This user has left Wikipedia. AbbyKelleyite has not edited Wikipedia since September 10, 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

/Archive1

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AbbyKelleyite.

Regarding the 2009 Honduran coup d'état page - your comments on my talk page are well-taken. If I had disagreed with your move, I would have complained on the discussion page; my concern was just fairness regarding classifying things as "theories" in the first place.

Also, "analytic theories" actually sounds better as a heading. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments on the talk pages of the article about the coup. I noticed you also commented on my wife's blog ( http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/ ). Rsheptak (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish I knew more and could add more of substance but at least I'm learning. I've been reading Thomas Anderson’s The War of the Dispossessed, which I am finding enlightening background, a suggestion I picked up from (http://hermanojuancito.blogspot.com) Keep safe. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I answered your question on my talk page Jules Siegel (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently working on eliminating that system because it makes the article look unprofessional.(Zaxby (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Yeah its cool. Do whatever you like. Its just fine with me.(Zaxby (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		You are hereby awarded this Barnstar of Liberty for the nice job on creating the well-cited biography on Samuel Wilbert Tucker - a significant contribution to the coverage of the American Civil Rights movement. Please keep up the good work! Toddst1 (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

On August 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samuel Wilbert Tucker, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 17:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply

16:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And again...

JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)reply

And for perhaps teh last time...

JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)reply

(copied from User talk:Rich Farmbrough in case anyone else wants to comment or revert)

Would you have any objections to changing Template:Portal/Images/Connecticut from "Flag of Connecticut.svg" to "Seal of Connecticut.svg" which is what the old PORTAL_IMG parameter was in {{WikiProject Connecticut}}? I think it adds a little visual interest to the project banner since the flag is already used as the main image. I'd do it myself, but 1) the page is protected and 2) I'd be afraid of breaking everything. Thanks.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)reply

I have no objection, I will make the change. (I think there's a lot to be said for using seals as far as icons are good anyway.) Obviously the change can be reverted if it causes problems. Rich Farmbrough, 20:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC).reply

(copied from Wikipedia:Media copyright questions so I don't lose it)

I'd like to use either or both of the photos at the Alexandria Library's web page 1 in the article. The page says: "Photo images appear courtesy of the Alexandria Black History Resource Center" but correspondence with both the library and resource center/museum appears to indicate that neither one is the copyright holder. One photo, according to everyone I have talked to, is a 1939 newspaper photo from an undetermined newspaper. The other was apparently given to the Black History Museum by the family, for whom no one seems to have any contact information. The latter photo looks like a promotional shot but I do not know enough about these things to determine if it would be appropriate for non-free fair use (Mr. Tucker is deceased). I have similarly had no luck with tracking down the copyright holders of the photos at the Tucker School's website 2. Any/all help would be appreciated. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)reply

• Upload, but treat as fair use until you can ascertain their status for certain. Make sure you comply with WP:NFCC, read up on WP:FURG. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)reply

Agree. Remember, even though a school closes or someone dies, someone still owns the copyrights on their images. They may not even know they do, but they do. Also I suggest running phrases from that newspaper article through Google ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)reply

Hello! Your submission of El Corte River at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rlevse • Talk • 22:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)reply

Hi AbbyKelleyite Thank you for pointing out to a particular editor the incivility of his/her edits. I have to say I find this editor's behaviour particularly trying. It seems to be highly opinionated and aggressive. The naiivity of expression suggests a certain immaturity and he/she seems unwilling to take note of other editor's comments. Here is another example! 3. The person has gone off on a complete red-herring about CLarks views on cavalry - a point was only included originally in connection with tit-for-tat reviews between Clark and Anglesey. Regards Motmit (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply

Perhaps you should pay more attention to Motmit's edits more than mine. My was response was to his wanton deletion of cited information. Perhaps you should ask him to stop removing information without any justification? And his absurd complaint demonstrates only his own ignorance - deleting data which seems to be beyond the relms of his understanding first, rather than sensible discussion is blatant provocation. He made no attempt to engage me other than to delete my edits. To the contrary, I think it is he that needs to grow up. He should treat others' edits with the respects he demands. Or is that too much 'naiivity of expression' for him? Dapi89 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply

QED Motmit (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply

Under the circumstances, that really is a silly response. Dapi89 (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply

My talk page is not really the appropriate forum for dispute resolution. See WP:EDITWAR for more info. Dapi89, my comment on your talk page was with particular regard to edit summaries, as they cannot be edited or deleted, as noted in WP:CIVIL. Motmit, I do not think it is helpful to use phrase like "naivity" in resolving your disagreements. On the underlying disputes on the merits, I take no position. Carry on reaching consensus and regards to you both. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply

Point taken. I shouldn't have responded to childish baiting. Sorry. Dapi89 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply

This is funny. The El Corte River article got me interested in the Selva Zoque rain forest. I started an article on that, and decided to nominate it for DYK, partly to trigger review because I am not entirely comfortable that it is neutral enough. Then this morning, quite by accident, I saw that El Corte was well on its way through the DYK process. I had noticed that you were improving the El Corte article, but not that you had nominated it. So much for the Selva Zoque DYK!
Aymatth2 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)reply

(copied from DYK) *My apologies if I caused any problem by having nominated Aymatth2's El Corte River article (I'd hoped it would be a pleasant surprise). I hope the Selva Zoque article can also be featured; it looks great. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)reply

No problem whatsoever. None at all. This is great. I just had to laugh when I saw it. There is something childishly satisfying in seeing an article going quickly from speedy delete to DYK, and I hope I never get so serious as to not enjoy this kind of thing. I seem to be on a roll now doing geo-stubs in Oaxaca, e.g. Cerro de Oro Dam and soon-to-be-expanded Sierra Juárez, Oaxaca. Maybe we can flood DYK with Oaxaca articles. Oaxaca Awareness Month! Aymatth2 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)reply

Yes, I had much the same feeling about the amazing turnaround from speedy deletion. The stub shouldn't have been tagged for speedy deletion in the first place (but the people defending Wikipedia from the tidal wave of inflowing spam have to learn too and the reviewing admins catch most of the errors as far as I can tell). I'm looking forward to reading all the Oaxaca articles. This place can certainly use better coverage of the non-english-speaking parts of the world.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)reply

On 5 July, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article El Corte River, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply

On July 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Robert Ming, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)reply

		The Citation Barnstar
		For adding refs to the article on Baatara gorge waterfall. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply

Thanks. :) Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply

Thank you.--Syngmung (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)reply

On July 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fola La Follette, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)reply

Hi - no problem - I am enjoying your work on the article. In response to your other issues you raised I think there are a few points. Firstly the "some" is needed because "the revisionists" can't be said to represent the totality of historical scholarship on WWI - they seem to be a group from a couple of universities in England with strong links to Shrivenham etc. The Strachan article identified other historians who think differently - eg Travers 4. Secondly much more is being ascribed to Clark's book than he acually wrote. "The Donkeys" only dealt with the first year of the war when the BEF was wiped out. Chief donkey was French who was sacked at the end of it. Clark felt the BEF situation was ignored by historians who were more concerned with the Somme and later battles. This aspect is probably now more mainstream and covered by later historians so Clark does not need to be quoted. The revisionists meanwhile get themselves into knots over this period and blame Clark for perceptions on later events which he did not write about. They also report "The Donkeys" inaccurately - for example no where does Clark accuse the generals of an obsession with cavalry - in fact he criticises them for wasting the advantage of cavalry at a key point. Thirdly I have yet to find a clear concrete criticism of Clark's main text. There are plenty of unsubstantiated dismissive comments about the book and alot of complaints about the point of view but the main attack revolves entirely around the misattribution of the quotation. I wish I could find something of substance that people object to. All interesting stuff. Here is a website that seems to support Clark 5 while here is another that includes what seems a strikingly familiar attack from a predictable quarter 6. Regards Motmit (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)reply

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Awarded to AbbyKelleyite for starting and improving a number of WikiProject Connecticut pages, particularly in the Bridgeport area. Thanks! Markvs88 (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)reply

Thanks! It's a labor of love. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)reply

I misunderstood the concept of linking to and from other pages, so in that respect I see your point about the COI, and I see that those links have been deleted. Anything further so that I can delete your notice from blackpast.org? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwgarner (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)reply

One, as per WP:COI, "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing...." Two, lines like "When it became evident that the site was providing a much-needed resource on African American history" sourced only to the organization's own web page look like promotion/advertisement's and fail WP:NPOV. Try to source only to 3rd party disinterested sources. Make those kinds of changes and I, or another disinterested editor, may remove the template upon review. But if you do have an affiliation/relationship with the organization you should really consider not writing about it at all on Wikipedia and contributing to other Wikipedia articles. Regards. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)reply

