Talk:Stephens City, Virginia/Archive 1

message: I think this article has GA potential, but there are a number of things that need doing.  On the plus side, there's a lot of good content, a couple of nice pictures (thanks Homer), and a solid set of sources.  In terms of what needs doing, I would say the first thing would be to move to inline citation.  Homer - do you want to tackle this since you have the books?  It's a bit tedious, but I don't believe an article will get passed as a good article without inline citation.--Kubigula (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I can give it a shot, if you would show me how to add one correctly. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've busted this article down to Start class due to a necessary large revert.  -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial review

message: This is the email that was sent to ComComm, permission directly from the Newtown History Center allowing this to be used on this page:
[retracted]
"Tybois Uphold" and "Dayton T. Uphold" are one and the same and the name of this user.  This the permission I was given from the Newtown History Center.  It was sent previously to ComComm and no information was given in return. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the pages about requesting permission, including the one I posted on your talk page? This gives one person permission to use the material, not Wikipedia and any commerical or non-commercial websites that want to re-write it. This isn't a valid permission.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but I, Tybois Uphold, am a editor of Wikipedia?  Full permission has been sent to the OTRS inbox. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission? Do you understand it? Who is sending the permission to the OTRS - you or the copyright holder?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OTRS has it, but it's not valid. Please see the policy and follow it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Permission

message: Please do not archive this talk page.  There is no reason to do so.  I am certainly open to discussion if someone disagrees.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these issues have bene resolved, so there is no reason for them to clutter the talk page.  After a certain amount of time, they are archived.  If you MiszaBot to do it, that's fine too. - NeutralHomer T:C 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From your comments elsewhere I understand that you are still pursuing permission. Once it's obtained, or efforts to obtain it are dropped, then it will be resolved.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, read your talk page. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you say you've asked for the permission and that the copyright holder told you he'd send it. That's about where we were some months ago. Once the permission is actually received, is in an acceptable format, and has been properly noted then I think we can say the matter is resolved.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy Vey!  Three months ago, I forwarded the permission sent to me.  Not them sending it, I forwarded the permission they sent me.  I think we discussed this.  Since you never told me the "acceptable format", I had to get someone else to help me.  If it doesn't work this time, I am laying blame squarely on you for this one my friend. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. When the matter is resolved we can archive the discussions of it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, this is that lack of patience I was talking about.  The matter is resolved as of about 1:30pm EST this afternoon, hence it can be archived.  If you want to clutter a page, that is up to you. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "Once the permission is actually received, is in an acceptable format, and has been properly noted then I think we can say the matter is resolved" was unclear? (my emphasis) -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I am on the "sending-in" side of this, I call it resolved.  I have done my part, it's up to you now.  You go to ComComm and sit on them until they accept it this time.  I've done my part, you do yours.  If you'll excuse me, I have a Vicodin to take...another migraine again. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that your part is done.  Now we wait.  When you say "you" I assume you don't mean me.  As far as ComComm is concerned, I ain't doin' squat.  You can sit on them all you want.  If I try to help, you'll just poop in my potatoes.  I'm just an observer now - unless the copyrighted material gets posted again without the stamp of approval.   -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ..."poop in my potatoes"?  Ooook?  - NeutralHomer T:C 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the OTRS received a message sent 11/04/2007 23:22:39. It is not from the NHC, and appears to just re-forward the (inadequate) email from the NHC from July. That may not be the new email message we're waiting for, but it if is it still doesn't give the proper permission. It'd be best if the copyright holder mails the OTRS directly.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Do me a favor, forward it to my email so, if it is, I can correct it tomorrow. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not make this any harder. I got the guy's email off of the website and have sent him a request directly, CCing you. If he responds affirmatively I'll file it with the ComComm myself. Hopefully we can settle this matter once and for all.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just got the CC, but I don't believe that I said anything about GFDL (hell, I had to look it up to see what it was).  I didn't expect anything from this guy til probably tomorrow, if not Wednesday....and I really didn't want to annoy the crap out of him.  He does have the power to say "No" to the whole thing. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, according to one of the people in WP:VA, he said last night it should be filed under "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 United States". - NeutralHomer T:C 03:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The email I sent included links to the full text of the GFDL and to other licenses. If you want to advise him on which license is best feel free to send a note of your own.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: While we are now permitted to add the material verbatim, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that we should edit the material to conform to internal standards, such as linking significant terms, formatting dates, and maintaining NPOV.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verbatim version has been readded.  This version is from the NHC website and last added in July. - NeutralHomer T:C 20:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: I was about to comment on the fact that the history section was far too detailed for an encyclopedic article and that it drew too much from one source, but in reading that one source, what was here was cut-and-pasted (minus a few "click here"s) from the website Town History so it had to be removed per Wikipedia copyright policy.  Please do not revert this as restoring a copyright violation is considered vandalism.  The website has plenty of good, verifiable information that can be written into a properly sourced section.  Additional sources (like printed books) would also be a big help in writing it.  --JonRidinger (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: This article suffers all over from too much detail.  I can sympathize with wanting to include details and be thorough, but as a Wikipedia editors we have to make sure the details we add are needed, appropriate, and truly add to the understanding of the main subject of the article; otherwise it's WP:FANCRUFT.
Here are the main problems I see here:
*1. The intro is actually too short, but in my opinion, since the intro is supposed to summarize the entire article, it should be written last, so that can be addressed later.
*2. Order.  While the guidelines at WP:USCITY are guidelines and not requirements, they were developed over time with much discussion and thought to some kind of consistency.  I'd say try to follow the ordering guidelines as much as possible.
*3. I've addressed the history section; it is too long and is currently an allowed copy of another website with a few additions at the end.  It needs to be far shorter, actually written by editors, and draw from more sources.
*4. Subheadings.  Subheadings should be used to help break up long sections.  They shouldn't be used on just one or two lines of information.  Even small paragraphs often don't need a separate subheading.
*5. Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District doesn't need its own section.  MANY towns have NRHP districts.  It should be mentioned in either the history section and/or a general Culture or Parks and recreation section.
*6. Stephens City Tornado should be mentioned in the history section, not the climate section.  Climate is a general section, not a history of the weather other than the record high and low.  It's supposed to give readers an idea of what kind of weather to expect in that place.  The tornado is weather, yes, but it was more an historical event since tornadoes don't happen every day or even every decade in a town.  Most of the details (especially the large block quote and the commentary in parenthesis) aren't appropriate for this article.
*7. Schools The schools section should be a paragraph about the public schools that serve the town, highlighting any significant accomplishments they may have with a Main Article link to the school division.  Private schools should also be included if they are within the town limits.  
*8. The Festivals and Attractions should be combined in a Culture section with the Historic district also being mentioned.
*9. Notable natives only need the name of the person and one line about why they are notable (two lines at the most).  A paragraph about each person is not appropriate here since they have their own articles.  If people would like to know more about them, they can click on the link to that article.  Kelley Washington would need a source too.  Simply graduating from the high school near Stephens City doesn't mean he's from the town itself.  Considering the high school draws from far more than just Stephens City, there's a good chance he isn't from there and is from the county or another town.  --JonRidinger (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have started to edit to reduce too much detail, editorial language and inappropriate tone for encyclopedia article.  Will continue to work on it tomorrow. Agree with comments above.--Parkwells (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Parkwells for your help.  I look forward to your continued edits after some sleep...for all of us :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I like most of the edits that you made to the Stephens City page last night....but the one that bothered me was this one.  It was the one that kinda edited the story about the name change of Stephens City.  I think it was a good story (backed by reference).  Would there be anyway to add some of the information back to the page, but keep it concise, so the story remains intact?  Other that than, alot of really good work done last night.  Look forward to seeing what is done tonight.  Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi, thanks for your comments, Neutralhomer. The city naming story was interesting, but too long for a condensed version, and still too long with too many editorial comments ("heavy bureaucratic hand") even for the long version. Let me think about how to get more back. You've reminded me that what I probably need to do is copy this whole section to a sandbox and work on it separately there, rather than on the page, as there are really two sections being edited/written. Hard to keep straight.--Parkwells (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking a look at the section (and the page at a whole).  If you have any questions, please let me know and I will be glad to answer them.  Oh and please use any of the pictures placed on the page.  I took them about 2 years ago and released them (via Commons) to Wikipedia, so they can be used and there are more where those came from. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I approach histories is generally being familiar with the detailed history, then starting from scratch with a very broad summary.  From there, more specific details can be added as well as appropriate sources.  It's time consuming, but worth it and since you can use the sandbox, you can have others help or go back to it later.  With reducing the current history section, because so much of it is still directly copied from the website, you're going to get a lot of POV statements simply because what was copied here wasn't wrtitten for an encylcopedic article; it was written for a town history website.  I'm going to be less active for the next week or so (out of town), but will help as needed when I can.  I still think the best course is to remove most of the history section that is still a word-for-word copy or close enough to it and start over. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems and possible solutions

