User talk:Doncram/Archive 17

Categories

There's no prohibition on linking to redlinked articles in body text, but there is an absolute rule against applying redlinked categories, especially when the redlink is the only category on the page. The problem is that when you're doing a batch run in AWB, it's not really possible to make a complex "do Thing A to some articles, do Thing B to some other articles" rule instead, nor is there any easy way to check every non-existing category to see if it's just misspelled. Really, the only thing one can do, when working with the uncategorized articles list, is to either tag everything or go through the entire list manually — and I'm not about to do the latter on a day when the list has almost 600 articles on it. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether a category looks reasonable or not. It either actually exists or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, then it can't be on articles period whether it "looks reasonable" or not. Ultimately where you lost me is the notion that it's somehow punitive to tag an article as lacking proper categorization; really, it's just a maintenance tag and that's just a question of keeping the encyclopedia organized, not one of "punishing" anyone. Also, when I'm doing a batch run on the new uncategorized articles list, it isn't my responsibility to individually hunt down the correct category for each article (especially as the list frequently comprises 500-1,000 articles in a single day) — although I certainly take the time to manually categorize articles whose correct category I already know, I don't have the responsibility (or the time, or the inclination) to go looking for the correct category if I can't name it right off the top of my head. The only responsibility that goes with the job is to make sure it's in the categorization project's queue so that somebody can look after it, not to personally categorize each and every article myself. Bearcat (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Henry S. Baird

Materialscientist (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Baird Law Office

Materialscientist (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

This comment, particularly "So whatever he states, with or without supporting proof, should basically be disregarded," is not acceptable. Please re-read WP:No personal attacks, if you've forgotten the substance there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll browse it again later (have to run now tho). I am more familiar with wp:AGF where it is clear that we do not have to continually assume good faith on the part of an editor when there has been copious evidence running counter to that. For the moment, I just removed that specific sentence you objected to.

I could, if i had to, provide copious diffs supporting the generalizations i stated in that comment, in an appropriate forum. It seems expeditious, and fundamentally courteous to the hundreds of editors watching there, to provide some quick characterization of this editors' behaviors with regard to hijacking article names. As you will have noticed, i did qualify with "i think" and intersperse a smiley or two in what i wrote already (yes, i am fully aware that such is not fully sufficient in many cases to avoid determination of violation of AGF or whatever). And the fundamental purpose of my opening and developing the thread is to head off tons of future drama which the editor's past and current behavior suggests will be likely.

Should it be discussed in a user RFC/U instead, u might ask. But the guideline Talk page is a page about naming conventions; this is a prolific editor with a counter-guideline stance, who has taken a stance already by redirecting hundreds, perhaps thousands, of article names which would comply with the guideline. It seems relevant there. Gotta run. --Doncram (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hickory Hill McLean, Virginia

I came across an article about Hickory Hill in McLean, Virginia. Robert&Ethel Kennedy lived there with their family and before them US Justice Robert Jackson. Apparently, Hickory Hill was nominated for a National Register of Historic Places designation. You might be interested in the article. Thanks-RFD (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Doncram/Archive 17! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Project! Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or suggestions.--Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Stubbing

I'd be interested in doing some occasional stubbing. Haven't looked at Connecticut recently, but I'll try to look more into it when I have some time. I just saw there was a big debate about using a bot on the NRHP talk page. Of course, I'm fully supportive, and that would allowus all more time to categorize and improve articles if they were all created efficiently. I was thinking about stubbing some churches in the States in the Deep South or Mid West at some point. That's great you can copy and paste basic articles from the talk page there in Connecticut. That should really help with article creation and elimination of redlinks. Swampyank (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

NRHP Scott County, Iowa

What does Davenport MRA mean? CTJF83 chat 18:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...also, do you know a page similar to this where I can easily get descriptions for all the properties? CTJF83 chat 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That page is for a NRHP-listed place that is further designated as a National Historic Landmark. The NPS has such a page for each one. But out of the List of NHLs in IA, i see not one in Davenport. I don't think there's going to be a NPS page for each one anywhere else. But you can try google searching using the suggested search for each one in the /drafts page, meaning the search version that restricts search to the NPS web domain. Maybe there will be pages for some of them. --Doncram (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. If you want to help me....could will be an FL for ya! CTJF83 chat 19:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm starting the split up :) CTJF83 19:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply re NRHP coords

See my talk page for an update to the discussion on coordinates. Good luck with all your efforts! -- The Anome (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

new NRIS cite

Question... does the new citation (<ref name="nris">{{NRISref|version=2009a}}</ref>) link to a working on line version of the database, or does it cite the database without a link? Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I still have some concerns as to how to word the citation (and I will raise them at the template talk page)... but we are definitely moving in the right direction. Most of my concerns with the old citation are resolved, so I am almost ready to swap out my edits. Thanks for being understanding on this... a little more patience and I think we will both be happy. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Something impelled me to split off the City of Milwaukee from the County. So now there are 2 lists. User:Freekee had requested on the talkpage in April that somebody do this. He wasn't around to help, but I think I've got it. Another set of eyes to recheck never hurts though. 165 + 62 = 227 Smallbones (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to use the NRHP color for tables of NRHPs, and NRHP-delisted color for table of delisted places, as i just edited in the two tables. I also notice that each list-article has just one recently delisted place. I bet there are more, not tabulated. And that there are owner objection cases and other cases where NRHP.COM and other internet sources assert are NRHP-listed. So I think those all should be added in tables below. Otherwise i think it looks fine, and if ur total numbers check then i would believe u split it without losing any.

If you were actually interested and would use the information, I would be happy to run my sequence of batch-generation-of-articles programs to provide support for these two list-articles. That's one way to get all the delisted ones, as worked for my filling out such in another county list-article (National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota, where i tested the batch-generator). I don't happen to have a more specific table-generator program ready to just generate a table of all the delisted ones; i can only currently generate the whole batch of individual article drafts (from which you can pick out the delisted and owner objection and other ones). --Doncram (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and correcting the color. I'm not against folks adding delisted sites, but it's not my priority - I just wanted to split the article as it stood. Listing "Owner objection" sites looks like a whole nother can of worms. I certainly wouldn't want to do the work, and I don't think anybody should start without consulting at wt:nrhp. There would likely be objections there, and I wouldn't support listing owner-objection sites without knowing a) about how many there are; b) how we could get good info on them; and c) what we expect to gain by the new type of listing. Thanks again. Smallbones (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at WP:BOTREQ.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please refrain from personal attacks

I know that you are aware of WP:NPA, but it appears to me that you are stepping over the line in some of your recent comments at User talk:Polaron#unsourced CDP info. Please try to limit your comments to substantive discussion of the issues related to Wikipedia editing, and refrain from personalizing the discussion or making personal accusations. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice comment

