For earlier discussion, see user_talk:Choster/2004

So I have to ask, how do you know anything about the history of Danville? alteripse 04:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't really, beyond a friend who did his residency at Geisinger years back. I actually happened on Danville PA today while looking for Danville CA, and thought I could slightly edit for flow and make a couple changes based on the two external links I also added. —choster 06:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the bit about it being the first station to serve an airport. I'm hoping you know more about this than I do, but it seems like it needs a bit of clarification. The MBTA Blue Line has a stop at Logan Airport, and it has for many years. It has a stairway for local access, but presumably locals can get into BWI station without going to the airport. Was it the first one on a commuter/intercity rail system? --SPUI 20:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak to the T station at Logan, I just repeated information from the station itself, which seems to be confirmed online by sites like http://bwi.natca.net/ and http://www.bwiairport.com/about_bwi/bwi_timeline/ . Perhaps the distinction should be drawn about whether the station is located on airport grounds, since the pre-AirTrain JFK connection to the A Train would also seem to pre-date the BWI rail station by several decades. -choster 05:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well the JFK connection involved an MTA bus until the AirTrain was built. The blue line does too, but it's an airport-run bus. Is BWI Rail Station on airport grounds? --SPUI (talk) 05:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on the rewrite of the page. Burgundavia 04:32, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

You call that a minor edit? Sure, it was all wikifying and grammatical stuff, but you did a really good job of making the article look much more professional. Good work. (c; - Eric Herboso 22:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I think the new logo looks great, thank you. james_anatidae 06:45, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the additions! I created the page when I created Alternative press (U.S. political left) and kept meaning to go back and add in more titles. I am a lefty, but am well aware of the size of the alternative press of the right. I felt shabby seeing it sit there with just a few cites.--Cberlet 13:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! It's not complete and I don't think it's organized in the most useful way—for instance, it conflates the likes of Chronicles (paleoconservative) with the likes of The Weekly Standard—but all lists have to begin somewhere. -choster 19:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for writing a really good article. I had been meaning to write this one for a while now but I think you did a better job than I could have. --Polynova 20:14, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks-- just trying to fill in some gaps. -choster 19:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on the cleanup needed on retreating blade stall and settling with power? Constructive comments in the related discussion pages would be helpful. Thanks! Madhu 12:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful, amazing expansion of Navy Yard (Washington Metro). I had to drop a message and tell you how amazed I was to see it expanded like that :) Good job! --Golbez 19:52, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Choster! I'm posting here to let you know that there is a new notice board for Korea-related topics. This board is a central place to discuss all matters pertaining to Wikipedia's coverage of Coreana. Although I know you prefer to devote your energies to other areas, I hope you'll drop by and help it to take shape. -- Visviva 15:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe it is an acceptable practice to delete other user's nominations or comments, or (most egregiously) to change the content of another user's comments, on the WP:CFD page. Please refrain from doing this in the future. If you disagree with a nomination or comment, say so, but don't delete it. Russ Blau (talk) 01:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have absolutely no idea to what you refer. If I did delete any comments besides my own, I assure you it was entirely accidental. Could you please be more specific? - choster 03:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. If it was an accident, that's understandable; that's why I posted here on your talk page rather than make a big issue out of it on the CFD page or elsewhere. Russ Blau (talk) 13:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well I am not sure what happened; it appears my edit was submitted twice, due to browser or server glitch. Again, I apologize. But I assure you I am not a quick enough typist to delete so many blocks inside of a second. Such accidents will happen on heavily edited pages such as CFD, which I hope you will consider in any future such incidents. Your initial post is too easily interpreted as patronizing and accusatory. - choster 15:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from editing material on The William Penn Society entry. Thank You.

The gentleman who left you the above note (User:130.65.211.37) has decided that he owns the article in question, and is adding back that list of non-notable alumni. You might wish to check it out. --Calton | Talk 15:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Angel tech does not appear to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may want to nominate it for deletion. -- JamesTeterenko 01:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. To me, seemed to qualify for Very short articles providing little or no context. Now VfDed. - choster 22:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was only calling for a speedy of the page on Wikipedia; the image is on Commons. --SPUI (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cato Institute (A libertarian institution) has a budget of about $14 million a year, derived from 15,000 contributors. More than 70 percent of its funding comes from individuals, with about 10 percent each from corporations and foundations. According to one critical source, in the 17 years spanning 1985 to 2001, the Institute received $15,633,540 in 108 separate grants from eight different foundations:

Castle Rock Foundation (Formerly Coors Foundation) Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation Earhart Foundation JM Foundation John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Scaife Foundations

So what? If he gave a million dollars to the United Negro College Fund, that wouldn't make him African American. In any case, this is being discussed at Talk:Richard_Mellon_Scaife#Ideology. - choster 15:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol being black isn't an ideology. thanks for the link.