message: I removed most of the excess detail from the Notable natives section as I explained in an earlier post.  Kelley Washington still needs a source stating he actually lived in Stephens City.  The section here previously said he was born in Stephens City, but his sourced bio has him listed as having been born in Winchester.  The sources that had been included mentioned he attended the high school "in Stephens City" which, according to info I can find, isn't actually in the town limits but is near the town and has a Stephens City address.  Attending the high school near Stephens City doesn't make him a notable native or resident of the town automatically since Sherando High School serves far more than just Stephens City (the school's enrollment is more than the entire population of the town).  Only people who lived inside the town limits of Stephens City (or any city for that matter) should be listed in the Notable natives and residents section. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable natives

message: I seem to recall that the county or regional consortium planned to build a high-tech fiber optic network (maybe with state support) to provide Internet access in the entire valley. This would be more important to note than simply that Stephens City was the second to have its own website.--Parkwells (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard this, but then again I don't read the local newspaper.  I will do a Google search on it and see what I can find. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it via Reuters, but I think it is ValleyNet, but this goes from Johnson City, Tennessee to Carlisle, Pennsylvania and west to Huntington, West Virginia.  It crosses Stephens City, but there wasn't really any local coverage and it is only for businesses, not residents. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thought it might be useful.--Parkwells (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet access in Shenandoah Valley