Kudos for this comment. --Orlady (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. It seemed to be immediately passed over by a glib dismissal; glad to know at least you appreciated what i said there. --Doncram (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Email

You've got newer e-mail. Lvklock (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy people coming to your talk page and then complaining about how you edit on YOUR talk page, Batman! Dude, Orlady, maybe P!  :) Mustn't add another thought after you've pressed save! And holy broad definition of personal attacks, too! That there are editors about whom you no longer assume good faith, I might go along with...me, neither...that's why I'm sticking to pictures these days. Lvklock (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

More email. Lvklock (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you please do what you said you were going to do this evening. Lvklock (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

New e-mail, truly. Lvklock (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

NRHP importance

It's been done. Feast your eyes. :o --Ebyabe (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I'm interpreting that to mean there are several thousand Florida NRHP articles in that. Only, how do we get to see importance X quality both? That'll show up, i suppose. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the output on the NRHP homepage is not handled by a bot but by simple uses of the PAGESINCATEGORY magic word. There also exists a bot-generated table (though not as up to date as the PAGESINCAT one) that will soon be updated to include importance ratings now that they've been made available. That template can be found here. An example of a template like this that has importance already in it can be found here.

I personally don't like the bot-generated table because it isn't updated real-time like the table currently on the project main page is. I don't, however, see a way to update the non-bot template to account for importance levels right this second. If there was an onwiki tool to show intersections of categories, that would be amazing, but I don't know of one. I'll look into it, but at the moment, I think we should just work on assessing the articles.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well there is a cross-category tool. Cross-cat or crosscat is what it is called i thot, but i can't find it now, it is not at wp:crosscat. --05:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is called Cat Scan, see http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php. Not sure how just now to apply it to see the High importance X stub NRHP articles. --Doncram (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Here it is applied to High importance X stub NRHP articles: here. And try High X start too. --Doncram (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec... I really wish you would learn to write everything you have to say at once...) Right, I know about that, but I need an onwiki tool to make it update real-time. I think I may have found a good contender, but I'm waiting for that to come to fruition. I'll let you know when I figure something out.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've worked out a solution that will update real time so we don't have to worry about bot runs. The table is currently viewable at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Collaboration and review. The "intersection" categories haven't completely populated yet, so the numbers are extremely low for the time being, but as soon as the job queue catches up, the numbers should be accurate.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Doris (Sailing yacht)

Hello! Your submission of Doris (Sailing yacht) 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! PM800 (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback AnomieBOT 50

That was about Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 50, where i have replied. Trial run looks great there. --doncram 16:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Content-free articles sourced to online sources that don't exist

Hi, Doncram. I continue to appreciate your enthusiasm for creating articles about National Register properties, but it doesn't justify creating articles about topics for which there is no information. I just stumbled upon Roaring Brook sites, BOC Site, and Selden Island Site (a stub that you didn't create). These are three archeological sites with undisclosed locations, all based on the same study report. There are links to online documents, but all of those links point to placeholders -- none of the documents exist online. Bottom line is that there's nothing of substance in any of those three articles. The articles wasted my time by making me click on links that don't work. IMO, it was premature to create these three articles, as there is nothing in them that cannot be fully documented in the county NRHP lists. What do you say to deleting them? --Orlady (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, i believe the articles have merit, or i would not be creating them. I actually thought you would like the combo Roaring Brook sites article for being a combo, rather than having 2 separate articles, which also could be justified. These individual articles are themselves not important and not worth calling a lot of attention to. It would be overkill and a burden on other editors to have an AFD, say. So I wouldn't support you raising existence-of-articles as a big issue, but u are of course free to find a forum and try that.

The wording i put into the Roaring Brook sites and BOC Site articles, mentioning documents and stating explicitly in mainspace that the documents are not available online, is unusual, i imagine. The MPS document does have to be mentioned in some way as an offline source that would be available and highly relevant, in the vein of "further reading" for interested wikipedia readers. I am open to discussion, and to figuring out an improved treatment, on this. Indeed, there is little info openly available from the National Register about these places. I think it is worthwhile to acknowledge that, and the mainspace treatment in these minor articles seems good to me. As a general principle on what to do for many possible articles like these, this part of what you are picking up upon may be good to discuss. --Doncram (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My position is that if the only information Wikipedia has on these sites is name, ref number, listing date, county name, possibly town name, and name of the MPS study -- all information from NRIS, it is more beneficial to users to provide that information in a list article than to create individual articles that say little more than "it exists but no information is available." Furthermore, I felt that my time was being wasted when I clicked on the various links in the article references and discovered that there was NOTHING THERE. It is a disservice to users to lead them on that kind of wild-goose chase. --Orlady (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are many sources on the internet providing minimal or misleading information about these places, including the National Park Service's PDF Focus website which provides links to nomination documents for them (which turn out to be notices that the documents are not available online after all). It is a service for anyone actually looking for information, to find out in these wikipedia articles that the current state is that information is not available. An article provides a focal point for actual other information to be added, when it might be discovered, too. And the Talk page provides a proper place to discuss the information or how to find it. Please note the helpful "Find sources" links that i set up there, e.g. at Talk:Roaring Brook sites. While nothing great pops up when i browse those, it is still a (small) service to provide focus for searching and for discussion about these places. The searches do document that these are places with multiple internet links (not independent, but rather multiple NRIS mirror and wikipedia mirror sites). And, they do provide a minimal amount of additional information, namely that there is just one site within a given listing, and no contributing structures, for example. Part of the merit of the article is showing the current state of the art, that only an article like this can so far be created. If anyone can do better, great. It is saving time for editors who might try to fill a void where a redlink might be. The void has been filled, however briefly. So, I think these have merit. I'm sorry, but the fact that you followed me to these articles and are disappointed to find so little, doesn't weigh too highly. The articles are of value to any readers (very few of these might exist) who might actually be interested in the places.

Another angle to consider is about some or all of these ones as being archeological sites, different than other stubs. About stubs in general, there is policy for having them. I could be sympathetic to some other way of treating address-restricted archeological sites, though, so as not to call for photographs and revealing of private location information. As you know I have made proposals at wt:NRHP before about removing the archeological sites from the tables in NRHP list-articles. If these weren't in the Middlesex county NRHP list-article's table, i probably would not be wanting to create these articles.

