Great pictures, but is that one pic from Clifty Falls or from McCormick's Creek. As they are 100+ miles apart, there's a big difference.--BedfordPray17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
In acknowledgment of your many recent edits, images, and improvements of article within, Wiki Project Indiana, most notably your work Native American articles, I hereby award you this barnstar! Keep up the great work! Charles Edward15:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Some of these pages, I've created, others I've added images. Still others, a bit of text or details. Many of these pages are primarily the work of others, to which I was able to added a bit more information or an illustration. This may appear to be a big ego boosting, but it's really a way for me to check back on sites where I've left something still pending, i.e., History of the National Park Service (United States), National Park Service, Indiana Dunes Nat'l Lakeshore
Hi Chris Light -- I came across your nice new stub article Col. Isaac C. Elston House and found that i could fix it up a little, which i did. Great pic you took! I see also that you have made other edits to National Register of Historic Places listings in Indiana and some other individual historic sites. Just to let you know, if you are creating a new article for any NRHP site you can get a nice, prepared infobox ready for cut and pasting into the article, by visiting Elkman matrix, a site developed and supported by User:Elkman. In the Elston House case, it looks to me like you copied an infobox from another article then modified it somewhat, but it appeared that you erroneously left in some info that applied to the other place. It's easier and more accurate to get a new infobox with the info from the National Register database already filled out. It's still just a start, and you are free to correct or expand on info that comes in that way. Anyhow, keep up the good work! :) doncram (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for posting a picture of this house a few months ago! I was just in Crawfordsville today and photographed it because it's in the Elston Grove Historic District, not knowing that it was also NRHP-listed. The NRHP lists the Elston House on Wabash Avenue, but with the Wabash College page to which you link on the Elston House article, I'm going to note that as an error by the NRHP. If you'd not posted this, who knows how long it would have been before the error was caught. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Just wanted to say thanks so much for creating the article which is now entitled, List of non-marine mollusks of the Indiana Dunes. I added in the bivalves from the National Geographic list, and divided the gastropods into land and freshwater species. I just wanted to say that with scientific names, only the first name (the genus name) is unique within one phylum. A species name may often be found in many other unrelated species within the same class, so be careful about creating links to what is sometimes the wrong species which just happens to have the same species name. In any case, the new article is a valuable addition to Wikipedia, so thanks! If you create any more mollusk-related articles, please feel free to ask me for help. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
If I can say one more thing? The scientific names (that is the genus and species) of organisms should always be in italics. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I realize I need to ask: are you intending to make an article on Insects of the Indiana Dunes? Because if so, I will mention it in the invertebrates article. Insects are also invertebrates. As I said before, all the scientific names of all the organisms (including plants) in all of your articles need to be in italics, if you can go back and do that. And one more thing, if you can try to remember to always fill in the "edit summary" whenever you make an edit, that would be very helpful. Thanks and best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry to bother you again, but the text in this (very interesting) article has the look of being copied verbatim or almost verbatim from somewhere, presumably from the National Park Service reference you used? Do you know, is that source in the public domain? If not, then you can only copy brief sections of it, and they have to be in quote marks and fully attributed. If the source is not in the public domain then you have to rewrite all of the prose from scratch. Take a look at [1]. Thanks for your attention on this. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've been in contact with the editor of the Singing Sands (J. Manuszak) and all of the issue is written and designed by government employees. Thus it is public domain. It's good to keep checking. (Chris Light (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC))Reply
Hi Chris, how are you doing? Thanks for replying. That's great that it is in the public domain, but even with public domain material, according to the Wikipedia content guideline here: [2].:
"Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism".
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I think it was quite premature to change all the numbers for national monuments. I'm posting here because you posted in multiple places. What was done seems a little inappropriate or incorrect. First, the reference you added [4] is just a useless list of links; it should link here. Second, now all the numbers are off. You number 99 and 74 on List of areas in the United States National Park System#National Monuments when 75 are linked, and you number 99 and 74 on List of National Monuments of the United States when 100 and 75 are linked, also not changing the 100 in the first sentence or the table. I compared the lists, and the NPS list is missing Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, so they must be wrong. It is co-managed by the NPS and BLM, but the NPS still has a page for it [5], so I don't know why it is missing. I have changed the numbers back until we can find a solution. Reywas92Talk22:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have sent the NPS and email about the status of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. I will let you know if they respond, and we may decide to remove it from the lists, but the numbers should not yet be changed. Apparently it is not considered an official unit, but it is still a National Monument. Reywas92Talk23:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
A Holmes County pic by Chris Light