message: Listing all the streets in the historic district in the lead is way more detail than is usual there for that purpose; that's why I moved it down below in the section on History. Recommend you go back to my version for that.--Parkwells (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh, I thought you did that cause I accidently put two sections at once there.  I edited that last night at 5am, so it was goofed up.  My mistake.  If I will change it back and add both references. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Hello, I am needing some help and am not sure which board to go to.  I am needing help writing a condensed version of the History of Stephens City, Virginia.  I have tried and seriously failed.  I am trying to get the Stephens City, Virginia article up to Good Article status and the reviewers have said that the current history section, while very good, is just too darned long.  So my plan is to move the longer history section to History of Stephens City, Virginia and have a condensed version on the Stephens City, Virginia page.  I typically write radio station articles, so town/city history isn't my forté.  I tried asking for help at WP:CITIES, but that talk page hasn't seen any edits since March 24th.  I requested the help of a couple editors from WP:CITIES, but they didn't do much writing either.  Is there anyone who could help on this? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Park, I was wondering how the editing on the History section was going.  JonRidinger and I have been working on the page in bursts, but leaving the history section to you.  Let me know how the progress is going.  We have an open thread going on my talk page.  Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes, answered some of your questions posed on the Stephens City talk page and mine.  Give 'em a look for you have a couple moments. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi, how great to have your own researcher!  maybe you should wait, as I might delete some paragraphs altogether (of course you could use the cites for the longer article, but even that needs to be edited, I think.)--Parkwells (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He isn't mine, but it is nice.  He wrote the version of the history that was originally shown on the Stephens City page, which we have via OTRS ticket.  But he didn't have any inline sources, just book listings.  So I talked with him and he and I have been communicating daily (he lives in town and works in town as well) and he has been giving me the books he used for the history section he wrote (the one we have via OTRS).  So he is a good source to have.  I told him to feel free to give the page a look-see when he has time, he said he might just do that.  He is really excited (as am I) about one day getting the page (and town) out to Featured Article status.....but gotta get Good Article status first. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, please see my talk page for some responses from earlier (morning?) today.  I completely forgot to look for pictures of the buildings of the town as you requested, I will do that now. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi, thanks for the award.  Also, Route 11/277 probably gives the best sense of scale of the town.  If you take more photos, try for one from across the street to show the Flower Center within its row of buildings - looks good.--Parkwells (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know when I will be out and about next, so I will use the :Image:StephensCity Route11 277 Xing.JPG image for the time being.  All the others that aren't used are just sitting in Commons file, so they can be viewed anytime. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and Done. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes the demographics section would be the right place. I would recommend just telling the four largest categories and show percentages of how people self-identify: German, English, Irish, Other, as I recall.  These are pretty closely related to the 18th century settlement population.--Parkwells (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Stephens City, Virginia]] History

message: It's unusual to have so much detail about veterans in this section. It is not notable enough for a general article.--Parkwells (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was JonRidinger‎ I worked on with that and he said to move it from its own section to Demographics, since it is Census based information.  If it should be under a subsection, I can fix that.  I would like to keep it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, my original advice was to remove the info completely because I felt it was excess.  If you felt it should be included, the best place would be in the demographics section if at all.  What Parkwells is saying is that in city articles, there is only so much detail that is appropriate and this detail seems to be a bit much for the article, not just the section.  Simply saying "I like it" isn't reason enough to include info.  If you can find examples in featured and good articles, then mention them.  I haven't seen any that mention veteran numbers.    In looking at other census stats, the number of veterans in Stephens City is no more significant than in any other town in terms of percentage.  The only time a stat like that would be included is if it were significantly (like several percentage points) different from the norm.  Again, it's the whole "thinking like a Wikipedia editor" thing.  --JonRidinger (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked, I honestly did.  All I found via Google (of the 40,400 listings I could have searched through) were Veterans Parks, Memorials, and Halls among other things.  The only thing I see listed for Veterans, was a single sentence in Demographics of Minnesota#Occupation which reads "Veterans of the armed forces account for 10.8% of the adult population, which is 40th in the nation."  So, out of the 100 pages I looked at, there was one.  I could have kept looking through all 40,400, but that would have been kinda nutty. :)  So....what do we do?  I know the information isn't notable and is just standard information, but (and I am thinking like a Wikipedian when I ask this) do we have to make every page look the same?  Could we have one little difference in one?  Probably not, then everyone would want to be different and being different would be the norm.  I just wonder if there is a way to include it in some other page (not Stephens City).  Like Veterans in Virginia or something.  There has to be a page for this information.  But I could be dreaming big on that one. :)  So (again)....what do we do? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Every article doesn't need to be the same but they do need to adhere to certain standards in content and organization. Wikipedia runs on consensus and precedent, which is how the various policies and guidelines were developed (and continue to be developed). WP:USCITY#Demographics explains it pretty well how the initial generic demographics section all city articles have can be expanded with comparisons.    I don't think a Veterans in Virginia would even survive a deletion debate as it isn't that significant in terms of coverage (just being in the census doesn't make it notable).  There are a TON of statistics that the census report keeps track of that are interesting, but lack major importance for a general encyclopedic article.  Like I said, if veterans made up like %50 of the population, then yes, I would totally support inclusion of a statement about that because it would be something unusual about the town.  --JonRidinger (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't I know it.  I am running into the whole "Wikipedia runs on consensus and precedent" on a discussion on radio stations right now.  I will remove the section.  I really with it could be kept, but I see your point.  If we included everything in the Census, Demographics would be longer than the original History section.  I will do that here in a moment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: Now that the town has its own website, maybe the long town history can be put there - that's far more appropriate than in Wikipedia, and would allow the many names, dates, businesses, etc. which have little place here.--Parkwells (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Another place where you could contribute detailed town history would be the online American Local History Network (www.alhn.org/) - Frederick County, VA website, and/or the Rootsweb (www.rootsweb.com)- Frederick County, VA website.  These are great sites for family and town research, which is where people want all the detail.--Parkwells (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well remember, virtually all of the text from the History section was copied from an external website (the town's own historical society) so it already exists elsewhere.  No need to post it again.  --JonRidinger (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, it is all from here, which the Newtown History Center graciously allowed us to post on Wikipedia (via an OTRS ticket, look at the top of the page).  I looked on those sites a couple days ago and I didn't really see a place to post anyway.  Since we are trimming it considerably and it is linked by source, most people can just link via Wikipedia to see the full version. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The history section is definitely on the right track...what is there now would probably work for a History of Stephens City, Virginia article, though it still has a town history feel rather than an encyclopedic article feel.  I will try to edit more once I'm back in town, but in the meantime, my best advice is to organize the sources better (you don't need three sources for one fact unless it is highly challengeable or controversial) and don't really need to cite the main source so many times.  If the printed sources support the statements, then you only need to use them, not use them together with the online source to reference the same info.  I'd also take out most of the blockquotes as they are far more suitable for a town history than an article.  There are still a lot of tangential details about the various wars and some of the people that really have nothing to do with the town directly.  The history should focus on the town itself.  Again, not to be critical, but just to help.  Rewriting a section like that takes a TON of time to develop and it is much improved.  Like I said, I will try to do more once I have more time to sit down and look at it more.  --JonRidinger (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to see how the on page history section played out, see what it looks like and then figure out if we really need a page like History of Stephens City, Virginia.  If we have the information on the main page, then having a secondary page would be unnecessary.  But then again, it would be nice to see some of that information back.  Question is, would it be cut again?  I do like the journal readings and quotes and such, as they give a view of 1700s and 1800s Stephens City.  They can all be cited, just going to take some time with the curator of the Newtown History Center, who is helping me with the sources.  There would be some I could like to keep for the larger article, but then some we could toss as just copy.  I think that is something that we (Park, You and I) could discuss at length when you are back at home.  Take Care and Have a Good Weekend...NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have been out of town but agree with Jon on deleting extra references - three are not necessary for most of the facts.  You can do that.  I have to be out of town, so won't be able to work on this for several days.--Parkwells (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Town History