(modified) In effect, what i did with these two articles was perhaps create emphatic dead-ends. It is in fact part of my actual interest to kill off any further exploration and development on these topics, I guess. Or at least i will say that i think that no further development would be fine. In truth I don't want other editors looking around to figure out from local people where these sites are located and then posting that information. These are drafts of a sort, possibly suitably and/or deliberately boring and bureaucratic and uninviting. If there would be some way to get consensus for different treatment of address-restricted sites at the NRHP list-articles, too, i would be interested. Could you comment on your view regarding the address-restrictions and the protection of archeological sites? I could be agreeable to some comprehensive proposal involving no stubs on address restricted ones of these (which correlates highly to there being no NRHP nom docs available), if it is part of more general solution on address restriction protection. --Doncram (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't view those articles as "emphatic dead-ends"; rather, I see them as false advertising. For example, Roaring Brook sites is a stub article, but it appears to be supported by 4 reference citations, all of which appear to be online. In fact, however, there is NOTHING THERE other than the NRIS database entry -- and the creator of the article never actually saw any of the documents cited as sources. That's false advertising. --Orlady (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you're just picking up on the general stuff, not about archeological site address-restricted aspect. About the references, I would welcome some better wording. The links provided do document that the documents which the National Register says are available on-line at those URLs, are not in fact available online at those URLs. I don't want to drive readers to those URLs, but i do want to make it clear to possible editors that these are the URLs which the National Register points you to, yet they are bad. What do you suggest instead? --Doncram (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that you refactored your comment after I replied to it. Sorry, but I'm not going to play that game. If you restore the comment I replied to and add a new comment below, I'll consider replying. --Orlady (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How about a single article for all 36 or so sites in the thematic resource? These are all archeological sites from the same time period and the same general locale. Having separate articles is indeed an invitation for people to find as much information on them, including their location. --Polaron | Talk 20:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll bite. How do you know any of that? If you won't fully disclose how you know it, and are not willing to share electronic documents if u have them, I'll wish you were not commenting. --Doncram (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You really just stopped assuming good faith haven't you? This makes it so hard to open a discussion with you. It's much easier to just go ahead and do what needs to be done because asking you doesn't lead anywhere. --Polaron | Talk 21:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

After hundreds of these discussions, i anticipate that you will not share your sources, for reasons i cannot really fathom. You seem usually to want to "contribute" assertions that you yourself know something better than the rest of wikipedia editors know. So, indeed, it seems pretty useless usually to engage in any real discussion with you. It seems useful, to deal with other editors, to attempt to ask you once or twice to share your sources, and to point out that you won't or that you haven't, etc. Here, you have declined to share your source, that's what i take from your comment, as i expected you would not. Sorry i am not willing to beg. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

NPA, Doncram! Regardless of that, considering your propensity for writing articles based on nothing more than a cryptic entry in a database, I would have thought that you would have figured this one out. It's extremely reasonable to infer from the title "Lower Connecticut River Valley Woodland Period Archaeological TR" that these are archaeological sites in the Lower Connecticut River Valley (don't know if that's just the part covered in the article Lower Connecticut River Valley or if it's a longer reach of the river -- such as everything below Hartford or everything in Massachusetts and Connecticut, but the list should help make the scope clear) that date from the Woodland Period. However, "TR" isn't exactly a term in the general vocabulary (it's probably not "tea room" or "tuba revue" or most of things listed at TR; I'm guessing "technical report", but it's kind of tacky for the encyclopedia to make me guess).

As for Polaron's suggestion, I support the idea of a single article presenting a list of the sites that were added to the National Register as a result of that study. The article can't have much more content than that unless some public information is found regarding the study (Doncram's comments in the articles say it's not publicly available, which is a much larger barrier to reading it than merely not being online). However, such a list would be a much more honest way of presenting the information (and much less frustrating for users) than creating a lot of articles that don't say anything, but appear to be richly supported by references that turn out to be nothing but nonfunctioning internet links to material that the article authors have never actually seen. --Orlady (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

TR in this context usually stands for "Thematic Resources"; this would be a study on the theme of Woodland period archeological sites.

I think you're buying Polaron's assertion that there are 36 sites covered by this study, and that you can head off 36 or 35 short articles. I was not aware of that. In fact i am still not aware of it; there is no source provided to support it. I had looked up (by running a program) how many NRHP-listed sites in Middlesex County are covered by that study: there are 5, three of which are covered in these 2 short articles. I might have considered, or yet consider, an article on the topic of the study, which could treat these as subparts, but I don't have a copy of that study. Do you? --Doncram (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

[EC] I don't have independent information on the number of sites in the study (however, I'm not one of the people who have started articles about these sites without knowing anything about them), but I know it's not limited to Middlesex County. Selden Island Site, which I found by searching Wikipedia for the study name, is in New London County on the other side of the river. I bet an NRIS database search could give a complete list of the sites associated with that one TR. --Orlady (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Aha -- I see that your latest edit was to define "TR" as "Thematic Resources." I suggest that you not use the TR abbreviation in articles, regardless of how obvious you think that the meaning should be. --Orlady (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Read what i wrote: in other titles of MPS/TR studies that i have read, TR has often meant that. I think i recall it being some variation on that in some studies. The source available says TR, and i did not change that to spell it out, without seeing it. There is an unnecessary level of chiding going on here, frankly. You are not creating articles with sources here, nor is Polaron, and second-guessing is only useful to a limited extent. --Doncram (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So I am given to understand that, although the most substantive pieces of information in these articles is that the sites were listed on the National Register based on "Lower Connecticut River Valley Woodland Period Archaeological TR", not only has no one here read that document, but their Wikipedians who created these articles aren't even sure what "TR" stands for? This underlines my initial impression that merely looking at these articles was a waste of my time (not even counting the time I spent attempting to look at the cited references) -- because there is no substance there. --Orlady (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And likewise, this is seeming like a waste of time for me, and perhaps for you too. You oppose stub articles; I know that Wikipedia policy encourages stub articles; we've been through this several times. I did ask if u would comment on archeological site issues, and to try to suggest an improved wording/reference where there could be some ground for productive discussion. Your harping about the title including abbreviation TR that is stated in the available sources, instead, is not that. --Doncram (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

1. The guts of your request to me for comments on archaeological sites are in a comment (above) that you refactored after I had replied to it. As I stated above, I don't intend to play that game. If you want me to communicate with you in an fair and honest manner, I think it's only fair to ask the same of you. Accordingly, please restore your comment to the version I responded to (OK to fix misspellings and grammar issues), then ask your question again at the bottom of this conversation.

2. I do not oppose stub articles, no matter how many times you tell me that. Regardless, my general beliefs, preferences, and philosophies are not the subject of discussion here -- please stick to the topic at hand rather than trying to personalize the discussion.

