User talk:Colfer2

your edit of Great Railroad Strike of 1877

Please see: Talk:Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877#Brotherhood_of_Engineers_and_Firemen_link_question thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks, I reversed it. -Colfer2 (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, back in now, at see Talk:Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877#Brotherhood_of_Engineers_and_Firemen_link_question. -Colfer2 (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice job, thanks. Richard Myers (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

VRDO

FYI - for the VRDO articles I have made the plural redirect to the singular version of the article. For maintenance purposes we don't want to have two versions of the same article out there - a REDIRECT is better. Thanks.  7  07:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was about to do that. -Colfer2 (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Great - sorry for butting in... I was just about to create VRDO and saw that you did that already. Nice start to the article.  7  07:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad you did. -Colfer2 (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate

your cleaning up my somewhat botched link at Boxer Rebellion. EInar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Restored bibliography on Ahmed Belbachir Haskouri

Hello!

I don't know if you checked the bibliography or not, but there are too many journal articles and links that don't refer to Ahmed Belbachir Haskouri. An example [1], cited on the Bibliography section.

I think that this person isn't notable. He was sth like the assistant of the Kalifa, but does that give him enough notability? In my opinion, not.

You can also see that there was no mention of this guy, and that all the articles where you can find sth about him, you can easily see that they were edited and the information added by the same person.

I'll try to find sth more interesting about this guy, but if I don't find enough stuffs I'll propose the article to deletion.

Omar-Toons (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Responded on your Talk page. Thanks. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer :) Omar-Toons (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

• Since Los Angeles City or County employees are not State of California employees. Can the work of City or County employees be treated as work of a State of California employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties, and is consequently in the public domain? Bband11th (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The deciding case concerned Santa Clara County employees, see Wikipedia:Public domain status of official government works, also the link at Template:PD-CAGov. -Colfer2 (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Geocities links

Hi Colfer. I saw over at WP:AN that you've been putting some thought into tackling the Geocities issue. Just wanted to alert you to the discussion over at the External Links Noticeboard (not sure if you were aware of it or not), where I've put forward an alternative proposal. It would be great to have your input over there. Cheers, Katherine (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if it matters at all, don't know if you already know all this, but Geocities links are dead and the one Oocities link I looked at does work. Also, I'm unaware of the story of the Passion of Updatehelper. James470 (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:ELN#External links and references to former GeoCities sites. I can see I should have included edit summaries. -Colfer2 (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring in the 2nd NY District

Hello Colfer, thank you for your interest in this controversy, I have answered on the pertaining talk pages. I doubt that it would be helpful to block "Claire", these campaign workers could create any number of new user accounts. On the other side, something should be done. Kraxler (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thx

I couldn't justify making a mountain out of a molehill, but thanks for letting me know. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Independent Greens of Virginia

I see you've made numerous edits at the Independent Greens of Virginia. The most recent is to change move to replace Gail for Rail Parker with Glenda "Gail" Parker. As the State Board of Elections web site shows, Mrs. Parker was on the ballot as Gail for Rail Parker. http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Index.html. Please allow the correction to remain. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PonchoChet (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, that is correct, see SBE link. Thanks... -Colfer2 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

What is also correct is the POV tag you placed on the article here, here, and here. Please see the talk page, and the COI noticeboard. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you've again erroneous edits at the Independent Greens of Virginia. Again you replace Gail for Rail Parker with Glenda "Gail" Parker. As the State Board of Elections web site shows, Mrs. Parker was on the ballot as Gail for Rail Parker. http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Index.html. Please correct. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PonchoChet (talk • contribs) 15:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.233.238 (talk)

The official SBE results have her name one way for one election, and another way for another election. I believe the article agrees with the SBE in each election shown. -Colfer2 (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Acalamari 10:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear power plant

He Colfer, just to let you know I changed the headings in name (I think we should avoid making diaries, but order based on activities), but kept (hopefully) the spirit of your changes in tact. How does it look to you? L.tak (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's cool. We need cool! (re: Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant) -Colfer2 (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion of recent radiation figures in Fukushima lead

Can you clarify which numbers were not supported?

From IAEA: For two of the three workers, significant skin contamination over their legs was confirmed. The Japanese authorities have stated that during medical examinations carried out at the National Institute of Radiological Sciences in the Chiba Prefecture, the level of local exposure to the workers' legs was estimated to be between 2 and 6 sieverts.

From Yahoo!/AP: "Emergency workers struggling to pump contaminated water from Japan's stricken nuclear complex fled from one of the troubled reactors Sunday after reporting a huge increase in radioactivity — a spike that officials later apologetically said was inaccurate [...] The situation came as officials acknowledged there was radioactive water in all four of the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex's most troubled reactors, and as airborne radiation in Unit 2 measured 1,000 millisieverts per hour — four times the limit deemed safe by the government, Kurita said."

What number was not supported? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopelessgleek (talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct, I will put it back. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You restored the IAEA 2-6 sievert statement, but not the 1,000 mSv/h airborne levels at unit 2. This figure was included in the same AP article that reported TEPCO's retraction 1,000 mSv/h water measurement. No second retraction has been published to my knowledge. Do you have a reference for retraction of high airborne levels?HopelessGleek (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, it's further down the article I think. Not everything belongs in the lead. The airborne level does not indicate a breach, I think is the issue. The status of unit 3 is much more serious, and belongs in the lead. I'm taking a break, so please do as you see fit. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation was that the airborne level was even worse, since it would indicate that the radiation in the water is either much higher (note that they have not retested, and never said that the actual level was lower, just "no credible.") or coming from a source other than the water, which suggests a containment breach other than cooling pipes. This is why I put it in the lead. I feel that TEPCO is trying to whitewash the high readings here by using the retraction to bury even more worrisome readings, and feel that the 1 Sv/h airborne figure should remain prominent until it is specifically addressed by TEPCO or the media. I'm restoring it for now based on the credible sources and lack of retraction but will raise this question on the discussion page to seek consensus.HopelessGleek (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that's a good plan. -Colfer2 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Colfer2/sandbox

User:Colfer2/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colfer2/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Colfer2/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of relocated National Basketball Association teams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baltimore Bullets (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "ethnicity" changing IP

I am sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I am also sorry that I have no further clarity for you regarding your questions at WP:EAR, but I thank you in that was my first exposure to that particular place. I based my conclusion that we should follow the sources on the basic nature of Wikipedia as a tertiary source and report on what the sources say. Now that I have had some time to think about it, I want to know exactly what policy covers it too, so I reposted your question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#question at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Ethnic edit campaign (European-American, black). I think that is the best place to ask. Hope you don't mind. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Joining WV Jefferson County

I wanted to say thank for your keen eye on the Jefferson County WV section on joining WV, the same data is on the Berkeley County page. I am a bit familiar with that history and am scratching my head about the dubious reference. The reason I am is that that word, dubious, was in the language by the delagates in their statement tp congress prior to 1866, AND I do not see a ref for it....Its a tad odd really. I mean, lets be honest here, do you use the word dubious often? I might with my pet dog...a sneaky wire haired fox terrier.....BUT not out of the blue. I have commented on the article talk pageCoal town guy (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Colfer2. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Colfer2. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Colfer2. 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 2018 election voter message

Hello, Colfer2. 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)

File:250px-Sopbtof.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:250px-Sopbtof.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Community Regional Medical Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Community Regional Medical Center is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Regional Medical Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.   // Timothy :: talk  03:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)