message: I'll give the article a workover when I get the chance, since I've been asked.  I would suggest that you not wait for me, but change every reference to the town as a "city" to "town" or "municipality".  As you probably know, a city has a specific meaning under Virginia law, and Stephens City does not qualify.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephens City refers to themselves as a "town".  I will go through here after dinner and make sure all the references to "city" are changed to "town". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephens City is legally a town, yes.  My point was, it is not a city.  Should I just go through and see if I can touch things up a bit?  It is probably simpler than me posting comments.  Also, has thought been given to getting early pictures from the local historical society or from the state library in Richmond?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the biggest issue facing this article is the history section, so if everything else can be in good shape we can then focus on the major task that will be rewriting that.  The vast majority of it was copied here directly from the town's historical society website via an OTRS ticket and even after another editor went through and edited content and wording, still contains a lot of excess detail and unencylcopedic tone.  The only caution with historical pictures is that while many times they are public domain just by age, I have seen copyrights placed on them by historical societies in order to sell them, so we just have to be careful that if pictures are uploaded, they are properly attributed and if they are copyrighted then have a direct need in the article (i.e. illustrating something that is no longer there).  --JonRidinger (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Look for ones that were published before 1923, those cannot be copyrighted.  Key word there is published.  I'll go through the history section in the next couple of days.  Lede is still a bit tattery.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a little work on the initial history section, but have questions.  Is Stephensburg the early name for Stephens City?  And is "the Baron" referred to Lord Fairfax?  Please feel free to revert or modify my changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The thing is, if you are going to casually mention "Stephensburg", don't you before that have to mention that this was the name given to the settlement?  Same goes for the Baron.  I imagine that is Lord Fairfax, but I'd only be guessing.  Continuity is very important in an article, as we all know.  I'll do more work on the article later on in the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That could have been the way the previous editor, Parkwells, edited the section.  I wasn't active in the editing of the history section due to my lack of long form writing ability. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It could also be a result of the original text from the town historical society since that's where it all came from.  I am planning on writing a new condensed version of this history because the vast majority of it just needs summarized.  Most of the details are tangential as opposed to vital and many of them deal with events and people outside of the town.  Most town/city histories I've read have the same structure and are usually full of commentary and levels of detail not appropriate for an encyclopedic article.  A history section in a city/town article should be about 3-5 solid paragraphs long.  --JonRidinger (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