3. As for "TR", when I saw it in the articles I thought it was sloppiness that the articles referred to "TR" without any indication of what it meant -- akin to the sloppiness of providing a reference citation with a date of "19", as in "NRHP Inventory-Nomination: BOC Site / Site 61-57". National Park Service. , 19. and Accompanying photos." However, it was even more disturbing to me to discover that you aren't even 100% sure what "TR" stands for. These articles are hollow shells -- if you poke at them with a stick, the shells collapse because there's nothing there. --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

1. You see what i said before, and how i modified it with edit summary and explicit label for you. I don't think it undermined your following comment; it just more accurately gave my view. You have it fully available. There is no evil ploy on my part to be unfair. Your charging me with some crime is a sign that we don't have basic trust to have a discussion.

2. I don't know what u oppose then. U r just opposing for the sake of opposing, i don't know.

3. In response to request u stop harping, u harp. Great.

I'm not learning anything here. Orlady is choosing not to discuss a possible substantial issue, or to give a wording suggestion. Okay folks, thanks for playing. Depending on the tone and substance of any following comments, I am gonna exert some prerogative to close and stop this nice chat. If I do close and remove this, please feel free to complain elsewhere. If i do remove it please don't restart this here. --Doncram (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

1. In the sequence above, it appears that I was ignoring the main thrust of your comment because you changed the thrust of your comment after I replied. In any event, the current version says (in part): "I don't want other editors looking around to figure out from local people where these sites are located and then posting that information. These are drafts of a sort, possibly suitably and/or deliberately boring and bureaucratic and uninviting. If there would be some way to get consensus for different treatment of address-restricted sites at the NRHP list-articles, too, i would be interested. Could you comment on your view regarding the address-restrictions and the protection of archeological sites? I could be agreeable to some comprehensive proposal involving no stubs on address restricted ones of these (which correlates highly to there being no NRHP nom docs available), if it is part of more general solution on address restriction protection."

My response is that if you don't want Wikipedia to induce people to go looking for these address-restricted sites, then don't write stand-alone articles about them. Those stub articles create far more curiosity than a redlinked list-entry ever could. And that single article that Polaron suggested about all the sites in that particular "TR" (or rather, about the not-so-fascinating fact that umpteen sites were listed as a result of that TR, with a list of IDs) would -- if it became the blue-link destination for all of those entries in county lists -- engender even less curiosity than a bunch of redlinks on lists. --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess this means that you won't consider it rude behavior on my part if I take these articles to AfD. I was trying to be respectful by discussing them here instead of going to that sort of forum. --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for changing ur tone a bit, and not harping about TR.

U do misrepresent in what you say tho. You claimed i changed the thrust of what i said, and i did not. In both versions, the thrust was: "Could you comment on your view regarding the address-restrictions and the protection of archeological sites? I could be agreeable to some comprehensive proposal involving...". You did not respond.

Your response, now, is not really an answer sharing what your views are about address-restricted sites and location info. I don't know if u followed, I don't think you commented within, recent discussions at wt:NRHP. I would like to know where you stand.

I do think that AFD would be rude, yes. It would be an inefficient forum, a waste of time for many editors. If u put these up there, and i chose to oppose, you would lose the AFD. These are stubs supported by policy, and there are offline documents which can be obtained to develop them. I would point out your misunderstanding about MPS/TR documents previously and other AFDs you started which failed. And that you haven't done dip here. I'd rather not go through all that.

What say you to your actually getting Polaron to reveal whatever information he has, and/or to your getting the MPS/TR document? I am actually interested in doing something different, perhaps as you suggest. --Doncram (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that I have more clue as to what you were trying to do in creating what you called "emphatic dead end" articles, I will attempt to respond in more detail. I hadn't followed the discussion of "address-restricted" properties because I saw it as "much ado about very little." I don't exactly devote my life to the NRHP Wikiproject, so I don't consider it to be earth-shakingly important to figure out how to make a "fully-illustrated list" when there are "address restricted" properties on that list (what seemed to be the main focus of the discussion). I agree with Acroterion and Smallbones (and some others) that the NRHP's uniform policy of restricting addresses of all archaeological sites is a bit overdone, as it has the effect of restricting not only the locations of vulnerable sites, but also locations of sites that have been widely known for years and in some cases are labeled by historical markers and the like. (It's awfully hard to hide Indian mounds, for example.) I have now perused a lot of old discussions of address-restricted sites, but I've not found any discussion of your scheme of creating articles that have no useful information and lead nowhere. If this was discussed as a general approach, I guess I'm going to need some diffs to help me find it. As stated earlier, it seems to me that if the goal is to avoid making Wikipedia a guidebook for looters, lists of site names are preferable to individual articles -- I think lists are less likely to be enticing than stand-alone articles.

As for Polaron, I don't believe that he is hiding any references or special knowledge -- as I noted earlier, everything he said appears to have been readily discernible from the same sources that you already have. And as for your suggestion that I should get the MPS/TR document (apparently so that I can flesh out the stubs that you created), please fuhgettaboutit, as it's not going to happen. This is your project, not mine. If it were up to me to rectify the problem that I perceive in relation to your stubs, I would delete the whole batch. --Orlady (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just slightly confused by your comments above, since WP:MPS says that you downloaded all of the Connecticut MPS forms from nr.nps.gov. Was this one never available? On an unrelated note — thanks for the comment about the house picture, but you really should be thanking Namiba. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Good idea to check my backup stash of the CT MPS's, but checking, i seem to have 20 of them, rather than the 22 CT ones listed at wp:MPS, and not including this one. There is some chance Polaron somehow has a copy but he is not saying. --Doncram (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RE:

I fixed the DYK nom and will comment on what you brought up on the talk page. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 19:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Start It Up

I'm not going to try to fix that one, because looking at the history, I'm not completely sure what happened, so I'll leave it for someone else to get. I'm going to restore my hatnote for Start Me Up, though, because I honestly thought that was the article that belonged here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Clinton Historical Society

The article Clinton Historical Society has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

DAB page consisting of only redlinks and external links.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RoninBK _{T C} 11:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

CT Villages

Hi Doncram, I've added back the Nichols Farms Historic District's Villages in CT cat as it is a CT village and having a seperate article wouldn't make much sense. I was wondering what is the thought process behind these edits? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The addition of villages navbox and villages categories to numerous NRHP HD articles was part of lowlevel battling, mindlessly and without discussion, to make the NRHP articles be village articles. It's part of long battling that at first was in the form of redirecting NRHP HD topics to CT town or village articles. I happened to notice the historic district items that had been inserted onto village navboxes and cleaned them out. In general there is plenty of reason to assume that a historic district is different than a village or other entity after which it might be named. In general it is not right to put in redirects of topics such as Nichols section, to an article like Nichols Farms Historic District that is not an article on that topic. It could possibly make sense to have a combined article in that specific case, but the current article is not one. Note, it refers to Nichols section; it does not show Nichols Section or any other title for it in bold; it does not say it is attempting to describe Nichols section. This is related to Connecticut communities discussion at wt:CONN. --Doncram (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree in some cases that makes sense, but for others where the HD is most or all of the village... it makes more sense to have one combined article, IMO. There are also articles which started out as village specific and then morphed into HDs. I think it's silly to have a Nichols article, which would basically be the NFHD article and mention the library annex. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Blue Hills (Bloomfield)