Hi. I see you're the creator of Category:Pensacola, Florida. Do you know what happened with this other Category:Pensacola Metro Area category? It looks like someone created this latter category and then copied a bunch of articles from your category into the metro one. That seems very non-standard and I'm tempted to get rid of this metro area category. Otherwise, I'll just make your category a subcategory of the metro area one. To confuse matters worse, the creator of the metro category seems to be a former Wikipedian and only has one edit since late October. Any clue?  :) wknight94 12:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've had no contact with the other editor. I had simply gone through and created categories for several major cities around the US which lacked them; the scope intended here was for the actual City of Pensacola. I've rejiggered the categories to fit this model—all remains is to ensure that articles are not listed in both. If you think one or the other category is unjustified or should be renamed, it can be submitted to WP:CFD, I defer to your knowledge of Florida. - choster 17:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One issue is the lack of definition. What is the dividing line for the "metro area"? Anyway, I'll leave as is and move articles around to avoid duplicates like you said. I just figure this was something an inexperienced user threw in on a whim and then left Wikipedia forever... No biggie. wknight94 17:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken to say it's defunct. It bought Wells Fargo Bank and then changed its own name to Wells Fargo Bank, and then moved its headquarters to San Francisco. Changing its name and relocating does not make it defunct. Michael Hardy 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I inquire why you categorized Category:Disambiguation categories into Category:Wikipedia category redirects back in August? --AllyUnion (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because their only purpose is to point users elsewhere, making them a subset of category redirects. - choster 14:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We sure do appreciate the help, Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics. I think all I've seen you do is cats, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Categories although I haven't seen anything wrong(I'm not up on it either). Anyways, I was gonna invite you to join the project, but it looks as if you get around to alittle of everything. Thnx tho :) 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Categorization is one of my primary activities at WP, so I've been linking the various Category:Historical currencies to the appropriate countries and histories. But I have no special numismatic expertise or interest, so additional contributions on my part may not necessarily constitute "help" :-). - choster 03:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As an editor who participated in the discussion regarding renaming Category:United States Students' Unions, I am writing you to let you know that while there was consensus to rename the category there was no clear consensus for the final name. If you would like to revisit the discussion on Category talk:United States Students' Unions I am willing to consider an agreement there and rename the category. I won't be monitoring your talk page so if you have to reply to me directly please do so on my talk page. Thanks! --Syrthiss 19:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me why you think an article should be considered a category of itself. There is a link for the main article of the category (National Pan-Hellenic Council) before any sub-cat or cateogry is listed. I don't agree that it's a category, it's the main article as I listed. Just curious about your thoughts on this, and if you intend to make this change to every orgnization, company, entity that is contained with a category. Ccson 22:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Categorization, articles should be placed in categories with the same name. And it does seem quite logical to me that where an article and category cover the same topic, the article serves as the "home" or "main" article for the category. This convention is used throughout WP; there are hundreds of uses of Template:catmore alone, which automatically inserts a link to the main article based on the name of the category. - choster 22:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC) choster 22:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following your reasoning and I think you misunderstood my question. I, (not you) added the catmore link in this category page to link to the main article. You have not updated this category page since July 2005. My question is why you re-added this category (6:30, 18 January 2006 Choster (restoring deleted category)) as a category in the main article. This seems redundant because now there are 2 links to National Pan-Hellenic Council, one as catmore (added by ccson), and one as an article (added by you), when you restored the link I deleted when I added the catmore. I'm not trying to be difficult, just understand why duplicate something, and since you agree that 100s of articles use catmore as I have done here, why not remove the category in the main article? Ccson 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every article should be categorized. If there is a principle which states a category cannot link to an article both in its description and via its contents, then the item in its description seems logically the one to be removed.