User talk:Keystone18/Archive 1

Keystone18, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Keystone18! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Keystone18. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Lehigh County, Pennsylvania

Hi Keystone18! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Sumanuil 09:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Looks like I noticed the misspelling of the word "Nineteenth" as "Ninteenth" and corrected it, which would be minor except it is attached to a Commons photo heading and link that itself is also misspelled. Can you fix the spelling on the Commons page? Here is the link: [1] Keystone18 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

There are 38 edits on that page you marked minor in error. There are seven more similarly problemeatic edits on Phillipsburg, New Jersey in the past two days. This seems to be a pattern. Deleting the warning from your talk page won't fix it. Kire1975 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the most substantive edit I made on that page that was marked "minor edit"? They almost all involved the adding/fixing of links, sentence structure, etc. There was little of substance added or removed. In fact, there definitely was nothing of substance deleted. Happy to look at it. Keystone18 (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to flame war about each little edit. I'm obviously not the only one who sees the problem here. When in doubt, check WP:MINOR. Thanks. Take it easy. Have a great day. Kire1975 (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Your account might have a setting that automatically marks every single edit as minor. Kire1975 (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you share with me the example you saw of a significant edit that I marked as "minor"? I'm not disputing the possibility, but I try to be careful about that. Thanks. Keystone18 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:HUH? Kire1975 (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

+LV edits

Greetings. You have added the phrase "part of the Lehigh Valley, which has a population of 861,899 and is the 69th most populated metropolitan area in the U.S. as of the 2020 census" to the first sentence of the lead section of dozens of municipality pages. Per MOS:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Your edits are WP:UNDUE as the pages are not about the Lehigh Valley. How do you propose to justify them? Warm regards, Kire1975 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Augmenting the population sizes of a town or city with that of the metropolitan area in which it is located places the population in context as rural, suburban, urban, etc. and has been done this way on other town pages. Keystone18 (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

How was it justified? Kire1975 (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I notice Lancaster, Pennsylvania is one of many examples where the population of the metropolitan area is included in the lede. There are many others. Keystone18 (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania also includes the metropolitan region's population in its intro. Keystone18 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the metropolitan regions are named after Lancaster and Harrisburg, one could say they are messy but perhaps justified. Then again, the Lancaster metropolitan area is not mentioned again in the body of the article and the Harrisburg lead has five paragraphs. Both no-nos on MOS:LEAD. That's no reason to add the region info to the lead section of every single tiny municipality. Are you going to acknowledge reading the policy pages and the legitimate points that multiple people have been making about your edits? Kire1975 (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Image basics

Pls review MOS:IMAGELOC and WP:IMAGESIZEMoxy- 01:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width measured in pixels, disregarding the user's image size preference setting. In most cases upright=scaling_factor should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices).Moxy- 02:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The first image of a section should be placed below the "Main article" link usually displayed by using {{Main}}, {{Further}} and {{See also}} templates. Do not place an image at the end of the previous section as this will not be visible in the appropriate section on mobile devices. Moxy- 02:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware of that. Didn't realize I did it. Thanks for the reminder. Keystone18 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. ....

Images make Wikipedia more informative, accessible, and professional.

In general, when working with images:

DO: Review the image style guide and use policy. Give context with captions and alt text. Try to find at least one image for each article. Find free images, or create and upload your own. Clean up images: crop, color-correct, etc. Use the best file format for each image. Use objects for scale where helpful. Place images in the section to which they are related

DON'T: Don't upload non-free images. Don't use images in place of tables or charts. Don't use images or galleries excessively. Don't add images that are not relevant. Don't flip faces, text, or works of art. Don't set fixed image sizes. Don't sandwich text between two images. Don't refer to images by their placement.

Moxy- 02:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

::'read the following. .....MOS:UPRIGHT"Moxy- 03:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for letting me know about this. I've adopted it in all my photo edits. It's pretty surprising that most page photos are not currently done in the upright format, which in part explains my own prior confusion on it. I really appreciate you filling me in on it. Wondering: What impact does upright vs. px. have on the image's appearance itself? Let me know if you have a chance. I appreciate your good guidance very much. Keystone18 (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Easton Area School District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Pennsylvania Conference.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Keystone18 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Images