Hi. I see that you refactored the requested move discussion at Talk:Blue Hills (Bloomfield), probably due to some frustration that it hasn't closed yet. I sympathize, but I suggest that you un-refactor it. If you look at WP:RM, you will see that there is a huge backlog, which explains why this one hasn't closed. Based on my experience with having closed some contentious RM discussions there, I think that your refactoring is likely to backfire -- it may delay the closing by making things harder for the closing admin. (By rearranging the discussion and adding to its length, you are making it more difficult to review the discussion history.) Moreover, I see no purpose in relisting that one, as it's had plenty of attention relative to the typical RM, and relisting would likely add at least a month to the process. --Orlady (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I added just the preliminary tally and comment there. The refactoring was done earlier by Markvs88, and i agree it complicated the proposal unnecessarily. I guess i changed the section level of what he moved below, but he already had moved it out. Not sure what to do now. --Doncram (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean about the refactoring. However, I do think that your tally, your suggestion that the request should be relisted, and the new heading for the Long Hill discussion all are likely to complicate, and thus further delay, the closing. If you reverted those edits, the only harm would be the loss of your good work. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all frustrated that it hasn't closed in terms of timing, as i know these take a while. But i am somewhat concerned that it might be closed eventually as "no consensus", when in fact i think it would be best to accept all the moves as proposed. I was thinking that the summary comments i made would support it being closed eventually with "accept" with more surety. I am sure it makes it a bit harder for a closer to close, but that includes making it harder for someone to close it as no consensus. Still not sure what to do now. I would be willing to self-revert if u think what i wrote hurts more than helps, in terms of likely final outcome. --Doncram (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Now I "get" where you are coming from, but I think you are over-interpreting and over-reacting. I don't believe that your telling the closing admin how to interpret other people's statements will make that closing admin more sympathetic to your opinion, but it will make it that much harder for the closing admin to wade through the discussion. Note that the ideological viewpoint from Born2cycle did not prevent closure of the Marion RM. --Orlady (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

New Years Message for WikiProject United States

With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn Cultural Arts Center

Hey. I just wanted to let you know that there is already an existing article for The Katharine Hepburn Cultural Arts Center that may or may not need to be merged with your new Old Saybrook Town Hall and Theater article. In both the articles current forms, a merge seems to make sense but I'll leave the editorial decision to you. They should probably point to each other if they're going to stay separate. --Polaron | Talk 21:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Merged. --Doncram (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Currying favor with wealthy conservatives?

Just so you know who your new friends are. LOL. --Orlady (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, evidence of my leaning is starting to pile up. :) --Doncram (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kudos again on another excellent comment at Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). :-) --Orlady (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that was re: [this suggestion]. It may not change anybody's views there, but I'm actually thinking CT would be good to do this way, maybe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Connecticut communities. --Doncram (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, Jack E. Boucher does fit in pretty well with WP:NHRP. It's not a great article in that there aren't many references, but the tone is straightforward and the article is informative, even authoritative. If you could find references with TEXT to Boucher it would be a great improvement. Also, it appears that User: Jack E. Boucher wrote about half the article [1], but "don't bite the newbies!" Smallbones (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Woodburn, Midlothian for deletion

The article Woodburn, Midlothian is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodburn, Midlothian until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NHLsmlegend

Template:NHLsmlegend has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Prudence Crandall House

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on securing the picture slot! --Orlady (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! But thanks on pics to KudzuVine, who had uploaded that 1 pic long ago but also uploaded more for me, upon request. I am surprised/pleased the pic was kept, without a direct mention of something about the pic in the hook, my usual strategy to try to get a pic in. Maybe enough in article of interest to DYK editor. This is one of my 3 wp:CONN connecticut contest articles, on its way to B quality i hope. --Doncram (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe someone just really liked the placement of "(pictured)" within the hook...tx :) --Doncram (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)

Your edits are all available in the article history at Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee). (See 10 January.) --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Move justification?

Hi Don, Why did you unilaterally move Carroll County Court House (New Hampshire) to a less concise title[2]. I've started a discussion on this here: Talk:Carroll_County_Court_House_(Ossipee,_New_Hampshire)#Article_moved_unilaterally_without_justification, but, for the record, any move of an article to a less concise title should be considered potentially controversial and therefore should go through WP:RM. Please don't make potentially controversial moves without going through WP:RM again. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This was followed up by a discussion opened by Born2cycle at wt:NRHP#Courthouse disambiguation.

I'll notify you here that i also just moved Main Street Bridge (Jacksonville, Florida) to where it is now. It brings that article's name into conformity with others on Main Street Bridge dab page, which i am otherwise cleaning up right now (because someone else brought my attention to it regarding a Daytona Beach bridge). I don't think this is controversial and am not going to bother the community with a RM. I don't think that one is NRHP-listed but others on the dab page are, and all follow NRHP naming convention of City, State where disambiguation is needed and where that suffices. The Courthouse disambiguation discussion should clarify that for u somewhat. I don't think a RM is needed, but if you want to disagree and open a RM discussion, go ahead. I will certainly argue your doing so is part of a broad campaign and not helping wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN

Don, this comment is strictly about your behavior which is why I'm making it on your talk page rather than on the guideline talk page from whence it stems. You are again displaying behavior that suggestions violations of WP:OWN when you make statements like, "you want now to begin to butt in on the disambiguation of U.S. historic places, like you have butted in on Connecticut neighborhood names,..."[3]. No editor has more business making these decisions than any other. There is no such thing as "butting in" in Wikipedia. These are not private matters.