Good to see you back; you picked a great day to visit Holmes County! Thought you'd want to know — I've been working on expanding Ohio NR articles statewide, and my priority is on sites with photos, so it helps to have many more. As well, I replaced some of your photos at the Owen County, Indiana list, not because i objected to them, but because I visited when the sky was blue and leaves were on the trees, rather than on the cloudy wintry days on which you visited and photographed some of the sites. Nyttend (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I visit to say nice work with the pics, too! I like this Italianate house, the Joseph L. DeYarmon House, in National Register of Historic Places listings in Holmes County, Ohio. Also, i noticed Nyttend had removed a self-report of current conditions on a site; it is indeed unusual to include a source statement like that in an article, tho in the NRHP list-articles we do accept all kinds of location corrections, some significant enough to itemize at wp:NRIS info issues OH (if we want to get the NRHP to correct their info). Not sure if you are experienced or not, haven't checked your contribs. --doncram (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Chris, You uploaded a photo of Fort Charlotte to the GRPO entry, we're trying to remove the file for fear of protecting the resources up there. Thanks for all the work and articles here in our Vertical Files at Grand Portage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.160.250 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The article for Jeremiah Service House, mostly written by you, seems to be a closely paraphrased or in some cases simply a copy, of the nomination form. The nomination was written in 2000, and not by a federal (or even a state) employee. I may be missing something, but why isn't this a copyright violation? Generic1139 (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Good question. Maybe I'll try to explain the nature of government forms and submissions for government action. Right now, I neither have the time or the details to try and explain it. Feel free to rewrite it if you wish, so that it's less paraphrase and direct quotes.--Chris Light (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houck Covered Bridge 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. Boleyn (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You know there is already a category for “People from Valparaiso, Indiana,” right? If you are trying to differentiate people who live there but aren’t from there it would be more appropriate to add it as a sub-category of “Valparaiso University alumni.” I think there is danger of this category being confused with the “from” category though - do you know if other similar categories exist? Rikster2 (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
No, I was trying to add people to the category and all I could get was a new category. As such, I quit. I need to go back and do clean-up.--Chris Light (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please don't remove the flags from {{USRD}} unless there is an adequate number of good photos that cover the entire highway. A map and shield in the Commons category is not sufficient. SounderBruce21:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please read MOS:LEAD and follow the guidelines on how to construct a proper lead. I've noticed that several of your NRHP articles do not use proper bolding or introduce the subject's general notability and location in an obvious manner. SounderBruce01:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, thanks so much for all your work and contributions! I see you improving the various WM projects, and really appreciate you. — Fourthords | =Λ= |03:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for adding the info box to the article a way back. But I did have a question about one entry, and didn't want to change it without contacting you first. You entered: Residence time = 20 incidents. But this value should be a measurement of time such as days, weeks, etc. What did you mean by incidents? Thanks • Bobsd • (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The problem I had was that over a period of 2000 to 3000 years, Lake Missoula filled up and then emptied in a catastrophic flood. The glacial block would occur, and it would take 50-60 years for the lake to fill to a level, which lifted the ice tongue and emptied the lake in several weeks. The process repeated itself at least 20 times. So, it the duration 2 to 3,000 years? or 50-60 years? and since most lakes form and later disappear, the repeated growth of the same lake from the same watershed can't be reflected in the info box. Not that the last item needs to be included. If you have a different answer to the Residence time, I'd be glad for you to make the change.
References:
Bjornstad, Bruce N. (c. 2006). On the trail of the Ice Age floods : a geological field guide to the mid-Columbia basin / Bruce Bjornstad. Sandpoint, Idaho: Keokee Books. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-879628-27-4.
Soennichsen, John (c. 2008). Bretz's Flood : The Remarkable Story of a Rebel Geologist and the World's Greatest Flood / John Soennichsen. Seattle, Washington: Sasquatch Books. pp. 215–248. ISBN 978-1-57061-631-0.
That makes total sense to me, and I think in this case, the template just doesn't work, because the term "Residence time" applies to constant inflow and outflow, not filling or emptying. I do not believe there is any documentation on rates, and in any case, every time it cycled, the rates might change (basically you have a new lake). I suggest we just not populate the "Residence time" term in the template, leaving an editor comment as to the reasoning. I'll make that change. Feel free to revert if another option occurs to you. Thanks for the response. • Bobsd • (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
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.
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Chris Light!
First, awesome work, dude, top-to-bottom on your efforts especially with NRHP articles. Massively annoyed and jealous (in a fun way!) on how solid your new articles are.
Looks like you beat me to the Chehalis Downtown Historic District article! Woke up a few weeks ago, saw it submitted, and there were some tears, but I think it was mostly because my husband used the last of the maple syrup. I've had a folder of sourced links going back a couple of years, and was hoping to begin the page myself. Since you've done the grunt work, I want to convey my hopes that whatever I add or change in the coming days is not in any way, shape or form, a criticism of your efforts so far, nor that your work isn't up to some standard. I'm worried my efforts are gonna make it worse!
I know we don't WP:OWN but I try to reach out to editors similar to you - solid work, experienced - wanting to look for guidance and collaboration and make sure there are no hard feelings.
If you go to my user page, you'll see a section of User drafts I'm working on, and it includes a few of the NRHP pages not yet written on Chehalis. I'm beginning heavy work (finally!) on those pages beginning next week and (finally!) clearing out my bookmarks folders on them, such as the post office, scout lodge, courthouse...and I'd like to ask a favor - would you mind if I reach out as I submit them to get your views and experience to make them better, if not up to the excellent standards you clearly acheive?
Again, awesome work. Hope to edit with you in the coming future!
Keep on editing. I spend most of my time on Wikimedia, but have always enjoyed history. I'm more of an opportunist. When I visit an area, I go overboard and check out history, geology, etc., then add to Wikipedia or Wikimedia as appropriate, sometimes too much. If you can improve it or expand it, I'll support it. Chris Light (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
|
Canada
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Old North Yakima Historic District. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