text: It has the read of a historical society rendition, informational but a bit informal/chatty. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that is where the original history (per the OTRS ticket) comes from.  It was, at the time, the best version of the history I could put up.  Now I understand that it was far too long, especially for a GA quality article, hence my asking for help on it.  There are plenty of sources at the beginning (as far as I gotten before Parkwells started changing it and I stopped getting sources from the Network History Center, more can be gotten though), so feel free to use those at will.  If other sources are needed, please let me know via this talk page (I have it watchlisted) or my own and I will get them from the NHC.  Also, let me know if you have any questions on the page as I am happy to answer them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I can easily take a shot at boiling it down, now that I see what is wanted.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie Dokie....I be here as needed.  Might break away between 9pm EST and 12am EST for TV watching, but will be back after that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I've done through the Civil War, it still needs to be shortened a bit more but it is a good start.  I'll resume work later or tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie Dokie....at the moment, I think my only concern is it feels very bare bones.  Will more be added back to it or will this be what will make up the final draft? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the delay in responding.  Damned cable/internet/phone went out on me for a couple hours (got a credit though).  As long as it has the bare bones details of the history of the town, I am not too concerned.  We could always go make a History of Stephens City, Virginia page and mainpage link it after the fact for more information.  We could put some of the pictures that will undoubtedly crowed the main Stephens City page there as well.  I think my main concern was losing too much information, but if we can go and make a History of Stephens City, Virginia, then that will get that information in a more "causal" format.  So this will be good for GA and history buffs like. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good.  I'll keep working on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie Dokie....I will be up for awhile (damned insomnia), so I will tinker with some things as needed, but mostly I will be leaving it up to you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tinker away, I probably won't look at it again for several hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: After a bout with insomnia, it is finally going to let me go to sleep, so I am heading in that direction in just a couple minutes, so tinkering will be done late tonight or tomorrow (depending on when my brain finally gets enough sleep).  Edit away when you get there.  Anything you need (sources, questions, etc.) please feel free to ask here or on my talk page.  Good Night :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief comment

message: Regarding the mention of the Ironclad oath in the article, ref 10 (the reference given) does not cover the use of the Ironclad Oath in Stephens City (that I could find). Do you have another reference for it?  Xtzou (Talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that was another word for that oath.  My fault entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's plausible that it was used. It just needs a reference.  Xtzou (Talk) 16:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, sorry for my delay in responding.  Just hopped online.  The history section from Newtown History Center, which is referenced/linked to a couple times originally has the passage written as "Major Stearns required the people of Newtown to take the oath of allegiance to the Union".  Parkwells changed that to "Ironclad Oath", but you are correct, the reference to the Ironclad Oath is not in the reference.  I can change that back to the referenced version or something along those lines. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did a little search around Google and found a Google Books reference to Stearns giving the Ironclad Oath (which they just say as "an oath"). (link).  I will be adding it posthaste. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe this?  Xtzou (Talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I could add both, since one directly talks about Stearns and Newtown (Stephens City) and this one references the numbers of people who had taken the oath. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ironclad oath]]

message: Congratulations on the GA. The article has improved since I last read it. In response to your request for more comments, here they are: 
History
*To be considered comprehensive, the article should include something about pre-history. What happened in this area before the arrival of Jost Hite? Who lived in the Shenandoah Valley before 1732? What is known about their history and about their interactions with Europeans? When did humans first arrive in the Shenandoah Valley? You mention Sherando and "the historic Iroquoian-speaking tribes" in the Education section; you should be able to find reliable sources for information of this sort. 
Geography
*To be comprehensive, the article should include something about the geology and topography of the immediate region. This is standard information in FA city articles. In some cases, editors add an entire section about geology and topography. However, it's probably more common to merge this material with the geography under a single heading. (See Bath, Somerset, or Ann Arbor, Michigan, for example. Is the land flat or rolling? What kinds of rock underlie the town? How far away is the Shenandoah River? Is the town surrounded by farms? What geologic forces created the Shenandoah Valley? How old is the valley?
20th century to present
*"The town surveyed its older buildings to establish architectural significance and determined those that contributed to the town's historic center." - Maybe "determine" rather than "determined"? 
Culture
*To the material about the memorial garden, I would add the distance to Virginia Tech. 
Layout
*Try to arrange the images in a way that avoids creating "sandwiches" of text between two images. On my computer screen, the existing article has text sandwiches in the History and Culture sections. You can usually solve the problem by moving the images in relation to one another. 
Lead
*The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article but should not include anything important that doesn't appear in the main text sections. The existing lead doesn't mention the Climate, Culture, Government, Education, or Religion sections, and it mentions things like the distance from Winchester (which could be added to the Geography section) that are not mentioned in the main text. After you finish with any other changes to the article, you might consider re-writing the lead to include mention of any new material and to add something brief about each of the missing sections. 
I hope this helps. Best of luck with the project. Finetooth (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your review.  Much appreciated.  I will definitely look at all these things in detail.  I have to be offline for a couple, but when I get back, I will go section by section and check everything else.  I might ask you for your input on some of the changes I make, if that is OK with you.  Again, thank you for the review and I look forward to talking with you again soon.  Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated two areas....the other couple I am going to need to work on, especially the first two.  The layout/images part, I might be able to fix in most areas except for "Culture".  With those two images there, I really have nowhere else to put them.  If you have any ideas on that, please let me know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You might try moving both to the right side of the page. Finetooth (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If that almost but not quite works, you could shorten the captions a bit to free up another line or two. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to make it work on the "Culture" section, but it just wasn't going to work, so I dropped the one I thought was the "less attractive" picture.  Hopefully, removing two pictures from the page doesn't make me "sub-GA". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it doesn't. It might be that the Culture section will be expanded later for one reason or another; then the extra image will come in handy. Finetooth (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have plenty of pictures sitting in Commons awaiting some use. :)  I will work on some of the other points tonight or tomorrow.  Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow-up review