Please restrict your comments on guideline pages to the matter at hand. Objections about behavior, like this one, do not belong there. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

RFA

This is what you meant to do. Right?--intelati^talk 01:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --Doncram (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

East Kingston

There was almost certainly no great thought behind the redirect from East Kingston to the town in New Hampshire. It was simply a redirect created on March 30, 2004, at a time when both articles were bot-created uncategorized stubs. I'm a little shocked that there's been no move to fix this for nearly 7 years, not even with a hat note. (Only a little shocked because I trip across stuff like this a few times each week.) So I've created the sorely-needed disambiguation page. I have to wonder how many of the cities for which there is a redirect from the city name to the city, state article are improperly disambiguated in this manner. - Dravecky (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Main Street Bridge, Daytona Beach, Florida

Hi Doncram. I noticed on this edit you added a notation that the Main Street Bridge (Daytona Beach, Florida) is on the RHP. Do you have this referenced some place? I live in Daytona Beach and am interested in documenting this furthur, but have been unsuccessful in finding sources so far. Thank you for your help. Gamweb (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, looking into it now, I see that it was not NRHP-listed. I checked further whether it was formerly NRHP-listed or ever had been nominated for NRHP-listed, but find nothing. I removed the incorrect NRHP assertion from the disambiguation page and have embarked on cleaning up that dab page further. Thanks for calling attention to that; sorry i can't be more help about the Daytona Beach bridge. --Doncram (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Doris

Hi! I just wanted to say that you did some great work on Doris - I hadn't heard of her before, but it was great to see an article, and she sounds like a fine boat.

I've been trying to track down a photo, but I've been unsuccessful so far. I'll keep trying, though - maybe I'll be lucky. - Bilby (talk)

Glad you like Doris (Sailing yacht) as a topic. Thank you Bilby for improving the article. I note now u've even updated it with ownership info. It's in the DYK queue and will be more informative for what u've done. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about merging Connecticut Wine Trail with Connecticut wine?

Hey Doncram, I wanted to get your thoughts on the idea above. The Connecticut wine article is such a tiny stub and it seems like any expansion of the CT wine trail article will naturally include some overlapping content since pretty much every Connecticut winery is featured on the trail. The wine project have merged other wine trail articles into the main region article before since it tends to provide more context for the reader. But since you've expressed an interest in working for the CT article, I wanted to get your thoughts on the idea. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I am not going to be able to develop the article for quite some time now (and actually i may wait until summer to be able to visit some of the places), so please go ahead. --Doncram (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Greystone

Hello. Greystone needs a cleanup. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!  Done. --Doncr am 21:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Doris (Sailing yacht)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to Bilby who improved the article! --doncram 21:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Elm Bluff

Hey, I just finished writing Elm Bluff Plantation and thought that you might be interested in this place with New York connections. Its not on the NRHP or even the Alabama Register and is slowly falling to the ground. I visited it two years ago, had to walk 1/2 a mile through the woods each way, but just got around to writing something here about it. Hope you are well! Altairisfar 23:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing the demolition of a building?

Regarding the request for a source regarding the demolition of Weizer Building (8935 Buckeye Road, Cleveland, Ohio):

I know that we're not supposed to be doing original research here. Fair enough. My statement that the building was demolished is just that - I've personally observed that the structure isn't there. Can you think of a way that I might cite this?

Christopher Busta-Peck | Talk 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

replying at User talk:Cbustapeck. --doncram 18:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure of this, Christopher? Online sources sure seem to suggest that it still exists: [4] and [5] -- before concluding that it's gone, I'd suggest that you call the Buckeye Area Development Corporation and ask about its status. See http://www.badoc.org/contact.php for contact info. If it's been torn down, they probably could give you a citeable reference on its demolition. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This was first about one of two places named Weizer Building, of which there were two on the same road, both NRHP-listed. I dunno which is the one that was demolished:

• Weizer Building (8935 Buckeye Road, Cleveland, Ohio), or
• Weizer Building (11801 Buckeye Road, Cleveland, Ohio).

I assume that Cbustapeck knows about one being gone, and the links that Orlady found are about the other, for the moment. But thanks, definitely, Orlady, those sources should be used in the relevant article! It was also about 6 other demolitions of Cleveland NRHP buildings that Cbustapeck knows about, mention for a second time removed by another editor. I happen to think the demolition mentions are okay, with or without "citation needed" tags that i had tried adding. --doncram 18:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Orlady, I am sure that it is gone. I've been by the address address many times, and there's nothing there. The Weizer Building referrenced on the website you cite is the one at 11801 Buckeye. I'll be adding a photo of that one soon. Christopher Busta-Peck | Talk 19:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

All makes sense now. Thanks. Regardless, I believe that User:EurekaLott may have some city/county government connections in Cleveland, and may be able to help find documentation on demolitions there. --Orlady (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you see anything wrong with citing Google Maps Streetview? Christopher Busta-Peck | Talk 15:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think i've heard we cannot upload and include photos from Streetview, but that is different. I think that should be fine, if you can link to a pic there. If you are meaning to make an assertion that a building is gone, with a footnote saying more generally "go see Streetview, which shows nothing at that address", without a specific pic, then i am not sure how that would be regarded. I'd ask directly at wt:NRHP for others' comments on that. I have rarely used Streetviews even for browsing, myself, and have never cited it. --doncram 16:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Masonic buildings

Just a note of appreciation... I applaud your recent work on "chartifying" the List of Masonic buildings. I am especially pleased that you are including historical information in the "description" column designed to establish the extent of the Masonic association (as you know, I think that is an important issue). Your edits are moving the article much closer to how I envision it should be. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Whew, great, i am relieved that you approve. I so far have mostly been copy-pasting from the NRHP infoboxes in the corresponding articles. The table descriptions column has so far been gaining mostly just the info already sitting in the list-article, and some more bits from the NRHP infobox material. But i have added some other sourced bits from the individual articles, too, in the process. I have yet to revisit the Arizona and Arkansas table drafts you prepared, to ensure that info added there gets into the corresponding articles and into the table summaries. I will get to that, and eventually make an announcement at the list-article Talk page when i think this process is done. Thanks!

Sounds good. I will try to help out so this does not fall completely on your shoulders. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Your new AfD

I saw your AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) and reformatted it as a multi-article nomination, to include all the other similar articles that you listed in it. If you've identified more that should be included, I suggest that you add them, too -- to address the whole collection in a single consolidated discussion. To do that, tag the articles with {{subst:afd1|St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)}} and list them in the AfD using the "la" template (i.e., :{{la|Somebody's Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut)}}).

Seems like a worthwhile AfD nomination. I haven't expressed an opinion in that AfD yet because I haven't looked into the status of special notability guidelines for religion articles, nor have I searched for other sources. Right now, I expect that most or all of the list should be deleted, but SNGs or sources could change my mind... --Orlady (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject United States

I have proposed a change to the mission statement of WikiProject United States at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Mission statement for WikiProject United States and would welcome your views. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you leave

I'm sorry to see you leave the project and I hope you decide to return. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help facilitate that! --Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoa ... did I miss something?--Pubdog (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, he is just referring to my withdrawing from membership of WikiProject United States. No big deal about that, but I don't want to participate a lot in it and I want not to receive notices at my Talk page of discussions there. --doncram 17:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok. If its just a matter of receiving notifications on your talk page I can fix that. But I understand if you want to concentrate on other things. --Kumioko (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Parish vs. Church

I renemed to the previous name, which was changed. I can accept format (City, State) as location description, but not switching Parish <=> Church. Once more. The Parish is the area, and the church is the building. The article is about the parish. --WlaKom (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think separate articles are justified, and perhaps not even one merged article. Please discuss within Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)#about article naming only including Parish vs. Church. --doncram 12:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) for deletion

I have been asked by James Russiello to comment on this mass AfD. I am a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, and have participated in many deletion discussions. Sometimes I have improved articles, sometimes I have limited myself to Keep, or Delete, or Comment entries, and sometimes I have just let events happen without my participation.