-choster 23:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then link this article to the category United States student societies, not to itself. that's why they have the catmore template that I used to get the reader back to the main article. Ccson 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of us has a fatal misunderstanding of how categories work in Wikipedia. Articles should be placed in their own category. The article National Pan-Hellenic Council is, according to this principle, tagged with [[Category:National Pan-Hellenic Council]] so that it appears in Category:National Pan-Hellenic Council. In turn, Category:National Pan-Hellenic Council is a subcategory of US student societies, so it is tagged with [[Category:United States student societies]]. The subordination of the article to all ancestor categories is implied, which is why it's not necessary to place the article in additional categories all the way up to Category:Organizations. Whether or not the catmore template is used in the category description is utterly irrelevant as to categorization; adding or removing it in no way alters the relationship of the article to its categories or categories to their parents.- choster 20:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your maintaining of the rail transport cateogries [2] [3]. Please be informed that there have been age-old disagreements around the names and structuring of these Chinese-related categories. It would be nice if you can indicate what you actually intended for by creating the category. Thank you. — Instantnood 19:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking through the list of unwatched pages (available only to administrators) and found 1896 Republican National Convention. I see that you recently edited this but are not watching it. You may want to go to your preferences and under the "editing" tab turn on "Add pages you edit to your watchlist". This will enable you to keep an eye out for any edits that are made to pages you create and help to revert vandalism. If you do decide to turn it on can you please drop me a note on my talk page so I can cut down my excessive watchlist (6000+). Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't your contribution actually speak to notability. The fact that there are fuck trucks at multiple colleges indicates that this is a concept that is more widespread than boston alone. Perhaps instead of trying to eliminate this article you should add to the article by discussing these other fick trucks. Thanks. Interestingstuffadder 06:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I proposed an article with a different name and covering a different scope, so this one gets deleted or redirected whether or not it is replaced with something more encyclopedic. - choster 06:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And what name did you propose? As you acknowledge there could be a useful article on this topic, why don't we work together to create it? I am not against a new name and redirect. As you will notice, as it stands this is a fairly well written and well-cited artcle. I'd hate to lose all of this hard work, Interestingstuffadder 06:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the adds. It makes sense for this type of nomination. I'm surprised that we keep finding more of the U.S. renames. It might be easier to clean this up if we can deal with the aviation categories. Vegaswikian 07:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, although there is always the chance that someone may feel strongly about one order and not the others.Staffelde 00:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you placed a category redirect on category:DeSoto vehicles on behalf of category:De Soto vehicles. With consultation of the Auto-project members I have moved the articles to the more common "DeSoto" spelling and away from the "De Soto" spelling, and have redirected the category to reflect the change. This was done based on a number of factors, including google search results, current reference book usage and historical promotional material used by Chrysler Corporation which used a half - not whole - space between the parts of the name. Stude62 13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... sorry to bug ya, but I'm not sure what your nomination for this category was. Should it be deleted, renamed, ...??? Please update the entry on CFD and the {{cfd}} tag on the cat page. Thanks! —akghetto ^talk 06:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:AlexandriaStation.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -SCEhardT 03:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me five minutes, for Pete's sake. - choster 03:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a Peer Review on the article Alpha Phi Alpha because I intend to request that it become a Featured Article. I would like to ask you to review the article and suggest any changes or additions that should be added to bring it to the standard of a featured article. You provided feedback on my talk page and I would appreciate any assistance you can provide. Ccson 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you said in the discussion "per nom" which was "United States student governments" or something. If you're ok with N's Student governments in the United States I'll just drop it on the rename queue. --Syrthiss 18:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotcha. I'm fine with that and will comment as such as at the US Student Unions Talk page. -choster 20:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your work at rationalizing WP in the area of Catholic education and orders. It is a phenominal task because it both vast and complex. In the case of Category:Holy Cross Order there are two issues:

First, there is an entity by the name of "The Order of the Holy Cross" founded in the Middle Ages which is popularly known as the "Crosiers." The Crosiers as far as I can tell are not yet mentioned in WP, but ought to be. For this reason the Congregation of Holy Cross never uses the term "order" in describing itself. Also, "order" is a technical term in Canon Law which is distinct from the term "congregation." That is, while popularly confused, these are not interchangable terms.

Secondly, to make things even more confusing there are actually four independent Congregations which trace themselves to Fr. Moreau's foundation in 1837.

Though I am still learning as a new contributor to WP, I would suggest renaming Category:Holy Cross Order to Category:Congregations of Holy Cross. I do not know the procedure for proposing this change, and am still thinking about whether this is the best title. I would very much like your input on this idea. Thanks Vaquero100 20:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Vaquero100, thank you for your valuable comments. Indeed, I originally created Category:Congregation of Holy Cross but retreated from it thinking it would exclude the women's orders. I fell back on Category:Holy Cross Order in ignorance as a parallel to Category:Augustinian Order, Category:Carmelite Order, etc.... as you can see, the education categories are a subset of the larger problem of grouping the orders and societies (Category:Augustinian Order, which confusingly contains Category:Augustinian orders and which was incidentally named over my objection). But if the women's orders can be classed under Category:Congregations of Holy Cross I would certainly favor that name. -choster 20:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Choster, just want to let you know that I am going ahead with this chage. I will do the same for the Category, "Holy Cross High Schools as discuss below as I am able to get to it. Also, I wanted to let you know that there an even further wrinkle: the "Holy Cross Convent School" in Namibia is a foundation of yet another community called "Holy Cross Sisters" (S.C.S.C.). I have been a Holy Cross priest for 10 years and had not heard of them until I investigated your link last night. So, thanks. Vaquero100 13:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize now that there are two issues with this category I created recently. First, it does not follow WP guidelines for capitalization of acticles. Secondly, it appears that the preferred nomenclature on WP for "high schools" is "secondary schools," at least with regard to RC secondary schools. I would like to propose, therefore, that this be renamed to the category, Holy Cross secondary schools. As mentioned above, I do not know the procedure for proposing this change officially. Could you help nominate for this change? Again, thank you for your editing efforts in this area. Vaquero100 20:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the help. What do you think about the name? Is it appropriate to use the name that the article is called right now or perhaps Emille Bell? Thanks. Tortfeasor 03:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries—just popped in because I noticed it was now linked from Korean Bell of Friendship. As far as the name is concerned, I have no strong opinions, but I'll leave some comments at Talk:Seongdeokdaewangsinjong. -choster 13:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be 2 articles for the same school. GrahamBould 06:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there! I saw that you've contributed to the Yellowcard page. I've been working hard all weekend to get it into an encyclopedia-worthy article, and I think we're almost there!

There's a short list of things that still need some work at the bottom of the talk page. If you could take a look at it, maybe add more things to do, or clean up whatever you see needs work, I would sure appreciate it.