message: "Stephens City celebrated its semiquincentennial, or 250th anniversary, on September 1, 2008. A large section of the center of the town, comprising 65 acres (26 ha), is part of the Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District, listed in 1992 on the National Register of Historic Places."
This paragraph in the introduction consists of two completely unrelated subjects. The 250th anniversary is already mentioned later in the article, so this sentence can probably be removed. The historic district sentence, then, could be incorporated somewhere else in the article. In fact, it is mentioned in the "20th century to present" section so maybe we can move it there. I will make these changes tomorrow if no one objects.
Also, as I mentioned in my edit comment, I think the word "semiquincentennial" should be removed. If a word is so obscure that you have to clarify what it means, why not just use the clarification instead? It looks a like a case of using a big word for the sake of using a big word. Again, I will make these changes tomorrow after giving ample time for comment. Thanks! FunBob1986 (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I object.  The introduction is a blurb of the page you are about to read.  It is what the page is about before you read it.  The 250th Anniversary and the town being on the National Register of Historic Places are BIG deals for this town, so they should remain on the intro.  Please remember, LOTS of people made this article what it is and LOTS of people reviewed it.  It wouldn't have passed GA with anything out of place or any words that didn't exsist. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I suppose repetition is okay. My main issue, however, was having a two sentence paragraph in which both sentences are completely unrelated. I was taught that this is poor style. FunBob1986 (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we went IAR on that area.  I actually didn't write that portion of the lead, another editor with far superior writing skills did and the GA reviewer (two in fact) passed the lead as great....so I didn't touch it but to tinker with some layout issues.  You can find out more on what a intro should look like here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: TL:DR. I'll take your word for it. FunBob1986 (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Understandable.  There is definitely ALOT to read on that page.  If you ever get into making town/city articles or updating them, that page is a great source, so keep it in mind.  Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe reverse the two sentences and change the one about the NRHP to the past tense?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't sure what you meant by past tense on the NRHP part (since it appeared to me to be in past tense), but this is what I came up with.  If you like, feel free to tinker away. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that is what you meant.  ZOOOM, over my head.  Might be time for me to sign off and get some sleep.  That should have been easy for me to see.  Thanks :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: #These figures add up to 100 percent. Are there no atheists in the town? They are also oddly precise. The source should be noted as dubious at best unless an independent verification is somehow possible.
#This source lists six churches in the town proper. Google finds others.
#The US Census data doesn't speak to religion.
LeadSongDog come howl! 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, I know of no atheists in Stephens City, but that does not mean there are some.  The address "Stephens City" extends far beyond the town limits.  I live in "Stephens City", but not in the town limits.  One can live in nearby Winchester, but be some 20 miles from their town limits.  It is very odd.  So yes, there are other churches with the address "Stephens City", but not directly located in Stephens City proper, which is what I tried to focus on to the best of my abilities.  In the FAC process, the source was checked and an Ohio friend actually ordered the study (which comes as a book and CD-ROM from what I am told) so I will have more information hopefully from him (when it arrives in the mail) once he inputs it in the article he is working on.  At the moment, there is no reason to mark it as dubious or otherwise as the sources passed extensive checks by the FAC reviewers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things to keep in mind: 1st, of course, is that the data is for Frederick County, meaning it was taken from a population of about 60,000 people as opposed to the 1,100 or so in Stephens City in 2000.  Second, in looking at the data on city-data.com you'll note the first graphic states "Percentage of population affiliated with a religious congregations [sic]" and gives 31.8% for the figure (which is again for Frederick County, not Stephens City), so the 100% total for those affiliated with a specific group doesn't necessarily mean 100% of the population, but rather, 100% of the population affiliated with a religious group.  I also think it would be best to combine the two sources for that paragraph since the city-data.com source is simply sourcing the Glenmary study. It's not like the city-data.com source is giving us any additional info (plus city-data.com by itself is not a reliable source). --JonRidinger (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point on the combining references, but my worry in doing that is if one company or the other sees the reference (a very unlikely prospect) they might complain that I am mixing up the two companies or worse misrepresenting them.  Let me pass this past someone just to get a third opinion (tiebreaker) and I will be right back. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, NH asked me for a third opinion but I just don't have time to study this right now, I am involved in some nasty math work involving templates and don't want to break my concentration.  Can you get someone else?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure Wehwalt, no worries.  Asking someone else annnnd GO! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did what I was talking about in my sandbox, at User:JonRidinger/sandbox#Religion in the second paragraph.  In order to see it, you have to click "edit" because I currently have that paragraph it's in blocked out.  --JonRidinger (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the idea (seen your post), it is just the idea of combining City-Data and Glenmary into one reference bothers me for some reason.  I don't know if it can be done under referencing rules or not, which is why I want to make sure, but it seems the three people I have asked two are offline and one is busy (that being Wehwalt), so I might have to wait on that third opinion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