I have never participated in a mass AfD before. Please explain to me the process. Suppose, for example, I review some of the church building articles, and find ways to improve them with history, or controversy, or something else. On the other hand, some articles I find not to be particularly notable at all. Should every church in Connecticut be on Wikipedia? I am not so sure of that, and I would not try to make it so.

What I have done is to review the three churches in New York City and add sources, and perhaps make improvements, and reserve judgment on the many Connecticut churches.

St. Raphael's Church (New York City) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SS. Cyril & Methodius' Church (New York City) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Added three sources on talk page

Our Lady of Victory's Church (New York City) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Added three sources on talk page

What I would like to learn from you is whether the result of a mass AfD can be to Keep in a few instances, Delete in some instances, and perhaps not reach a consensus on others? Is it all or nothing, or by particulars, or what?--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't participated in anything like this either, that i can recall. It has to be as you suggest, that a mix of results is what should be reached. I hope the article creators can help in identifying characteristics of ones-to-keep vs. ones-to-delete, based on something objective. We need to keep focused in the AFD discussion about what are some good criteria to make this kind of decision. Thanks for commenting here, i look fwd to your participation in the AFD.--doncram 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you agree that the two active Manhattan churches, SS. Cyril & Methodius' Church (New York City) and Our Lady of Victory's Church (New York City) are notable? I think so. If so, how are we going to keep track of which churches are being considered for deletion, and which churches are not? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re. do not remove AFD notice

I don't agree with you. Your requests for mass deletions don't meet Wikipedia requirement and can be treated as the act of vandalism. Please remove all you requests. Of course, if you repeat such disruptive actions i will seek to have you blocked from editing in Wikipedia. --WlaKom (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia:Civility. I have concerns about process, but I want to see any discussions about process remain calm and deliberative. Requests to edit or not edit in a particular way are usually inappropriate. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Note - WlaKom's first language is Polish, and he may seem more terse than he intends. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback 2

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at Talk:Steele Dunning Historic District.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

okay, good, i replied at Talk:Steele Dunning Historic District. This is about colors template:Outstanding color and another to go with template:CP color for a contributing properties table. --doncram 16:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) - One list needed

Please note my request, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)#One list needed and comment or volunteer to make a list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for consulting with me on the AfD and related matters. I'm trying to figure out how a good admin would close the AfD, and how I can help toward that end. No luck. Next step: how would an admin with the wisdom of Solomon close the AfD? No luck. Most likely result: the admin will say "No Consensus" - that there are certainly important issues raised, but please try again in a more orderly manner if you feel it's still needed. Given that, I think I'll stay out and might not even contribute to the future AfDs. Too much heat and not enough light.

Let me explain how I got involved. I met User:James Russiello at the NYCity Meetup and he seemed like exactly the person we'd want involved in WP:NRHP - knowledgable about architecture, educated, reasonable. I did have some questions about whether his articles would pass notability requirements, but never really got to them because he had lots of good questions on architectural articles, etc. I did try to steer him toward NRHP articles for notability reasons if nothing else - hopefully fairly gently. A week or so later, he left me a note, obviously feeling bitten. Maybe I jumped in too fast - there are real questions here - but I do feel that "don't bite the newbies" is a very important "rule."

A minor note on one reason I like WP:NRHP so much. 1.5 years ago I stumbled into the project and it seemed like there were multiple folks doing multiple things who all seemed to get along, willing to give advice, not saying "NO - don't do that" all the time (like many folks do throughout Wikipedia). Some of that spirit has gone down lately - and I have probably contributed to that myself. I do see you as a fellow offender, but that is usually easily forgiven since you've contributed so much to the project. Perhaps you're trying to do too much too quickly. I do think you'd be more effective if you relaxed a bit.

Questions to deal with: Have James R and Lucas gotten a better understanding on notability? Probably, but we should keep an eye on them and help them out when needed. Should some of the articles they created be deleted? Probably, but it's ultimately a housekeeping problem that can be dealt with over time. There's no deadline.

Do please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, and I hope I haven't overstepped in any place.

As always, Smallbones (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wag more, bark less,
Don't bite.

PS - a photo of my dog. You may see him in a few other pix - I started taking NRHP pix during his walks. e.g. File:St Charles MO BPOE.JPG File:CobbCreek.JPG - Smallbones (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Brown House

Brown House needs cleanup. Station1 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not anymore :).--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but you realize you're taking all Doncram's fun away :) - Station1 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if he's looking for any fun, he could always come help with my fun... --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks about fixing Brown House disambiguation page formatting.

Dudemanfellabra, you are not seriously trying to go through all the Category:Unknown-importance National Register of Historic Places articles manually, are you? I was thinking you and others were going through the National Historic Landmark list-articles or corresponding categories, and a few other categories, and would leave the attachment of "importance=Low" for all other articles, to be performed by a bot, later. How about just making the bot request now? Or leaving this until later later when a bot might implement some other needed change, too. Lemme know if you want a bot run now tho, and i will comment in support of it. --doncram 19:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I've assessed the importance – low or not – of all of our FAs, GAs, FLs (only 2), and C-Class articles. At the moment I'm going through all the county lists and adding mid importance to them. Then I plan on going through all the B-Class articles. Like I've said at the project talk page, I think a human can do a much better job at rating importance than a bot can. I may run out of steam by the time I get to the 25K+ stubs/start-class articles, but at least for the higher ones I think it's appropriate to go through by hand.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Alhambra Theatre

Heya. It's been a while since we've talked! I had a (what's hopefully a quick) question: Why would Alhambra Theatre (Sacramento) be listed here and here but not on the official list? I was tipped off by the message that Elkman's generator gave ("Note: This property may not actually be listed on the National Register - listing code is RN"). I'm not quite sure what RN means. Killiondude (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Good to focus on Elkman's generator giving that information. There's a key for all those codes given within wp:NRHPhelp. RN means Removed from the National Register though. The second website you point to notes that the building was Built in 1927 and was Razed in 1973. The first website you point to is the private website www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, which erroneously reports, for every place that has been removed from the National Register that it was listed on the national register (on the date that it was in fact removed from the National Register). It is basically an unreliable website that is a copy of the National Register Information System (NRIS) public domain database. Elkman's system is also a copy of that database, but with more accurate interpretation of the codes within the database. In this case, the National Register apparently has been properly updated to reflect the apparent fact that the building has been demolished (by removal of the property from the National Register). There are other cases where a building has been demolished but not yet officially removed from the Register. We're interested in learning about those, at wp:NRIS info issues CA.