Thanks for your help. Have an awesome day! Cathryn 10:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there~ I see you changed the category sort order of St. Paul to be "Saint Paul," but according to the Chicago Manual of Style, which is a preferred source of the Wikipedia manual of style, "a family name in the form of a saint's name is alphabetized letter by letter as the name is spelled." I think it makes sense to have it that way on the cities named for saints page, but other than that, I think it should be done the Chicago way. (Besides, St. Louis in Marion County looks lonely stranded there by itself.) I remember many moons ago being taught that "Mc"="Mac" and "St."="Saint" when alphabetizing and I believe some sources still say it's the correct way, however, I think we should stick with Chicago. Unless you can cite another authority? I'm not real attached to either way, but I'm a stickler for consistency. BTW, I think what is currently an article on "Saint Helens, Oregon" should be "St. Helens", as that is the way the city government spells it. I plan to ask about moving the page and doing a redirect. Would you like to know if that happens? Katr67 07:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see you did the same thing to St. Louis, Oregon. So now it's consistent at least. I take it you disagree about the Chicago Manual of style thing? Katr67 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, "St. Paul, Oregon" is neither a family name, nor was the city originally named for someone with "St. Paul" as a family name, and I believe the Chicago guideline is intended to account for names like St. James, which is not pronounced "Saint James" but "Sinjin." As far as St. Louis, I've been going through categories horizontally rather than vertically, i.e. cities, then counties, then towns, and so forth rather than all places in Alabama, places in Alaska, and so on. I've no opinion on Saint Helens, though I'd stick with the most common usage. Generally, because the same name could be written out as "Saint," "St.," or "St" in different kinds of English, I think alphabetizing under "Saint," "Fort," "Mount," and so on is more reliable, as the MLA manual still dictates even if Chicago has loosened up in its most recent edition. -choster 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says the same thing about place names, actually. (§18.91 to be precise) "...should be indexed as they appear in the text. Like personal names, they are alphabetized as they appear." Thanks for the explanation though. As long as that's the way it's done across the whole of Wikipedia (are you just sticking to place names?), I don't see a problem with it. Boy, you're taking on a lot of work! Happy editing! Katr67 22:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've delisted your CSD nomination of Category:Conservatives. This category is quite populated, and the CFD was more than a year old. Please feel free to relist this on WP:CFD using the normal process. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested in helping me set up a wikiproject for anthropology. If so, . Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 11:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a proposal on the "list of proposed wikiprojects" page. If you're interested, you can sign up at our entry and on the temporary project page. Thanks. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 21:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The message doesn't really matter if you aren't actually blocked. I wouldnt worry too much about it =). alphaChimp ^laudare 11:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain what you consider "dubious"? [4] Do you believe that the references/quotes are false? Feel free to make use of Talk:Paul Weyrich. Guettarda 18:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Controversial_section. Sorry this has gotten lost amidst the bickering, which I'm not especially interested in. If a sentence says "Paul Weyrich is orange, and the sky is pink" I'm not going to hesitate to challenge the statement that the sky is pink even if I have no opinion on the hue of the article subject.-choster 18:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was too quick to post here (and too slow to actually click "save"). Guettarda 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wondering why you removed things from the 2008 RNC but not the 2008 DNC? thanks Smith03 03:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Didn't even know there was a DNC '08 category. They both seem a little premature, but thanks for the catch. -choster 18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing categories without discussion. You are undoing hours of work. -THB 15:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And categorizing those changes as "minor" is deceptive, to say the least. You need to reset your default on that. -THB 16:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you misunderstand Wikipedia:Categorization. Categories collect articles about like subjects together; Virginia Commonwealth University is like New York University, and Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine (if it existed) would be like New York University School of Medicine, but Virginia Commonwealth University is not analogous to New York University School of Medicine. Exactly the same distinction is made for Category:Dental schools, Category:Journalism schools, Category:Hospitality Schools, and on down the line. To impart a characteristic on the parent would be to place France in Category:Caribbean countries on account of Martinique. -choster 16:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• With regard to marking edits as minor, I made little or no changes to the content of the articles. The character of the article is not fundamentally changed by changing its categorization, so I have always marked edits which change only categories as minor.-choster 16:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category "Nursing school in xxx state" is the same as "Colleges and universities in xxx state that have nursing schools or colleges of nursing or departments of nursing" which is an extremely valid category. Do you like that category better? I find it a bit cumbersome. The categories you are deleting serve a purpose and do not harm the article. The alternative is a bunch of cruft with an article on each school at every college and endless debates about notability. As far as minor, when the sum of your edits is to delete an entire category, they are not minor. Minor is putting a space after the primary article so it will rise to the top of its category. Please reconsider what you consider minor. -THB 16:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also argue that if Martinique did not have its own article, placing France in Carribean countries would be okay. France has overseas departments all over the world, that are just as much a part of France as Toulouse is. -THB 16:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say your edit to delete the category from San Diego State University and another user promptly reverted the change. Is there a proper definition for inclusion into the category? What is the right answer, the category for the entire SDSU article or just for the School of Nursing? Streltzer 16:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• San Diego State University isn't a nursing school, San Diego State University College of Health & Human Services is, which is why the former shouldn't be in the category and the latter should. I think the other user may not have understood my intent. -choster 16:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand where you're coming from, I disagree, and think you need to discuss and reach consensus before attempting wide-spread changes to categories. That's in the policies, too. -THB 16:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a previous contributor to the article on Evergreen International Aviation, could I request your input on the talk page on whether it should contain a link to the corresponding SourceWatch article? With thanks, --Neoconned 12:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened with that last edit? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, bizarro! I might ask the same of you though ([5]). Perhaps it is a technical glitch? -choster 23:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at the Village Pump.-choster 00:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit looked like it had a comment in it, so I reverted to it, but instead of an article, it was a user page. This really is bizarre. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Major_edit_glitch there is/was a systemwide problem. Thanks for the heads-up though. Signal to go get something to eat I suppose :). -choster 01:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Template talk:OTA, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at [[Talk:Template talk:OTA]]. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.

Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I seem to have mixed up Year of birth and Date of birth.-choster 23:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say a big "Thank You" for all the work you are putting in getting 'St Somewhere' places to list correctly in categories - I must admit it's something I hadn't thought of, and am very glad you have! DuncanHill 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's no big deal, something to occupy me while waiting for the bus. Somebody else can handle all the Mts. and Fts. :-) -choster 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:UnitedAirlines7772005Livery.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Oden 14:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]