User talk:Ishtar456 - Knowledge (XXG)

1344:. I had some issues with some of you edits, however. First of all it is not appropriate terms such as Chardon Healing Fund to be in bold. It is appropriate for it to be linked in red, like it was, because it set it up to be a future wikilink. It is also appropriate for there to be external links to the churches where they event have been held since article on those churches are unlikely to ever be developed. I cannot automatically reverse these edits, because you did them while I was editing so I am an going to do them manually. That means I have to double my effort. I have put a lot into this article and I respectfully request that you use care with your edits. Thanks a lot.-- 1821:

was that sometimes it feels like contributing to DYK is not worth it especially when it seemed as if you were happy to fail it and leave it at that. I saw that as negative. I said that when all of the new restriction were imposed starting with the review for review thing which whilst it reduces the backlog some of us at times, myself included, really don't feel like doing it. At times it feels like a chore rather than enjoying reviewing, at least tht's how I feel about it at times. At least with GA review I can choose to do so when I want and quite like reviewing good articles at times. Anyway no hard feelings.♦

4324: 2746:

visit when I was a kid. There are not many sources as it has not been open to the public yet. Besides their website, I have also cited the website of the architect and also a newspaper article about the latest locomotive they purchased in November, 2011. It is located on Smokey Lane, Sugarcreek, Ohio. I do not really know much about how to post coordinates. The fact that Jerry Joe Jacobson sold OCRR and kept all his vintage equipment is mentioned in many places, but no everyone is aware yet that he built this roundhouse. Take Care,--

383: 2434: 4522: 1583: 3438: 1265:

that there were 4 (by name). There is actually no indication that there will be a forth fatality so that last one was really uncalled for. I just had to make five manual edits to undo the damage that one editor did (and that was an experienced long time editor). It would really be helpful if the article could be semi-protected so that unregistered editors could not do what they have been doing. Good thing I am on vacation. Thank you for your help.--

131: 1777:

review removed from prep. and it is not my intention to be that kind of reviewer. When you posted here yesterday, you did not even mention that you had changed the hook. All you had to do was say "I changed the hook, can you take another look at it". I certainly would have under those circumstances. It seemed reasonable to me for me to abandon the process when you come on to my user page and accused me of "making things exceptionally difficult"

3914: 2678: 1839: 1508: 1466: 4427: 1360:

not an article. As for the external links, you should reasonably assume that a person can use search engines and the text of the article to find community relations and current community information. Please realize what Knowledge (XXG) is, and what Knowledge (XXG) is not. As for your concerns about my edits being done while yours are being done, I suggest you make smaller time periods between edits to prevent this problem.--

2313: 1228: 2129: 221: 3809: 3648: 3255: 2836: 2221: 1129: 865: 793: 711: 594: 511: 4659: 1004: 2550: 283: 173: 3591: 2931: 3019: 947: 3778: 3950: 4158: 4219: 1403:. Usually those are republished newspaper articles, and sure enough, I found the original text in an article in the local paper. I will add that as the first source, since newspaper article access tends to be more stable than that to TV news reports online. I also kept the parentheses since the sentences seemed too disjunct without them. 4195:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 4153:

Well handled, sir. It's on my watchlist now, so don't feel you need to be worried or start being active again just to watch it like a hawk (though you can if you like, and it would be great if you did - editors like yourself coming back in sufficient numbers just might save the place from its descent

3534:

I don't know that my post was bold so much as detailed and specific. I find that it helps in situations like that to spell things out as clearly as possible. After I made my "final" post, it dawned on me that the other party had displayed an excellent example of the problem and all I really needed to

2962:

Twice this morning I have tried to write a DYK nomination review and have conflicted with one you have just written. I was prompted to do some reviews by the fact that there is a large backlog of unreviewed nominations at present. Keep up the good work! (I wondered whether you were the same person as

2729:

I was looking at your interesting Age of Steam Roundhouse article up for Do You Know....March 17. Then I looked at Google Maps. I like to see things on Google Maps. Why can't I see this roundhouse on the map? Then it occurred to me this might be an elaborate hoax. You don't seem to have any citations

1264:

and it is being vandalized constantly. One of the worst things is that editors were reporting in the article that someone has died before they actually did. When there was one fatality they reported 2 (by name) When there were 2 they reported 3 and now that there are 3 someone put in several places

2761:

On the website there is a page called "What We Are Doing" where it says this is a 34 acre farm 2 1/2 miles south of Sugarcreek. It is located on a road called Smokey Lane and located immediately adjacent to the Ohio Central Railroad main line track. I see all this on Google Maps. But I don't see any

1951:

I love what you have done, except for the last paragraph, Analysis section. He did not write it, he said it to a reporter. I think that that is one in particular that needs to stay. In the meantime, I took out the whole Social media section and reduced it to one paragraph as I really do not think

1359:

I must disagree. There is no reason to believe that such a fund will ever have its own article. It is specifically derived from the shooting and therefore it is significant within its context. This is why I have given it a minor status as it will not have major status such as a section and certainly

686:

Sfoskett's visit is becoming irregular, so there is still hope that he might come back. The crux of the issue is that we want to be reasonably sure (with evidence) that the uploader is the copyright owner; there have been cases of users who helped their friends upload images and later these friends

3210:

long time ago, but I have been awaiting an answer on the DYK template page. Moreover, I don't understand whether this guy is talking with me or with the creator (or maybe with you? :-)) In other words, big mess... :-( What can we do now? Anyway, I think that the place to talk about a DYK nomination

2745:

Thank you for the interest in the article. It is pretty slim on citations. It is also a work in progress. It is not a hoax. You can check it out on their website. My interest in it stems from the fact that they own 4 locomotives that were in the possession of a tourist attraction that I used to

1820:

I appreciate your response and explanation. Thanks for that. I don't mind reviewers suggesting a way to improve the articles/hooks, maybe if you suggested removing the "main feature" part in the beginning we'd have quickly solved it. If you want any articles reviewed I'd be happy to do it. My point

1761:

Its your duty to see an article you review is properly assessed if the problems you identify have been addressed. Again I'm getting negative vibes from you, have I done something to offend you in the past? I'm disheartened with DYK as it is, so when I see reviewers trying to make life tough for DYK

1443:

the entire article is in the past tense as it is expected to be there, well, forever. Newspapers, on the other hand are writing in and for the here and now so they can be written in the present tense. The problem is writing a current event as if it is in the past tense, but that it what has to be

1423:

I understand your rationale for using "was" since you want to reflect the time during the search, which of course is in the past. However, it still seems to me that "is" is more appropriate; otherwise, it seems to me that with the current wording the article is trying to convey that for some reason

1776:

1. no, you did not do anything to offend me...until now. I felt as if I explained the problems several times to you and I was getting no where. I finally X'd the nom when it seemed to me that you were not going to fix the problem. I certainly was not going to change my mind. I have had a recent

2601:

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be

1780:

2 I very recently suggested on the DYK discussion page that it should be a policy to that a reviewer finish a review once he/she starts it. I was told that that was unreasonable. So, I know I had no duty to continue that review, especially when you had been so contentious to me off the official

1796:

Just as a side note: Your nom has been there only a couple of days. Mine has been there a week (just under yours) and no one has touched it. It would have been far better for me to have made a quick pass of your nom (as I have done in the past) which is what I expected when I started it. then

1557:

It took me a while to remember :). Open the above link and click on the 'your skin.js' link and it should open a page for the skin that you're using. The just copy and paste in the line highlighted below that into that page and save it. The link should appear at the bottom of your toolbox list

2392:

I do not know where the rest came from - sorry. I am super busy IRL and cannot help much now. I see there are things in the lead which are not repeated in the article (like McDade) - it might be best to withdraw the nomination. If it has no comments yet, you could even have it deleted under

1952:

that it is relavant to the legal case or the reflection upon what happened. I will start a discussion about this on the talk page, but I think that its importance has passed. Thanks again for your help. I am at work so I will look more carefully at the paraphrasing when I get home.--

4229:

regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is

1537:

Hi Ishtar, it looks like the problem is the time zone that you're using (UTC-5?), so that an edit at 02:57 UTC on the 27th appears to you as an edit at 21:57 on the 26th. All timings for comparisons at DYK are done using UTC. To install DYKcheck, follow the instructions at

1784:

3. If you are disheartened by DYK, either become part of the solution to the problems that are bothering you or take a break from it. This experience with you has certainly disheartened me, especially the comments you made after your nom passed and you had what you

1428:" reasoning, since that would actually support my argument (newspapers report on specific events in the context of when they happened; encyclopedias, wiki or not, give a general synopsis of a particular subject). Is this addressed somewhere in the MOS? 4295:

on January 16, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask

2614: 2762:

spurs from the railroad. Not on Bing maps either. You sent me a message about Morehead News. That makes me think this is not a hoax. Also you sent me a message saying the Google Map was dated 2006. Could you tell me how you know that? --

2590:. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Knowledge (XXG). If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2608:

to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with

4260: 3372:

Sorry, I'm taking another break form reviewing. i got a nom pulled of the front page. When that happens I know I have to take a break. I am going to finish the one I started, but I am not taking on any new ones right

3179:

you created there successfully became promoted and then featured in the main page. Yes, I nominated the articles as part of DYK, but you deserve a lot of credit for a clean hook that got promoted. Also, credits goes to

2621:

the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the

1706: 4619:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 3299: 3142: 4124:

Storm in a teacup about some silly tagging and a badly thought out response to your help request with the retagging, in my opinion. The second user was probably just trying to help but didn't look properly...

3558: 2580:. First, thank you for your contribution; Knowledge (XXG) relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - 3535:

do was put that into focus. Perhaps that's what you were referring to as bold, the brief addendum, but it really wasn't. It's just the act of shining a light into darkness, it makes the darkness vanish.

