Talk:Elkhorn, Omaha, Nebraska

message: Somebody has placed uncited, inflammatory material on this page. It has been deleted by users several times but then reverted by bots. Indeed it should be deleted as it doesn't meet sourcing requirements or NPOV. The only thing I saw there which could be improved that was not already in the article was a mention of an opinion poll from the residents of Elkhorn. If this can be cited and neutrally presented it would be ok, but I have no idea where the info came from. Alienmercy 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflammatory Anti-Omaha Section 

message: Elkorn's 'official' page link removed, it is now an ad site.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Elkorn Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Elkhorn, Omaha, Nebraska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140826194916/http://www.court.state.ne.us/opinions/2007/january/jan12/s05-1006.pdf to http://www.court.state.ne.us/opinions/2007/january/jan12/s05-1006.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've again removed an 1867 photo of Elkhorn from this article.  This is how the article appeared before I removed it.  Note that text was sandwiched between the photo and the infobox, which is contrary to MOS:IMAGELOCATION.  Since the photo was placed in a one-sentence section, it also forced the title of the next section to the right of the photo, which is also contrary to the principles of page layout and composition.
The editor who added the photo described it in an edit summary as "unique and necessary".  Unique it may be, but "necessary" is overstating things.  It wouldn't be at all inappropriate to include the photo in the article, were there a place to put it.  Unfortunately, there isn't: the infobox takes up most of the article's right side, and a map of Omaha post-annexation occupies the rest.  Since annexation takes up considerably more of the article than 19th-century history, it wouldn't be appropriate to delete the map and put the 1867 photo there. — Ammodramus (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Elkhorn, Omaha, Nebraska. 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/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1636&u_sid=2312472
*Added  tag to http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=2337400
*Added  tag to http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=2338767
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have come across this page from listing of this page under the category . I would like to know whether the attribute |image_map be edited by someone. It is that parameter which causes the problem. I will be able to resolve the problem by replacing the dot with an equal to sign. But when that is done, it will show that the image does not exist. So my request is to just try if such an image can be found out or not. If it cannot be found out, just replace the full stop with an equal to sign.Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map attribute issue