Please do not continue making unnecessary changes to images in articles. There is no need for forced image sizing in articles as the default size usually renders fine. In addition, wikilinks are usually not needed in image captions as they are redundant to wikilinks in the prose, link only if the term is not linked anywhere else in the article. Also, we do not need dates for images unless there is a reason to give a date for historical context, for road articles dates are unneeded unless the image shows a road that has changed since the photo was taken. Dough4872 14:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Lets have a talk before your blocked....your in a few edit wars over image placement and setting fixed pixel size. Do you have any questions about what people are trying to say to you? Moxy- 14:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you give me an example of any edit you felt was ill-advised or inconsistent with guidelines? I will look at it and adjust accordingly, including reverting anything wrong. Sorry in advance and appreciate you letting me know. Keystone18 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Do not set pixel size as in 275px.....use upright parameters. ...as noted above. Moxy- 02:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do revert legitimate additions like photos without first discussing. Meanwhile, I have restored them at default or 250px or lower as you mentioned above. Thanks. Keystone18 (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Do not set pixel size......use upright parameters see WP:IMAGESIZE. Moxy- 03:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I will. Thanks. Keystone18 (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Most of your edits have been reverted, but your recent edits to road articles like U.S. Route 22 in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Route 309, and Lehigh Street added unneeded changes to images and captions as I discussed above. Dough4872 23:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I cannot identify any specific policy on the use of links in captions. But I will say they are typically used, and especially on lengthy pages like the ones you cite in which vast geographic areas are covered. Many people may not take time to read the entire article, or may see a town or community referenced that they don't recognize, and that link is hugely helpful. On what basis would you object to the use of these links? I don't think I can find one major highway page that doesn't use them. See: Interstate 95, where they appear in nearly every caption. Their inclusion is all upside. I didn't appreciate you single handedly reverting them when there is legitimate questions about your decision to do so. Keystone18 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hi Keystone18! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Which edit was that? Keystone18 (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Hi Keystone18! Thank you for your contributions. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Liberty Bell into another page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Don't do that often. In this case, it was a copying of my own edits. But I will. Thanks for the heads up. Keystone18 (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Image spamming

The Fisher Stadium scoreboard in Easton, Pennsylvania following Lafayette College's victory over Lehigh University in the 142nd edition of "The Rivalry" in 2006. The series between the two colleges, which are 17 miles (27 km) away from each other in the Lehigh Valley, is the most-played rivalry in college football history with 157 meetings since 1884.

Please stop adding this photo and caption to multiple articles. In most cases, it's totally irrelevant to the articles, and really seems to be an excuse to add the caption to "promote" "The Rivalry". A picture of a scoreboard and nothing else isn't all that useful in illustrating the caption either. It's probably appropriate at The Rivalry (Lafayette–Lehigh), but not anywhere else. BilCat (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to remove this without responding, but I'll be posting on WP:ANI if you do not respond here. You're behavior regarding photos has been very problematic, as your talk page history shows. This appears to be something the admins need to deal with, but you may not like the result if they get involved. BilCat (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I posted on your page that I thought the photo was a helpful addition and your removal was abrupt. You deleted my question of your edit without response and then deleted the photo from other pages. That said, I likely went overboard in adding it to pages where I still think it worked but might not have been as relevant, so I won't be adding it to the pages you removed it from. By the way, is there a policy on the use of links in photo captions? I couldn't find one, but most pages seem to use them, which makes sense to me. Keystone18 (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I responded in the edit summary, "see your talk page in a few minutes", as I was almost finished writing the first post. BilCat (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. If you really think the photo belongs on one or two of the articles, you can post it and that article's talk page, amd see if some other editors agree that it's a useful photo. However, the caption is probably far too long, and needs to be more succinct.

As to links in captions, as long as they highly relevant to the photo. Not everything in the caption needs to be linked, but enough so the reader can identify the photo and follow up if they wish. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions for more information on captions. BilCat (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks very much. Not sure how to best capture a century-plus rivalry in a photo, but I tend to agree with you that this one of one game's scoreboard over a decade ago falls a bit short and I'm not going to add it to the pages from which you removed it. Keystone18 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. A historical photo of the game being played would be a better option, one from least 100 years ago or more. I don't know if any exist, much less on Commons, but a photo that old would probably be in public domain by now. Aside from that, the whole rivalry isn't really something that can be explained in an photo, but is better suited for article text, suitably referenced. I hope that helps. BilCat (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It does, and I agree. Thanks again for your assistance. Keystone18 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Add new actor to Wikipedia data base