1444:

done (IMO). I will work on rewording it so that no verb-to-be has to be in the sentence, but for now "was" sounds better to me than "is". It is in agreement with the tone of the rest of the article.--

4081:

so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--

4188: 4374:

with a $ 66 million allocation. Several more pieces have been removed from the collection as a result of the government acquisition. Part of the Blount collection is still on display in Scranton. (

2255: 1878: 4358:, in the mid-1980s and the rest was sold. Steamtown, U.S.A. failed to attract the expected 200,000–400,000 visitors in Scranton and, facing bankruptcy, it sold more of the collection. In 1986, the 667:

Hi Ishtar. I'm going to remove the FAC for Steamtown, USA pending the OTRS stuff. As soon as you get that resolved, feel free to re-nominate the article for FAC, even if it hasn't been two weeks.

1099: 4666: 4581: 4536: 1688: 4532: 1596: 4315: 3003:

I left a reply on the page wondering if I could hold it to April 5th. I thought it was 5x expansion, but a bit short, and waited over 10 days for the review so I couldn't fix concerns. Thanks

1472: 1465: 3561:

are actually non-issues. The first sentence of the development section is wikilinked to the source of the quote, and the chief's name appears on the official website linked right underneath.

1733: 2811:

Note that if you click on the coords and go to GoogleMaps - the map - you are also given a photo on the left of the roundhouse. Can you tell me how you know the GoogleMaps is dated 2006? --

4458:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. 3704: 3085: 3032: 2878: 3352:? It occured only last night to me that they celebrate 50 years and sing on Saturday, would be nice to have it appear then. Btw, something went wrong with the template I reviewed for it, 3859: 3349: 4695: 26: 4311: 2626:

and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Knowledge (XXG) looks forward to your future contributions.

1933:

No need to worry about it; we all make mistakes. Just one review is fine, but even that isn't necessary if you don't feel up to it. I'm paraphrasing some of those quotes right now.

4265: 1179: 4314:. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at 687:

said they did not agree to the licensing stated. Taking your own photographs and uploading them with the appropriate information is the quickest way to handle this issue.

4531:

Thank you for your interest in an article with a history, your review with a sense for quality and improvement, and your approval. If you like, you can continue with the

1595:

Thank you for your interest in an article with a history, your review with a sense for quality and improvement, and your approval. If you like, you can continue with the

200: 2176: 3159: 1801:

you would have seen mine and considered doing it. But once I realized that you were going to be stubborn about the problem I gave up. 'nuf said. Let's move on. --

3353: 2997: 2172: 1989:, but I did not see the actual hook online, just some other excerps, so I accepted in GF. That review was almost too easy. I don't usually find the easy ones.-- 3151: 2516: 2186: 1618: 4258:, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at 2352:, but I accidentally initiated the nomination twice. The 3rd nomination was done in error and I do not know how to correct it. Can someone please help?-- 4231: 4226: 1684: 1285: 319: 4354:'s air quality regulations restricting steam excursions, declining visitor attendance, and track use disputes, some of the collection was relocated to 205: 4192: 4323: 1281: 1069:

article, and I was pleased to remove the tag on it. With the kind of work you did on this and other articles, I suggest that you consider requesting

4506:}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on 4363: 2506: 883: 4254: 4694:

has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the

4359: 4292: 2595: 2502: 1399:

When I found that article in a search, I also saw one to Cincinnati.com; taking that link, I saw that it was an AP article as included in the

1046:

Hi, quick note to say I will be revisiting the GA review in the next day or so, just had a few other things to take care of lately... Cheers,

393: 60: 2512: 2182: 998: 451: 415: 4644: 4497: 4467: 3927: 2695: 2661: 1856: 1558:(that's on the left hand side of the page below the 'interaction' and 'navigation' boxes). Once it's there, you're in business. Good luck! 1525: 1479: 315: 4196: 1102:. There are still some issues concerning this nomination that may need to be clarified; please respond on that page as soon as possible. 402: 3633: 2094:). Unfortunately our infoboxes are inconsistent when it comes to image parameters. Some only need the filename, others also require the 3498: 4091: 4019: 3984: 3602: 429: 293: 4307: 3513: 3285: 3273: 3135: 2591: 2582: 2332: 1247: 1029: 960: 262: 4162:). I despair sometimes at our introvert nature. If it's not all written for the readers, then what are we doing? See you around... 370: 310: 4371: 4023: 3988: 3786: 1919:

It is time for me to go to work now, so I will look at your noms later, if you trust me (I am doubting myself a lot right now).--

811: 397: 253: 4640: 4563: 4493: 4463: 4399: 3629: 3479: 3392: 2713: 2638: 36: 2559: 2509:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2179:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 888:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 816:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 734:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 617:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 534:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 235: 160: 3898: 3878: