User talk:Kennethaw88

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Invitation

Hello, Kennethaw88! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time.

Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown is not an architect

Nonsense! Fellow is an architect, and inventor, Sayer of Sayings, housebuilder, and explorer. Genuine polymath, second in versatility only to the Wompom. Qwirkle (talk)

Incorrect Photo

I was reviewing the Michigan National Historic Places for Chippewa County. The photo for the Kinross Township and school is completely incorrect. I had been to this site and the historic building was torn down. I actually have a photo of it from a copyrighted source. This photo is a picture of a new house. When it was taken, it was still under construction. I believe this photo violates the whole intent of these listings. I asked Andrew Jameson to remove it, but he has not. I don't know if you have the rights to remove it.

Wingerham52 (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wingerham52, it's not actually clear if the house there is a brand new house (and the old building was demolished), or if it was just extensively renovated. On first look, I would assume that it's just a brand new building, but as Andrew Jameson noted, it actually is very similar structurally: two floors, the same roof shape, similar window arrangement, same entrance, same location/footprint. It really is possible that it was renovated. If so, this certainly removes all of the historical details that allowed it to get the NRHP listing. But right now, I don't think any of us are absolutely sure it isn't the same building. Perhaps someone could contact a local resident (you can see the township trustees in some old meeting minutes), and ask if the township hall was demolished or renovated.

In any case, the photo is currently the best we've got as far as what's on the site. If it was demolished, I think the photo could be moved outside of the infobox at least. But I'd rather wait for better confirmation. kennethaw88 • talk 21:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a new building. I have a picture of the actual historic building. It is from Google Street View. I don't know how to attach a JPG to this talk section. But if you go to the address and street view, you can see the building. I had been looking for it for a few years. It had been torn down before my visits. I drove up and down the road many times, since the NH addresses are not always accurate. On my last trip thru, I saw this brand new building, which was still under construction. This is not a remodel. I was surprised that someone put this new picture on the site. It does not belong there. I think it is a disservice to put erroneous things like this on the site. I don't have the authority to take it down, but you do.

Wingerham52 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

citation help

Hi kennethaw88, I am contacting you because you fixed a bunch of references on an article of mine. I had written the article through the translator, which seems to mess up citations. Do you have a trick to fixing citations or is it something you are just good at? It is a real drawback if translating artciles always messed up citations ( it did on another article too). Thanks BF (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly because I spend most of my time fixing citations. I'm not really an article writer, but I just like to fix things. For example, I go through Category:CS1 errors: dates, where I found your draft. I started out only fixing bad dates, but I've begun to fix other things, like bad urls or misuse of other parameters.

The main trick I use is that sometimes the citation template is smart enough to figure out what you meant to use, if you misspelled something or used a foreign-language template. Because your article was translated from Spanish, it gave several suggestions for the Spanish parameters. For example, it suggested Unknown parameter |fecha= ignored (|date= suggested) or Unknown parameter |sitioweb= ignored (|website= suggested). Do you see these warnings/suggestions on this version?

There used to be a version of Template:Cita web that allowed Spanish-language parameters to be automatically used by the English versions. That's been changed, and now it doesn't do anything, so all parameters have to be in English. I don't know how your translator works, but when you write these articles, you'll have to make sure on your own that each citation parameter gets converted (not necessarily just translated) into English. Otherwise they won't be recognized by the template, and nothing will show up in the citation.

Hope that helps. If you have more specific questions, ask away. kennethaw88 • talk 19:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kenneth lost touch I was blocked by some one because I was only editing my articles they say I’m new I didn’t have to to write on people I had no idea about at the time Jaleelpick (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matador Automatic Radar Control, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bann.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climate data

Thank you for cleaning up my mess but I expcet I will want to remove the climate data table entirely. I've been mostly working on this climate data project by myself because it's so difficult to explain, even to people with long years of experience on Wikipedia, what the difference is between two climate charts that look almost exactly identical. Im pretty sure there is no weather station in Lubec and that the data the source is providing is either some sort of mashup between that of Eastport, Maine and another nearby station, or interpolated data that belongs to no station at all. We don't have any consensus on whether interpolated data is allowed or not .... a few places have it, but we are not extending the use of interpolated climate data to every article on every town in the whole world, either.

I can give more information if you're curious about what I'm doing. Best regards, —Soap— 17:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not really interested in the climate data, or Maine either. I just spend a lot of time clearing out citation date errors in Category:CS1 errors: dates. Since accessdate=10-29-2020 isn't an acceptable date format listed at MOS:DATES, your edit placed it in the category. Otherwise, I don't pay attention to the article content. If you think it ought to be removed, go for it.