Wanted to see if you could add new actor to the Wikipedia data base name is Humberto Martinez actor was featured in fast and furious 9. Romeo1991805 (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Could you please stop oversizing the images at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The standard width is 220 px. I just fixed all these a few days ago. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I see User:Moxy and User:Dough4872 recently left you messages about images. Please take a moment to read MOS:IMAGES. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read MOS:IMGSIZE, which specifies that "upright=scaling factor is preferred whenever possible" and that images should be expanded or contracted in accordance with the ability to view their detail. The images on that page are small and warrant modest expansion. You did not "fix" them; you "broke" them. Keystone18 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That section is confusing and should be in two parts. My interpretation is that if you must increase the base width, then use the "upright" feature to accomplish this. However, the base width should not exceed 220 px unless there is a good reason. None of the photos you increased in size are "small" (less than 220 px wide), and even if they were, why increase their base width greater than 220? Magnolia677 (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if you are seeking absolute clarity of direction, the policy falls short of that but because it affords discretion based on the what does and does not work visibly on an article page. I'd focus on these two parts of it: 1.) "upright=scaling factor is preferred whenever possible;" (you are not using upright, so why?) and 2.) "Where a smaller or larger image is appropriate, use |upright=scaling factor, which expands or contracts the image by a factor relative to the user's base width." I set them to 1.1, which was appropriate in this case for seeing them clearly but not allowing them to be overwhelming. The pages that look the worst, in my view, are those with huge discrepancies in the sizing. Keystone18 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Timothy Krajcir

I didn't want you to see that I did an "undo" on one of your edits and then miss my explanation in the edit summary. I started a talk page topic about it, because I don't think it's straightforward and any input is appreciated. Thanks! Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of Lehigh Valley population and rank

As in this edit, there might be an argument that it's relevant to list that the "township is part of the Lehigh Valley metropolitan area", though other editors have deleted the details in their entirety. But why is it relevant in the article for Allamuchy Township, New Jersey what the population of the MSA is or how the Lehigh Valley ranks in the US? We don't list the population of Warren County and its rank among counties in the state or US, nor do articles list the population of New Jersey and its rank in the country. And why does any of this need to be listed in articles for unincorporated communities in the county? Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The larger metropolitan region to which it belongs is one of the most important biographical details of any U.S. town or city, giving context to its location and to the associated economic and other factors of that metropolitan region. WP:USCITIES lists it right at the top of things that should be included. Keystone18 (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

No. If the city has a metropolitan area, such as New York City, then it's meaningful to list the name, population and rank of the New York City metro area. Again, it might (emphasis on might) be relevant to list that Allamuchy Township is in the Lehigh Valley metropolitan are, but there is no reason to include the population of the Lehigh Valley area, nor its rank. This is detail that belongs in the Lehigh Valley article. Alansohn (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the topic of inclusion of detail for metro area at WT:USCITIES. Please feel free to participate and share your thoughts. Alansohn (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about it. I reread your comment. I think you are saying that the metropolitan region associated with a city is important to cite but not the associated population of it or any other facts about the region. Not sure I communicated my view fully, but I felt that mention of the metropolitan region to which it belongs is essential and that other facts about that metro region depend on whether or not it is of consequence to an understanding of the city or town to a reader maybe totally unfamiliar with it. On the pages we were discussing, the case for mentioning the population and population ranking of the metropolitan region is that, absent mentioning it, a reader gets an intro about a town with a population of sometimes less than a thousand people, which creates an impression that would differ if placed in context that it is actually part of a fairly large metropolitan area. I'll try to make that point on your WT:USCITIES post. Keystone18 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Timing and decimal precision of NCES data

In these edits, the NCES data already included and cited in the article, as stated in the source provided, is for 2020-21 school year (not for 2021-22). The numbers provided by the NCES were trimmed to avoid excessive decimal precision, as in student-teacher ratio and number of teachers. There's no need to go to 102.63 teachers; 0.6 of an FTE is one teacher working thee days out of five, while 0.03 of a teacher is one working for less than one hour a week. The difference of 0.01 for the student-teacher ratio is an extra few minutes of class time. The additional decimal precision may be correct mathematically and come straight from the source, but per MOS:UNCERTAINTY, "round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative. Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason." Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. Well, I think you are undeniably right on point one but not point two. That is NCES data for 2020-21, and I was even thinking how ununusual it was to not see any change in those stats year over year. I'll correct it if you haven't already. The FTE listing format, however, is provided on the school template page and uses a the full four digits, which you can see in the examples at: Template:Infobox school. And that may or may not be overly precise because the four digits themselves might represent a rounding by NCES. Hope you're doing well. Keystone18 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The ratio for the school is listed at 11:36. It should not be rounded, but do what you will. A bigger question: Even if you are going to round it, you would either omit the fourth digit (listing it as 11.3), or round up the third (listing it as 11.4). What is: 11:4:1? What does the 1 stand for? That suggests it is a ratio of three inputs, and of course there are only two (students and teachers). Keystone18 (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Marksboro, New Jersey