text: The delay in response was me thinking.  It is a good idea, you do have a good point, I am just worried about it being potentially considered misrepresentation of both companies. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I know and I've told you why it isn't.  You're citing the Glenmary study.  Whether that's from a book or on another website, it's still the Glenmary study.  Citing city-data which is in turn citing Glenmary means you're citing the same thing twice.  It's the same concept as citing a book that is available through Google books.  You're still citing the book, but the link is via Google.  You aren't, however, citing Google.  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when you use the Google Books analogy it makes more sense in my head.  Mind if I use your markup version? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use whatever you feel is best, either that way or just putting a "see also" within the Glenmary citationn (make sure the Glenmary citation is a "cite book" and not a "cite web"...cite web is for websites and the Glenmary study is a book).  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed and updated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, for secondary sources, I have 1, 2, 3 (a massive site).  There are others, but I think that is a good start. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The cautionary words about self-reported data in the csmonitor piece seem useful. That they credit the Glenmary work as the best available is helpful too. Still, I see no evidence of a reputation for fact checking that would justify treating the data as if it were coming from a secondary source.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Adherents.com also cites Glenmary in some of their work (and in a positive light), right alongside other typical surveys.  --JonRidinger (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, a nap happened.  I am willing to put all three secondary sources beside the Glenmary source.  Though I think source #1 from above is the better of the three.  It is a map version, from Glenmary data, have various religions (including "non-Christian" religions) and is from Valparaiso University. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if there is a question about reliabilty or lack of neutrality, then that should be taken to WP:RSN.  Adding additional sources to show that Glenmary is neutral won't make any sense at all in this article since those secondary sources do not have anything specific to the data in this article.  I think what needs to happen here is that the data needs to have a little more explanation and detail, which will happen once the study comes in.  And if it's just county-level data (which I'm pretty sure it will be), then it won't even be an issue and shouldn't be in this article at all in my opinion.  --JonRidinger (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I with you on the assumption it will be county-level data.  Nothing I have seen from other websites show any town-level data.  If that is the case when you receive the study, I will remove the stats with no question, as you are correct, county-level data shouldn't be in a town article unless it is something like schools.  If you or LeadSongDog want to raise the question about reliability or neutrality of the Glenmary data before then, please feel free to do so, just link the conversation here so other can see it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion statistics

message: There seems to be a minor error in the article, as Gen. Jackson died in may 1863. Maybe someone know the correct name of the commanding confederate officer?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.207.4 (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked back at my sources and it should have read 1862, not 1864.  Thanks for the correction. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stonewall Jackson in 1864?

message: The cited source doesn't support the claim that "The community lasted until the Civil War began, when some of the free blacks left for the North; others were captured and forced to fight for the Confederates."  It's doubtful that everyone would leave the community, and very few blacks 'fought' for the Confederacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamish Son (talk • contribs) 
:Actually it is.  I checked.  I did write the article ya know.  I wouldn't have put anything in there that wasn't sourced.  It was checked over by 20+ people in editing and another 15+ in GA and FA reviews.  Nothing was left to chance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps to put fears to rest you could point to the exact quote or quotes.  I'm not sure this source is online or not as I haven't had a chance to go through the entire history.  Quotes can be included in the citation using the |quote=  parameter in any of the citation templates and they need not be long; just enough to get the point across.  I've done that on a number of citations in my own articles to not only erase any doubt but provide a bit more detail.  --JonRidinger (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At this link: "Throughout it all the African American community in Newtown and its suburb of Crossroads were both observers and participants in the local events of the war."  Also, African Americans were in the Confederate armies as shown in Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 1.The quotation doesn't suggest that the community ended at the beginning of the Civil War 2. To 'participate' in local events is not the same thing as fighting for the Confederates 3. According to the wiki article you link to, "The number of African-Americans, both slave and free, that served in the Confederate Army in a direct combat capacity was minor, and was never official policy."(I'm sorry about botching the signature.) Beamish Son (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Until someone can come up with a better sentence and source, this is what we have, sourced and on the page.  Reviewed by 20+ at GA and FA and edited by another 20+.  I see no reason to change it now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:   How about "After the Emancipation Proclamation, most of the newly freed slaves and many of the already free blacks left the area."  That sentence is supported by the source. 98.223.76.74 (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: NH be careful just using the "it was reviewed by 20+ at GA...etc." as a reason to leave as is.  That doesn't actually answer the question or address the concern.  Remember GA is not nearly as thorough as FA and even FA missed some major things (like the whole religion thing...and how many changes have been made since FAC that weren't related to vandalism?).  Simply being reviewed in FA and passing does not mean the article cannot be improved further or that editors read through every piece of information.  A lot of articles have sources that are not online, so they can't be checked at all, so good faith is assumed.  As for the source here, I have to agree with the anonymous IP that the sentences it supports could be worded better.  The source cited does not say anything about the former Crossroads residents A) going to the North (it just says many "left the area") or B) being forced to fight for the Confederates (it says nothing about that, so we can't just assume that happened).  The only mention of "forced" is where slave owners were "forced" to give up their slaves by the Emancipation Proclamation and the presence of Union troops enforcing it.  If there is an additional source that backs up the claim about blacks from Crossroads going "North" and being forced to fight for the CSA, then it should be included right after the current source.  But as it stands now, the source doesn't actually support the statement.  --JonRidinger (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The way Jon reworded it is good.  Personally I would have rather it be left as is, but that goes back to how I liked the history section previously.  Still learning.  With the changes, I think we can call this resolved. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Crossroads

message: I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link above and under "External Links" in the article itself.  Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoken version added

message: The image use policy is very clear about the technical issues experienced by the disabled and other users due to the manual sizing of images. It suggests that each manual sizing be justified with a technical reason (unreadable text, map detail, etc.) This is a Wikipedia-wide policy and is not overridden simply by personal preference or FAC review. Yworo (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to restore this as well.  I believe Neutralhomer misread your comment.  Can you be more specific about what you are talking about in the article though?  Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the visually disabled have the ability to enlarge (if they are still sighted) or reduce (if they are blind and using a reader, or if they need to enlarge the text without distraction from images), the images in their user preferences. However, any manual sizing of images, such as reducing them to 175px, overrides the use of the user preferences. The technical details are in the image use policy. Yworo (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, the only image I saw that had a size parameter was the map.  It was set to the default anyways so I removed it so it won't override the preferences.  Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Image use policy