Thanks for the note. kennethaw88 • talk 18:05, 29 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) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larinioides cornutus

As you did not leave an edit summary, could I asked why you reverted this addition of cited content to Larinioides cornutus by Arthropodloverjoe, please? I can see that there was probably some accidental inclusion of promotional content in one of the citations (which could easily have been deleted), but otherwise it seemed to me to have been in good faith by a brand new user, and added useful content to this article. I also see a a degree of close paraphrasing, but not copyright violation. Any explanation you can offer would no doubt help a new editor improve, going forward. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick Moyes, thanks so much for reaching out. I was doing a project for school that involves updating a Wikipedia page, so I decided to update one on a species of spider that I have encountered many times. I definitely didn't intend to include promotional content, so I'll be sure to take that out, and also didn't mean to paraphrase. There's not a ton of info out there on the cornutus so I just had to try my best! But being a new user on here is awesome, and I think I'll definitely be doing more! Thanks, Arthropodloverjoe

Yes, it was because I saw promotional content. I found that page while clearing out Category:CS1 errors: dates, and the first thing I saw next to the date error was $18.95 + $4 shipping..., so I just reverted the addition, without investigating the rest of the edit. I incorrectly assumed that it was inserted randomly into the page (which is not too uncommon for the date errors). I apologize for throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this case. Thanks Nick Moyes for watching more carefully and Arthropodloverjoe; glad to see you aren't discouraged. kennethaw88 • talk 04:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent results, thanks both - this is how cooperative editing should work out. It's not always so easily resolved, and its great to hear Arthropodloverjoe is not put off. If Joe's not yet sorted it, the easiest way to reinsert it is to revert to the version before Kenneth undid you, then edit out the accidental promo garbage. Then, by using the View History tab and radio buttons, you can view the 'diff' of your later edit. Copy the wikitext and then add that back in. Drop by my talk page if you need further help, or ask at the Teahouse. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	For fixing date parameters in drafts. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 06:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

^Walter Elmer Schofield, Across the River (1904), Carnegie Museum of Art.		Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2021.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Oneupsmanship: This painting turned the friendly rivalry between Edward Redfield and Elmer Schofield into a feud. Schofield was a frequent houseguest at Redfield's farm, upstream from New Hope, Pennsylvania, and the two would go out painting together, competing to capture the better view. Redfield served on the jury for the 1904 Annual Exhibition of the Carnegie Institute; at which, despite Redfield's opposition, Across the River was awarded the Gold Medal and $1,500 prize. It was not until a 1963 interview that the 93-year-old Redfield revealed the painting as the cause of the 40-year feud between them. Schofield may have painted it in England, but a blindsided Redfield knew that it was a view of the Delaware River, from his own front yard!

Your disruptive editing

Your removal of "others" and "other" from infobox architects and architectural styles is disruptive. You must know that they mean that there are other architects or other styles. I'm rolling back your disruptive edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now rolled back the vast majority of the edits in your last 500 changes which you labelled as "Other is not a style", "Other is not an architect" or "Other is not a date" in order to restore your disruptive removal of "other" from those infoboxes. If you want to restore those edits I rolled back, I have no objection, as long as you restore "other" or "others" to the places you removed them from. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I infer from a comment above that you have in the past done the same thing for "Unknown", presumably on the grounds that "Unknown is not an architect". What in heaven's name are you thinking in making these changes? This information -- "other" or "unknown" -- comes from reliable sources like the NRHP, and having that information in the infobox is a good thing, it tells our readers that certain information is simply unknown, or that buildings have other styles in their architecture then the major ones listed. I am honestly completely astounded by your actions, and if you continue them, I will certainly weigh whether such behavior merits your being reported to be sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Other" as an explicit parameter, it's the default output of the NRIS and is a catch-all for literally anything other than the limited set of "categories" they use for architectural styles. It's a quirk of the NRIS system, not some kind of property of buildings themselves. The term is vague and unhelpful. Either list it or don't. If there are many architects or styles, then it can (and should) of course be discussed in the text with more subtlety, but just saying Other isn't helpful. What does "Other" even mean here?

"Unknown" is an equally useless term for infoboxes. Lots of NRHP nomination forms make no mention of architects, but "Unknown" is the mandatory default term on the NRIS landing pages. It is absurd to explicitly list "Unknown" as a parameter instead of leaving it blank. Is the building cost known? Is the square footage known? Is the building height known? Is the yearly visitation for this house known? (this infobox parameter is almost universally left blank.) These are all presumably unknown, but the articles don't get peppered with "Unknown"s all over the place. kennethaw88 • talk 14:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You have made over 2,500 edits since 5 August 2016 in which you removed "other", [1] all of them without a consensus to do so. Please restore all of them if you don't want to be reported to ANI for making mass edits without a consensus to do so. Editors who have been reported for doing this have generally been blocked from editing until they restored all their unwarranted changes, or indefinitely blocked if it was determined that their edits were disruptive enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Williamsport post office screenshot.png

The file File:Williamsport post office screenshot.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image, no context to determine possible encyclopedic use.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect photo

The photo used for the Dielman Kolb homestead is incorrect. The building pictured is a modern home, not the stone building that currently stands at the site. Pondinthelake (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Van Riper House

We are the owners of the Andrew Van Riper House. How can we edit the page for this house and remove our address/add historical information about the Van Ripers? 2600:1007:B12C:ACA4:8C2F:C49D:B257:688F (talk) 23:26, 21 November 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) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

Hello. You have been listed as missing. Should you ever return or choose not to be listed, you are welcome to remove your name. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the old Sinclair Plant 12? 66.115.107.87 (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1818 establishments in Illinois Territory has been nominated for renaming

Category:1818 establishments in Illinois Territory has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1818 in Illinois Territory

A tag has been placed on Category:1818 in Illinois Territory indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^Read! Talk! 01:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]