I'm not sure I understand this edit. Template:Commons category says "In articles, this template should be placed at the top of the last section on the page". Because the "external links" section is empty (and should therefore be removed), the last section would be "references". Thanks for your input on this. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

When used as that template, which was the change I made, it flushes to the right column (still at the top). This is where you'll see it on most pages, sometimes alone or sometimes grouped with other Wiki projects. Keystone18 (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Rollback

I reverted your edits because you were changing the name of a venue that wasn't called that at the time. You were also causing errors by trying to pipe instances that weren't linked. Additionally, WP:NOTBROKEN, the redirects work just fine, no need for a pipe. – ².O.^Boxing 08:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't change the venue. I changed the link. No change in the name as it appeared. Keystone18 (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the kind of edit that was causing errors. It left the location column displaying "Wind Creek Bethlehem" all on it's lonesome. Regardless, they're unnecessary changes that only result in flooding watchlists. – ².O.^Boxing 09:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yea, looks like I messed a few of those up. Sorry about that. 09:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC) Keystone18 (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Apologies for flooding your notifications. – ².O.^Boxing 09:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Junction lists

The destinations in the junction lists should be as they appear on signage. If the sign says Ben Franklin Bridge, it should be displayed as such even if the title of the article is Benjamin Franklin Bridge. Dough4872 22:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

No, they should appear by their actual name unless the page is mistitled in which case the page should be renamed. Otherwise, we'd be labeling it the "B Franklin Bridge:

Signs are regularly just abbreviations. Keystone18 (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no harm in linking to a redirect. Redirects are cheap. MOS:RJL says the destinations column should include “Locations and roads as presented on guide signs for the junction.” The signs on CR 537 at US 30 have the bridge signed as Ben Franklin Bridge not Benjamin Franklin Bridge. Dough4872 23:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't "fix" redirects

This edit is one more example of changes you have made to links so that "2010 United States Census" is changed to make the word "census" lowercase. Per WP:DONOTFIXIT, such changes to redirects are entirely unnecessary. Please avoid making such unnecessary "fixes". Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The page name's use of the word "census" is not capitalized. If that's inaccurate, the entire page should be moved to 2020 United States Census. But that is not the name of it. It is 2020 United States census and your inquiry should probably be directed to whoever set it up that way, not me. I'll inquire about the capitalization on the page name's talk page. It's problematic that the page has the word capitalized and the use of it in most city, township, and municipality pages is not capitalized. This could not have been the original design or intent. It's an error in either the page name or page content. My correction of it harmed nothing and should not be bothersome to you. Keystone18 (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Importance parameter in WikiProject tags

Hello, please do not raise the importance parameter on WikiProject tags where it isn't warranted. This parameter is designed for the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, a semi-historical project to make a print/offline selection of Wikipedia articles. As it says in this section, "By 'priority' or 'importance' of topics for the overall offline release, we generally mean to indicate the level of expectation or desire that the topic would be covered in a traditional encyclopedia". The vast majority of articles on Wikipedia are tagged as low importance on most WikiProjects because of how specialised they are. For example, Jazz on the Ave Music Festival is not at all high-importance for WikiProject Jazz because it's a modern festival at which very little historically significant to the genre has occurred, especially compared to something like the Newport Jazz Festival (which is rightly tagged as high-importance by WikiProject Jazz). Also, I've gone and added an archive tag to your talk page archive; hope you don't mind. Graham87 06:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Television stations in the Lehigh Valley has been nominated for deletion

Category:Television stations in the Lehigh Valley has been nominated for deletion. 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. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I offered my argument for keeping it. Keystone18 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Government in the Lehigh Valley

A tag has been placed on Category:Government in the Lehigh Valley 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this should be deleted. It was incorrectly created and properly replaced with Category:Government of the Lehigh Valley. Keystone18 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability is not required for material added to an embedded list

