User talk:glman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Don't remove state from infobox name field

Per your edit comments "Updating per Template:Infobox settlement", there isn't a mandate to remove the state from the name field of the inbox in Template:Infobox settlement. At the top of this same template documentation, it says "For a US city guideline, see WP:USCITIES." Also, there is no mandate to remove "United States" either per your flawed comment of MOS:GEOLINK and MOS:SOB. You need to go back through your recent edits and restore all of this information that you deleted. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sbmeirow Per at Template:infobox settlement state name is not required or prohibited in this field. WP:USCITIES refers to page titles, not the infobox. We need to be WP:CONSISTENT. Feel free to discuss this further at the infobox talk page, but my edits are not unconstructive or vandalism. I've made a comment in order to create a policy either way on this issue for the infobox, which should help increase consistency, whichever way consensus falls. I'll review my edits as well. Thanks! Glman99 (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether it has been specified or not, there has been long term traditions of edit styles that were discussed and decided long ago, and basically talked to death. Wikipedia is consistent, each country has consistently done what makes the most sense for each country. As for communities in USA, the place to discuss is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline, not Template talk:Infobox settlement. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

A quick glance at city pages shows that infoboxes are not consistently applied. Many incorrectly use "official_name", many use variations within "name", others use different text in the lead, many violate WP:GEOLINK in the lead by splitting County names from states. I hear you, and appreciate your input. Glman99 (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason that some have county names is because the community name actually exists in more than one county in that same state. This typically happens with unincorporated communities and ghost towns. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having the county name, but per WP:GEOLINK the county should be liked [ [ County, State ] ] not [ [ County ] ], [ [ State ] ] - as can be found on many pages. Glman99 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

There aren't wiki links in the name field. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

We're talking about two different things here - I was referring to the lead. The infobox is not the first place on the page a name is shown. The page title and the lead specify the state and county of a city. "Name" according to infobox settlement is for the "common name" of a place, there is no consensus on what this means, apparently, however it is not by default the page title. Users can tell if they're on the right track because the title of the page and the lead specify the county and state, in my opinion we do not need to repeat this info three separate times. It is already used inconsistently, because the parameters for "name=" are vague. Glman99 (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

In 2002 (21+ years ago), a bot created the lead with "[[<COUNTY> County, <STATE>]]".

In 2007 (16+ years ago), another bot changed the lead to "[[<COUNTY> County, Kansas|<COUNTY> County]], [[<STATE>]], [[United States]]".

Over time, some people have been changing the 1st part of the above lead to "[[<COUNTY> County, <STATE>]], but it's not a priority thing to fix.

Over time, there has been more effort to manually change the 2nd part from United States to United States. This stays, because it is meant for non-Americans and "English to Other Language" translators who are ignorant of state names and their association with United States, per WP:OBVIOUS. Just because you know that South Carolina is in the United States, it automatically doesn't mean that a foreigner will know it. WP:OBVIOUS says "State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Usually, such a statement will be in the first sentence or two of the article." All collge/school editors are wrong for removing it from those articles.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

We're off to another topic now. I agree, I did not intend to remove any mention of "United States" in my edits, but you are correct - in some I did. As you know, there is no policy that requires "United States" to be present in the lead. You cite WP:OBVIOUS, which is helpful essay, but not a binding part of the MOS. You've been involved in discussions on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) where no consensus was reached. I agree that consensus should be reached - I have added it to articles, and will continue to do so, however as a mention in the lead instead of as "City, State, Country", which is not common usage. It may be your opinion that others are wrong, but as you know Wikipedia runs on WP:CONSENSUS, not any one editor. I appreciate your desire for consistency and policy for these important pages. I'm glad we agree that overlinking of city/state in the lead should be fixed on articles, and that the country should be named in the lead. Glman99 (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

RVV False Positive

Hi there; it seems like that you have reverted my edit to 2023 _target Pride Month merchandise backlash which added the recently created article Go woke go broke to the see also section. I don't understand why you would say it's vandalism. The _target controversy is considered a core example of the Go woke go broke phenomena. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You're right! My bad. glman (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Lol you're okay; I make mistakes all the time here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Oak Ridge TN article

Greetings:

Thank you for your interest in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

I am a member of the Oak Ridge, TN Historical Society. Your recent edits to the Oak Ridge, TN page do not provide for the historical perspective of the creation of Oak Ridge. I have requested that Wikipedia moderate this page, so that we can agree on a middle ground and present a well-rounded, comprehensive picture of the city's history.

For example - while it is true that Oak Ridge went through a time of segregation (as did most of the south), it took the lead in the state in Desegregation efforts. I know. I was there. (yes, I'm old)

Thank you for being willing to contribute. I look forward to working with you.

