Talk:Madison, Connecticut
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
affluent or not
[edit]An experienced editor removed a new addition by an IP editor, in the lede characterizing the town as coastal and as affluent. Given median income > $100k, I think affluent is fair. Given that it is on the coast, i think coastal is fair. I reverted the experienced editor, whose edits seem to be mean, for no reason. Do discuss justification for battling against new / non-logged in editors to dispute their reasonable assertions.... --doncram 04:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The same experienced editor, User:Polaron visited again to remove the sensible wording again. This editor and I have tangled over a long time. I believe this editor shows unreasonable, control freakish wp:ownership over articles, tending to drive away other editors especially new ones. Here, removing the factual description added by a non-logged-in, probably new editor, seems unhelpful. It is Wikipedia guideline and good policy to discuss changes at Talk pages. Here, there are 2 editors, the IP and me, who believe this is good wording. Polaron, you don't get to decide; you are not in charge; consensus, such as it is, is apparently running against your view. Although you might possibly be choosing to oppose me for personal reasons, there's no reason for you to stomp over the IP editor's preference here. --doncram 16:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Editor Polaron has two more times removed the words "coastal" and "affluent" lede information, with last edit summary calling for a footnote support. Polaron, could you clarify which you dispute, whether it is "coastal" or "affluent" that you object to. Both are supported in the article. The wp:LEDE does not need to be burdened with footnotes for summary information that is developed with sources later in the article. This is seeming like inappropriate wp:OWN ownership over what an article can say, that editor Polaron feels he may force his way over local (not me) and other (me) editors, with no requirement to discuss his arbitrary rules. --doncram 12:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Coastal" is redundant as the rest of the sentence says it is located on the Connecticut shoreline. "Affluent" is a subjective term. What does it mean in concrete terms? Who says it is affluent? Subjective terms should not be used if possible and even if so should always require a source as to who is saying it and on what basis. --Polaron | Talk 13:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Editor Polaron has two more times removed the words "coastal" and "affluent" lede information, with last edit summary calling for a footnote support. Polaron, could you clarify which you dispute, whether it is "coastal" or "affluent" that you object to. Both are supported in the article. The wp:LEDE does not need to be burdened with footnotes for summary information that is developed with sources later in the article. This is seeming like inappropriate wp:OWN ownership over what an article can say, that editor Polaron feels he may force his way over local (not me) and other (me) editors, with no requirement to discuss his arbitrary rules. --doncram 12:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Transportation info
[edit]Polaron, I restored the current train & bus information and wikilinks that were recently removed by your bulk reversion without explanation. I don't see anything controversial -- hope there's no problem. Thanks. Patrug (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Madison, Connecticut. 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/20150523034651/https://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2014/SUB-EST2014.html to https://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2014/SUB-EST2014.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)