Please stop adding notices to articles claiming that "only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here as Notable people." The notability guideline explicitly says that it "does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article." The notability guideline for people was specifically edited a few years to make this clear: "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Wikipedia:Trivia sections)." Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

That template has been largely helpful on many pages, discouraging the insertion of frivolous additions. It's not a template I developed. But you are right about the policy, and thanks for the guidance, which I'll follow. Keystone18 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Allentown public officials

A tag has been placed on Category:Allentown public officials 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Models from Allentown, Pennsylvania

A tag has been placed on Category:Models from Allentown, Pennsylvania 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Commas

Regarding this edit, please see MOS:GEOCOMMA. The short version is that when a location is followed by a state or county name separated by a comma, a second comma at the end is needed to balance the first. This applies if there is a triple construction of location, county, state. Imzadi 1979 → 04:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Alexandra Chando, you may be blocked from editing. It's been months now, and you are still receiving talk page warnings over WP:GEOCOMMA and WP:OVERLINKing, etc. Keep this up, and somebody is going to take you to WP:ANI. You need to get the hint and stop being disruptive over things you shouldn't be disruptive about. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Muhlenberg College into Muhlenberg Mules. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. In this case, some of the copied content has been present in the original article since 2013 or before. DanCherek (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've sort of added that as holding content as I (and hopefully others) develop this new page. I will make note of its origin on the talk page, since I cannot now add it to the edit summary. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Why does this say "2nd request"? Was there a "1st request"? The page and content transfer was just done yesterday. Thanks for your assistance and guidance. Keystone18 (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. In this case I've already provided the attribution in the edit summary (which is the only required part), so this was just a heads up for the future. The first request was here. Sorry I didn't reply to you – I wasn't pinged so I didn't see it – but this was the edit in question, which inclued some text that had first been added in 2007. Not holding it against you or anything :) it's just since you asked. Thanks for your contributions to the project. DanCherek (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

McComb, Mississippi

Please use edit summaries so other editors know what you're doing. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Minor edit on chronology and some link fixes; nothing was added or removed. Keystone18 (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I responded there. It would have been more appropriate, I think, to initiate this discussion here, or on the university's talk page, as opposed to 1. alleging it was vandalistic; and then 2. Filing a complaint about it without even articulating your view. But if you had initiated such a discussion, I'll say now and here what I likely would have said in defense of adding the specific location in the intro:

It would be very atypical not to list the administrative and primary campus location on a university page intro. What exists at West Chester University is not uncommon, and the fact that it has a few facilities/campuses not precisely in West Chester is all explained later in an entire section. When a West Chester-based university opens facilities or campuses not in West Chester, it does not cease being located in West Chester. Here are universities with many facilities and campuses beyond their primary administrative location and campus:

• Ohio State University has many more off-site facilities than West Chester. That page properly opens with: "in Columbus, Ohio" in first sentence
• Drexel University has large off-site satellite campuses. That page properly opens with: "in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania"

Keystone18 (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

First attempt to discuss it here. Reverted immediately.

Second attempt to discuss it here. Reverted immediately. Kire1975 (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You omitted something from your Drexel University example: "Drexel University is a private research university with its main campus in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." With respect, you don't WP:OWN wikipedia. You don't decide what is "proper." Kire1975 (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I totally agree and understand your broader point. I think what happened here is that I felt the fact of its location was being questioned. In adding the reference, I was hoping I was anwering that, but clearly didn't. I definitely would not again have reverted it without pro-actively initiating communication on it. Let me know if you have any suggestions on how I can better handle an issue like this. Thanks. Keystone18 (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a good enough answer for me on today's conflict. My final question is why do you mark so many of your edits minor? It's extra work when I do it. Do you have a setting on your account that does it automatically or what? Kire1975 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Just seeing this. Thanks. On the minor edit option, I do my best to use it as its intended when it involves a format or routine/non-substantive correction or edit. I did not use it in the case of this West Chester University page, however, even though I did not see it at the time as a major edit. I'm just now looking at that page and I'm sure we can address all your points. You are also right that the intro includes excessive links (not of my doing). That third sentence on its accreditation should probably be brought down into the "Academics" section. So I'll draft up a proposed revision and save it on my draft page in a way that addresses all your points, including the various campuses not in West Chester too. Hopefully, at the end, it's a better article than before my involvement and you're left with a positive feeling about all of it (the page and our interaction). Keystone18 (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)