message: This article has the silly flaw that around eight references (not citations, mind you) are to various links at the factfinder2.census.gov site, and all of those links direct to a page that either displays no information, or by default shows information about the United States. You must allow me to replace those URLs with ones that direct right to the data pertaining to Stephens City. I have no idea why one editor rudely undid my edit to fix one of these links, and in his ignorance he saw no difference between the two links. I expect that most other editors to this page too saw Stephens City data because of their saved cookies for that destination on FactFinder. Yet almost everyone reading the page has no such cookies, and they'll end up seeing a useless and very different page from what the editors would see. 
If anyone doesn't understand my explanation, it's the difference between these two links: (should properly be viewed in an incognito or in-private browser)
* http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table
* http://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/10_DP/DPDP1/1600000US5175344
Thank you.--ɱ (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Being that I clean out my cookies once a week and clicked on both links after cleaning out said cookies, the information would be different according to you.  It wasn't.  It was the same and was the same without cookies.  So, your above post is incorrect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I realised that the FactFinder site keeps that data even when you clear cookies. In order for you to view the URL like any member of the public, either click on the first URL (the original one) using a work/school/library/friend's computer, or use an incognito window. Or you can try a browser that is not your primary one. With any of those methods, you will see, like any member of the public, nothing related to Stephens City whatsoever. You will either see a search bar to input a city or you'll see demographics for the United States as a whole. And that's not a proper URL for citation. The second URL (the one I found) will direct anyone and everyone to the data pertaining to Stephens City, I can assure you of that.--ɱ (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I realised that the current URLs are bad because I've been fixing up a draft of Briarcliff Manor on my sandbox, and I used data from FactFinder and found that the URL copied from the search/location bar is a generic one that won't specify either Briarcliff or Stephens City, and is identical to the URL that I replaced on this article. What you or I have to do is click on the tab on FactFinder that says 'Bookmark', where the site gives you a permanent and direct link to the information pertaining to that city.--ɱ (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks Ryan. Should I make these URL changes, or does any editor still object?--ɱ (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: factfinder2.census.gov

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Stephens City, Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906034159/http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/ to http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20160602200744/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Stephens City, Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531143152/http://www.vaemergency.gov/node/240 to http://www.vaemergency.gov/node/240
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131211184443/http://www.fcva.us/departments/o-z/parks-recreation/parks/sherando-park to http://www.fcva.us/departments/o-z/parks-recreation/parks/sherando-park
*Added archive https://archive.is/20141108041654/http://www.winchesterstar.com/article/at_family_drive_in_show_goes_on_and_on_and_on to http://www.winchesterstar.com/article/at_family_drive_in_show_goes_on_and_on_and_on
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531124450/http://www.fcva.us/home/showdocument?id=280 to http://www.fcva.us/home/showdocument?id=280
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Stephens City, Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150629181952/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2014/files/SUB-EST2014_51.csv to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2014/files/SUB-EST2014_51.csv
*Added archive https://archive.is/20140805195139/http://www.winchesterstar.com/article/town_mayor_reflects_as_retirement_nears to http://www.winchesterstar.com/article/town_mayor_reflects_as_retirement_nears
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Stephens City, Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002104147/https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2010/A470CCC2-6F4F-4635-BB89-526338D1B403/Unofficial/00_069_s.shtml to https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2010/A470CCC2-6F4F-4635-BB89-526338D1B403/Unofficial/00_069_s.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140219032511/https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2012/68C30477-AAF2-46DD-994E-5D3BE8A89C9B/Official/00_069_s.shtml to https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2012/68C30477-AAF2-46DD-994E-5D3BE8A89C9B/Official/00_069_s.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should the population be updated with the 2014 estimate of 1,921 or left as is until the next official census? APK whisper in my ear 09:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I leave that open to other editors.  I don't have an issue with it one way or another.  My preference is the true population by the 10 year Census.  But, as we all know well, what we perfer, what we have/don't have an issue with and what ends up on the page are three totally different things. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox has a place for the estimate. If you look at the Kent, Ohio article, it has both the 2010 population and the 2014 estimate in the infobox. The key is updating it, but not including every estimate, just the most recent. I went ahead and added it. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure what the FA standard is. APK whisper in my ear 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go BOLD and add it.  I don't mind if it is added. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some rewording, mostly for clarity and flow. The way it was made it somewhat confusing as to whether the rest of the paragraph was talking about the 2010 numbers or the 2014 numbers (I know what it was talking about, but others might not). I also did some rewording so we don't have so many "As of 2010..." statements. The population table had the estimate referenced twice, once in the footnotes, and once in the "estref" parameter, so I removed one. The first paragraph of the demographics section also had the same source cited 3 or 4 times, so I did some consolidation there. If a paragraph all comes from the same source, it only needs a citation at the end of the paragraph. In that case, having it twice is necessary since the estimate mention breaks up the thought, though having the 2010 reference only once would still probably be OK since it's not making any outstanding or otherwise controversial claims. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I do get a little chronological when I write, don't I? :)  Thanks for for the rewording and corrections.  Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population estimate