Sincerely, J Davis Jensterd (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello jensterd. It sounds like you may have a WP:CONFLICT of interest. I recommend reviewing that policy and taking the appropriate steps. On Wikipedia, all edits must be made using WP:RELIABLE sources, unfortunately your WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH is not a reliable source. I am fine with you adding more information to the Oak Ridge page, but edits have removed content to "whitewash" what the sources say. Adding content with sources would be no issue. glman (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I notice you claimed that I "began editing this page with a negative slat on the history on 23 Jun 2023 of this year". This is untrue. I have simply reverted edits that remove sourced content. I did not add this content, but instead am attempting to follow Wikipedia guidelines. In addition to WP:COI, WP:V, W:OR, and WP:R, please consider reading WP:GOODFAITH. I am in no way making edits with any personal bias, as I have no conflict on interest. Again, I hope to see positive edits on the page, but additional edits that remove sourced content will be removed, or reported appropriately. glman (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I have put back the original reference that I added, and quoted direct history. I agree with your comments above. However, Wikipedia also strives to present a balance view. P I don't have a COI as much as I have a comprehensive study of Oak Ridge's history and can supply as many sources as Wikipedia needs.

It would be very helpful if you can supply your reference regarding the creation of Oak Ridge - specifically, the comment regarding how people felt about the land seizure. The Oak Ridge, TN Wikipedia article has been around for over a decade - what source caused the change this year?

Perhaps a solution would be to create a sub-article, where the issue of the creation of Oak Ridge can be presented in a historical context.

Like you, I am only interested in making sure that Wikipedia meet its guidelines. I'm sure the two of us can work together to ensure this goal. Jensterd (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:COI being a member of the "Oak Ridge, TN Historical Society" could be a conflict of interest. This does not mean you should not edit, but you likely should be discussing all edits on the talk page before editing and should declare your COI on your user page. To clarify, I did not originally add this text to the page, as you have insinuated. I think your current revision is appropriate. glman (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you for your willingness and dedication. Jensterd (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverts without justification

Please don't revert edits without providing a rationale in the edit summary or in a Talk page unless the reasoning is very obvious e.g., correcting a typo, removing blatant vandalism. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism?

In this edit summary you said that you were reverting vandalism. Perhaps you can explain why you regard the edit as vandalism, as it looks to me as though it may well have been done in good faith. The incident concerned is prominent enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, and it may seem to a new editor to be perfectly reasonable to add a mention of it to the article about the place where it occurred. (I trust you did check at least one, and preferably both, of the cited reference and the linked Wikipedia article before deciding that it was vandalism.) JBW (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. I did not do due diligence with this edit. My apologies, and I will apologize to the editor. Thank you for bringing this to my attention! glman (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Revert without justification

On Sept. 12, you reverted my addition to Tennessee's Reconstruction section of the words "until the last lynching in 1960" with the reason given "awkward phrasing and doesn't fit under this time period. Not sure why this detail is useful right here.". However, if you look on the Discussion page, you will see that I requested and got permission from a couple of other users to add at least ONE SENTENCE about lynching to this article. The now-shorted sentence (thanks to you) makes even less sense than usual. Please consider unreverting your revert. The lynchings took place from around 1880 until 1960, when anti-lynching laws finally got the practice stopped. This is directly relevant to mention of things like Jim Crow and Reconstruction, and if it doesn't belong here, then where would you think it does belong? Harborsparrow (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey Harbor! I'd love to discuss this more on the talk page, but your addition made the sentence less-clear, I would split it into two. Additionally, the section you added the sentence too does not cover the time period until 1960, so the placement seemed at odds with the heading. Again, feel free to discuss more on the page - and don't forget to assume WP:GOODFAITH. glman (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2024 NASCAR Xfinity Series

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2024 NASCAR Xfinity Series, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NASCAR Rookie of the Year, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zane Smith.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Wassup

Why you reverted? He actually did say it was a lie himself. KungfuMantis (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:OR. We need a secondary source, not a primary one, to ensure additions are notable. If you find third-party reporting on it, you can add it using that reference! glman (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Bristol

None of the other zip codes are "sourced" either. Do you live near Bristol? Have you ever been to Bristol? I have been to Bristol many times. For reference go on Google Maps and look up Pit Row Market. It has a Bluff City 37618 address yet is in the Bristol City Limits. Also for reference, here's a link to Streetview (you'll have to use the Google maps app to get exact streetview image) with a plainly seen Bristol City Limits sign, in the 37618 zip code. The business you will see in the Streetview all have Bluff City zip code, yet are in Bristol City Limits. ACase0000 (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I am from just outside of Bristol. Regardless of the other ZIP codes, they should be sourced. All you need to do is add a reference, per WP:V and WP:RS. glman (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

John Wayne

Do you object to enlarging the font on the box quote in question? John Wayne article. 36hourblock (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I missed the enlargement - the issue was that the formatting was broken by the change. glman (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I increased the font size to match body of article. By the way, it's a wonderful quote. Sarris is Lord.--36hourblock (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)