| Revision as of 22:38, 26 May 2015 view sourceWinkelvi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,145 edits Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:John Forbes Nash, Jr.. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:42, 26 May 2015 view source JackTheVicar (talk | contribs)5,206 edits →May 2015: get off my talk page you obsessive article-owning harassing weirdo. do not post here againNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| Regarding your edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Newton,_New_Jersey&diff=661307244&oldid=661292530, I hope you can see that the administrative process of "incorporation" is distinct from when a populated place actually was founded and it is not useful to have one category set used for two different purposes in an indiscriminate manner. I would not be against have ] etc but ] (if you feel strongly about this then it would be no bad thing to revisit the question). As regards ], quoting the article, we have "Newton was first settled ... sometime before 1751", so assuming that the "sometime" in question was not more than 50 years then it would be correct to categorize Newton, New Jersey in ]. Finally, most populated places in the ] categorize by the date that the settlement actually was founded and so I don't really think it correct to say that I am "a user pushing a one-man consensus" as loads of other people have added articles to the category set on the basis of the date of actual foundation. I have played a leading role in establishing some guidelines for the use of the ] and if you disagree with what is written there then why not set out your ideas at ]? ] (]) 13:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | Regarding your edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Newton,_New_Jersey&diff=661307244&oldid=661292530, I hope you can see that the administrative process of "incorporation" is distinct from when a populated place actually was founded and it is not useful to have one category set used for two different purposes in an indiscriminate manner. I would not be against have ] etc but ] (if you feel strongly about this then it would be no bad thing to revisit the question). As regards ], quoting the article, we have "Newton was first settled ... sometime before 1751", so assuming that the "sometime" in question was not more than 50 years then it would be correct to categorize Newton, New Jersey in ]. Finally, most populated places in the ] categorize by the date that the settlement actually was founded and so I don't really think it correct to say that I am "a user pushing a one-man consensus" as loads of other people have added articles to the category set on the basis of the date of actual foundation. I have played a leading role in establishing some guidelines for the use of the ] and if you disagree with what is written there then why not set out your ideas at ]? ] (]) 13:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
| * Sorry, {{u|Greenshed}} I'm not really that interested in your one-man crusade or a 9-year old discussion that decides nothing. All of NJ's municipalities, and many other states, are categorized this way without complaint. as for your precious category, the advisory of " or otherwise came into existence" in its inclusion statement is overly broad....FYI: 11 April 1864 is the date the Town of Newton was established, legally-came into existence, and the inclusion of Newton in 1864 is not unwarranted. If you want to play a game of semantics vis-a-vis established, incorporated, etc. don't waste my time or start edit-warring over this pedantic nonsense.--] (]) 14:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | * Sorry, {{u|Greenshed}} I'm not really that interested in your one-man crusade or a 9-year old discussion that decides nothing. All of NJ's municipalities, and many other states, are categorized this way without complaint. as for your precious category, the advisory of " or otherwise came into existence" in its inclusion statement is overly broad....FYI: 11 April 1864 is the date the Town of Newton was established, legally-came into existence, and the inclusion of Newton in 1864 is not unwarranted. If you want to play a game of semantics vis-a-vis established, incorporated, etc. don't waste my time or start edit-warring over this pedantic nonsense.--] (]) 14:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == May 2015 == | |||
| ] Please ] other editors, as you did on ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. ''You are welcome to discuss article concerns and improvements while adhering to NPA. Continuing to misuse the article talk page for personal attacks, however, is not appropriate or acceptable.''<!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 22:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:42, 26 May 2015
Talk page of JackTheVicar
DYK for Christ Church, Newton
 | On 7 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Christ Church, Newton, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that on August 15, 1774, Christ Church, Newton (pictured), an Episcopal church in Newton, New Jersey, was granted a charter by Royal Governor William Franklin on behalf of Britain's King George III? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Church, Newton. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nice article, thank you. I would like to improve a church article, St. Martin, Idstein, ideas welcome, - more history from German needs to be included but I lack the terms in English,
Establishment and Incorporation
Regarding your edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Newton,_New_Jersey&diff=661307244&oldid=661292530, I hope you can see that the administrative process of "incorporation" is distinct from when a populated place actually was founded and it is not useful to have one category set used for two different purposes in an indiscriminate manner. I would not be against have Category:Populated places incorporated in 1864 etc but others previously decided against this (if you feel strongly about this then it would be no bad thing to revisit the question). As regards Newton, New Jersey, quoting the article, we have "Newton was first settled ... sometime before 1751", so assuming that the "sometime" in question was not more than 50 years then it would be correct to categorize Newton, New Jersey in Category:Populated places established in the 18th century. Finally, most populated places in the Category:Populated places by year of establishment categorize by the date that the settlement actually was founded and so I don't really think it correct to say that I am "a user pushing a one-man consensus" as loads of other people have added articles to the category set on the basis of the date of actual foundation. I have played a leading role in establishing some guidelines for the use of the Category:Populated places by year of establishment and if you disagree with what is written there then why not set out your ideas at Category talk:Populated places by year of establishment? Greenshed (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, Greenshed I'm not really that interested in your one-man crusade or a 9-year old discussion that decides nothing. All of NJ's municipalities, and many other states, are categorized this way without complaint. as for your precious category, the advisory of " or otherwise came into existence" in its inclusion statement is overly broad....FYI: 11 April 1864 is the date the Town of Newton was established, legally-came into existence, and the inclusion of Newton in 1864 is not unwarranted. If you want to play a game of semantics vis-a-vis established, incorporated, etc. don't waste my time or start edit-warring over this pedantic nonsense.--JackTheVicar (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)