is concerned. The guideline is just a guideline, yes; however, it represents the consensus of the community in cases like this. The dab page should not be deleted, and you should restore my fix because the move request is once again malformed due to your partial revert. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the key word in that quote is "reasonably". We don't need a crystal ball, in my opinion, to say that the chances of two or three more articles all titled "The In Sound from Way Out!" (with or without an exclamation point) popping up on WP in the next couple of years are very very slim. Of course, editors can disagree about how reasonable that may be, and that is a legitimate subject for discussion in order to reach a consensus, but it is not a given. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with your reading of the guideline in this case. I don't think it demands what you say it does. As to the request, it's showing up properly at WP:RM under Contested Requests, so I don't think it's a problem if it also shows up on the bottom of the page. The problem is with whatever bot is incorrectly putting it there. The request itself is not malformed; I've seen plenty of similar RMs over the years and they were never a problem. Station1 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah but they were a problem. That's why the bot was configured in the last few weeks to find and capture the specific type of malformed move request called a "possibly incomplete request". As I said, a content page should not be a target or "new" page in a move request unless it, too, is specifically added to the request as a page to be renamed. Since The In Sound from Way Out! is a dab page with content and not a redirect, then it must also be a part of the move request as a page to be moved. Not doing that makes the request malformed. And that is why I made the edit and why your revert should be reversed. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you point me to the discussion about the bot? I don't know why anyone would think a RM like this one would be a problem. Station1 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If the RM is successful, just WP:PROD the dab. It should be an uncontroversial deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Station1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hollywood District, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I don't think that's the result of the AfD at all. @JHunterJ: Please can you review the AfD close and then action whatever move needs to happen, if not done already. Thank you. GedUK  08:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I needed to move the Portand, Oregon article over that redirect; thanks for the ping to finish! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Murder in Texas. Because you participated in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Please see this discussion. Bionic (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the article on South-View. I've had a sandbox for it going for quite a while, so I hope you don't mind I kind of slammed my version on top of what you wrote. (Fear not, I did preserve some of your text). I kind of had a DOH! mental moment because I've been holding off posting my draft because I wanted to drive down there and take some photos first. But OF COURSE John Lewis will be buried there, and that's going to drive a ton of traffic. I should have predicted that. Anyway, thanks, and check out the current state I'm always looking for ways to improve. --Krelnik (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Krelnik. Very nice new article. Have you thought about DYK? Thanks for the kind words, but it actually wasn't my text. What happened was another editor added the Lewis info to Southview Cemetery by mistake and changed the title, followed by an IP completely changing the location, so that we had a weird Augusta/Atlanta conflation. I just reversed all that and then had to do something with the leftover redirect, so I stuck that paragraph there as a quick stub. Really glad you had something in the works, obviously so much better. Station1 (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I used to always nominate my new articles for DYK, but I kind of got burned out on the tediousness of the process over there. Also, some of the editors who hang out there and polish articles are really snotty about the trivial things, and I just got tired of all the negativity. Also, I almost guarantee you that if I submitted that one for DYK, I'd be told to remove the redlinks in the list of notable burials in the article. But I put those redlinks there deliberately, because I think the history of African-americans in Atlanta (and in general) is under represented in Wikipedia. --Krelnik (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, it's been years since I used DYK myself, so I do get what you're saying. Also agree with you about the redlinks - thanks for making things a little bit better. Station1 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for your help and clarification. Sorry for the clumsiness. Wolf949 (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for creating that article but shouldn't it be at Halstead (surname)? per WP:APOAT since I can't find evidence of the existence of Halstead as a given name and at least there isn't anyone here with the 1st name or a Wikidata item for it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a very good question, and I actually thought about it before creating that article. My thought was that "name" is the more generic term and so could include both given and surnames, even though I, like you, am unaware of Halstead being used as a given name, at least for anyone notable. So in the spirit of CONCISE and PRECISE, I opted for the broader title. That way if there ever is someone named Halstead, however unlikely, the title would not need to changed. It also allows for someone to add sourced info about the name itself (derivation, etc.) if anyone ever wants to research that. I'm thinking the narrower "given" and "surname" titles should be reserved for names like James or Charles, where there is a long list of people with that name, too long for one combined list. But actual usage seems to be mixed, and if you prefer to move it to "surname" I have no objection. Or create it as a redirect. Station1 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

If there is a given name unless its related to the surname (in terms of etymology or similar) they would be 2 different things so I'd consider just putting the given name holders (if any do exist later) on the DAB page. All sourced info about the name is likely to be for the surname only unless at least the given name exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I have no strong feelings about it. I rarely deal with name pages except to occasionally split them from dab pages, like this case. Station1 (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, there is an article here on the given name so you're right that it can be a given name (as you have noted in the article) so yes maybe just leave it as is then. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed Halstead C. Fowler and Halstead Dorey! Station1 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Would you have supported the move at Talk:Tarbert, Kintyre#Requested move 22 March 2019? At that time Tarbert, Jura didn't exist and today the Kintyre one gets more views (812) than the Jura one (52)[[7]] and is significantly larger. In any case the Kintyre one would need moving to Tarbert, Argyll to comply with WP:SCOTLANDPLACE even if we did agree it qualifed for a PDAB. As far as the issue goes I don't think a PDAB would have been appropriate since we normally want something more like 98/99% for a PDAB to be used. WP:PRIMARYRED says that even if another topic is a red link it can still be considered and that the blue link is not automatically primary. I get the point that like with Talk:Vincent (Don McLean song)#Requested move 3 July 2019 you could argue that readers searching with "Tarbert, Argyll and Bute" or "Tarbert, Argyll" looking for the Jura one would still have only 1 click but that could apply to any case where there are 2 topics that would otherwise use the same qualifier which does cause unnecessary confusion for readers and editors and require hatnotes. Note that there is another on Gigha which although it appears to only be a farm it is in GeoNames. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about naming conventions for Scottish villages, so I leave that those who do. But I realize you're asking a broader question. Even though the Kintyre one gets a lot more views than the Jura one, they both have few enough pageviews that I don't think it matters too much one way or the other. Tarbert, Argyll gets next to no hits, so almost no one even winds up on the dab page, and it's only a click for the rare reader who does. Even "Vincent" the song, which has over 10 times the pageviews of Tarbert, has only about 5 people per day slightly inconvenienced by landing on Vincent (song) and being redirected to the dab page instead of directly to the article. In the case of Parasite we have 17 per day inconvenienced. In the case of Twice, it's about 85. When you get to New York it's in the hundreds. So it's all relative as to which, if any, are important enough to move, and where to draw the line is a matter of opinion. Station1 (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes with Scottish villages the council area (the sub national divisions) aren't that well known so even if people know the name is ambiguous (Tarbert is a common placename in Scotland) many won't know what qualifier to use, with Parasite most people are going to be aware of the generic meaning so if they want the 2019 film they might well try "Parasite (film)" but if they do they will be taken to a section of that page to find it rather than the generic meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

thanks for this fix. That page is not novice friendly. StarM 22:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It's a team effort! Station1 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Station1. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3