Hi. I have suggested at Cwgarner's talk page that the editor more thoroughly review the COI guidelines as they relate to his/her involvement in the Blackpast.org article. Cheers. Taroaldo (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)reply

Thanks for providing clarity. I'll go through the text and see what can be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwgarner (talk • contribs) 21:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)reply

I have responded to your statement on the BlackPast.org discussion page. Cwgarner (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply

By the way, I believe you misunderstood what I meant when I said I needed to get back to income-producing work. What I meant was I had to stop tinkering around with the Wikipedia article and return to my own REAL work. I think you interpreted it as working for BlackPast.org, which of course I do not do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwgarner (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply

Actually I missed seeing that comment on your talkpage until now. And no, I have no reason to doubt that your contributions to blackpast.org are pro bono as you have said. There's a nice feature called "talkback" that I only firts started using recently myself that ensure that someone will be alerted about a comment you add on your own talkpage. If you go their talkpage and add an entry: {{talkback|yourusername|topic entry}} they'll get a notice alerting them to look at your talkpage. Regards, honestly. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)reply

Hello! Your submission of Achavath Achim Synagogue at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)reply

Hello! Your submission of Seaside Park (Connecticut) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NortyNort (Holla) 09:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply

Thanks for the reply on my talkpage about making links to our article from articles that use BlackPast.org in their reference sections. So I noticed that hyperlinks appeared in my article on words like Facebook, University of Washington, Drupal, Dreamweaver, non-profit, marketing, and the like. This was done automatically, so I'm wondering what the process is for this. Perhaps there is a way of automatically hyperlinking references to BlackPast rather than going in to each article and creating a "See Also" link, which would also require regular maintenance as new references appear. Thanks, and you'll notice that I've changed my signature to GreeneJeans 14:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreeneJeans (talk • contribs)

I did notice the username change and I think that was a good idea for your own privacy. I also requested that those old versions of the talk pages with identifying information be "oversighted" so no one will be able to see them, so hopefully that will happen soon. Once again, please accept my apology. On the links, I added the wikilinks in your article to things like Drupal that people might not know or Facebook which is popular now, but who knows in 5 years. There is a tool for making suggestions on links, I think it basically searches for instances of a search string, but I'm not familiar with any automated method for actually adding them. That doesn't mean there isn't one, just that I don't know. I've only added them manually. WP:TOOLS may provide some more info. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)reply

I think I will find a few relevant articles that have referenced BlackPast and make the internal links manually, then. I do have one question: when I created the entry, I neglected to capitalize the "P" in BlackPast.org's headline (currently is Blackpast.org, should be BlackPast.org). I don't believe I am able to make that change on my own. I think it requires an administrator. Do you know the process for this?

I think you could have done it (i.e. your account has been around long enough), but just in case, and because it was easier than explaining how, I moved the page to BlackPast.org. Blackpast.org will still redirect to it. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)reply

Hey thanks so much! I am still trying to track down other independent sources to confirm the information that is based solely from the organization's website. There probably are some articles in local (Seattle) publications, but I don't live in that area, so I need to make further contacts. GreeneJeans 19:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

On 12 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Seaside Park (Connecticut), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)reply

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 protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is 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 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 userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles 07:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)reply

If you would find the rollback flag; see WP:ROLLBACK useful, just say so, and I'll turn it on. Your head seems to be screwed on the right way around from what I've seen. Courcelles 07:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)reply

Thank you for saying so. I haven't asked before but rollback would be useful for dealing with clear vandalism, so I would like to take you up on that offer. I will endeavor to use it only for good. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)reply

Done. Happy editing. Courcelles 17:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)reply

Hello! Your submission of Mary and Eliza Freeman Houses/Little Liberia and Hard Scrabble at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NortyNort (Holla) 08:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)reply

On 13 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Achavath Achim Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)reply

On 14 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary and Eliza Freeman Houses, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Courcelles 18:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)reply

On 14 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hard Scrabble (Providence), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Courcelles 18:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)reply

Hello, your nomination of Seaside Institute at DYK was reviewed and comments provided. --NortyNort (Holla) 09:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)reply

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=User_talk:AbbyKelleyite
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---