Hope this helps and suffices! If not, please ask more! Glad to see you out and about in editing on the California historic sites.... --doncram 16:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

accusations of move warring

Please stop claiming that moving unnecessarily disambiguated articles to a name that was previously a red link is move warring and please stop associating renames to the misguided AFD you proposed. Anyone could have undone the moves and created the needed disambiguation pages if there were name conflicts. As I said, if there is an article on a topic with some name, that name has to be one of three things: the article title, a redirect to the article, or a disambiguation page. You cannot leave a name a red link if there is at least one Wikipedia article that exists with that name. There is nothing controversial about this notion. Would it be reasonable for me to assume that you think I'm here only to vandalize Wikipedia? If so, then I will respond to you appropriately. 71.21.81.61 (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsigned comment i presume by editor Polaron, not logged in. --doncram 18:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That comment is regarding discussion at User talk:Smallbones#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) - One list needed, where in response to a misleading assertion by Polaron, i commented further on Polaron's behaviors. Here is a copy:

Polaron, I am not going to argue this out here with you, but I will note that Polaron's statement here is misleading. I state clearly my objections to Polaron's adversarial moves of numerous Connecticut church articles in User talk:Polaron#random moves of Connecticut church articles and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive667#Polaron moving articles and creating redirects. Polaron, despite numerous recent requests that he use the Requested Move service rather than make contentious moves, and despite specific request that he cease making moves of those CT church articles, responded to those requests by expanding the set of disputed articles by moving more. Given further request, he expanded the scope further by moving more. It was only with the ANI report that he ceased making moves of those articles. Actually i noticed at least one further move, and maybe there were more that i have not yet noticed. The move warring engaged by Polaron was the moves of multiple articles, all generally of the same type, where the type of move was specifically disputed. It has since been pretty well established by side discussion in the AFD and its Talk page and elsewhere, that all other editors regard all of those moves by Polaron moves as having been unhelpful.

It complicated the AFD discussion that the articles were moved to bad names, and it complicated it that Polaron's contentious editing style was interferring with the articles. Polaron repeatedly sets a bad example and escalates contention, in this arena where there are new editors watching. It complicates matters because it is hard to be appropriately negative and cut Polaron's shenanigans off quickly, without dismaying the new editors who should not have to be involved.

Polaron's assertion here on this Talk page is meant to be misleading, to assert that he was not involved in contentious moves, merely on the technicality that there were not repeated moves back and forth on any one article. The scope of the battleground was being defined by Polaron to include all CT church articles, or some such huge arena. A further waste of our time, to consider the cleverness or not of Polaron's misleading suggestion that he was not engaging in disruption. I probably will not comment further. --doncram 17:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, here at my Talk page, we have Polaron attempting again to make the misleading assertion. And, asking for some grand judgment on my part about all of Polaron's edits in wikipedia. I decline to comment generally right now. But Polaron, I will say: A more mature response within this series, would have been for you to acknowledge some mistakes on your part. You could perhaps acknowledge (1) that your original series of moves was incorrect and unhelpful (as has been determined by some wider consensus now, if my original judgment clearly expressed to you was not enough); (2) that your extending/expanding the issue by making many more moves was unhelpful, for obvious reasons; (3) that your now repetitive assertions of having done no wrong, in several Talk page discussions and your mischaracterizations of what i have said, are also unhelpful. If you had some outrageous or reasonable or other claims to say about me, why on earth did you not respond within the ANI discussion, which would have been the appropriate place? --doncram 18:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)

Note the nature of the AfD (expired) and the tag at the top (closing). Could you please try to avoid commenting? It's in the formal close process, and I'm going to have to disregard any comments made after this anyway. The fact that you have asked for more time for discussion does not mean that more discussion will automatically take place, nor does it exempt the AfD from the standard closing procedure. I have left a further comment on my talkpage, but the summary of this all is "wait and see. The closing tag is on. Do not debate the content, do not debate the AfD, do not debate the presence of the closing tag - any comments made after this point will simply not be considered". Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. --doncram 02:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Now closed. Ironholds (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

New disambiguation pages

Have you looked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Our_Lady_of_Grace_Church? You have a whale of a lot of work to do to fix all of the incoming links that were broken by your your page move for the New Jersey redirect! (I fear that similar issues exist with some of the other ambiguous church names.) --Orlady (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Might not be as bad as it looked, I edited the NRHP template for the county, which I think was the origin of most of the misdirected links. --Orlady (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's no big deal. Once a proper disambiguation page is set up, now there are pretty efficient processes which update the pages that link to the disambiguation page. It is not necessary to do all that yourself. Relatedly, i noticed in your contribution history you were recently spending an edit or two to update a redirect to avoid double redirect. You don't need to do that at all, as a bot will pretty quickly identify the double redirect and fix it.

But in this case your comment made me take a look, and there are indeed a lot of links to there, which is pretty much an indication that a navigation template needs to be updated. I revisedYour edit beat mine in revising Template:NRHP in Hudson County, New Jersey just now, which will eventually clear most of those. I repeat, it is not necessary to update all incoming links to a disambiguation page. Perhaps guidelines/etiquette statements about that need to be updated.

The more difficult thing is to get unhelpful redirects of form "Name (Connecticut)" deleted. I see a big RFD in the future. --doncram 05:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that one. It looks like Saint Theresa Church and possibly some other pages that you redirected to St. Theresa Church had a bunch of backlinks that pointed to specific churches. I'm glad you have faith in efficient bot processes to clean up when redirects are changed to point to a new disambiguation page, cuz I am not aware that any such processes exist for that purpose. (A lot of disambiguation repair is still done manually, and both the manual repair and the bot repair sometimes misfire.)
I am well aware that double redirects are supposed to repair themselves, but that doesn't always happen as quickly as you seem to think it does, so I generally clean up double redirects when there are article-space pages pointing to them -- or when I just moved a page that still needs to be visited in connection with a recently closed AfD.
I don't see a real problem with those "Church Name (Connecticut)" redirects -- particularly right now, while there are still a lot of temporary backlinks pointing to those pages. Wait until there are no backlinks pointing to them. I did delete a couple of badly named redirect pages this evening for being totally implausible (and not having any backlinks). --Orlady (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The St. Theresa Church dab page has relatively few mainspace articles linking to it. Several of those are NRHP list-articles. The NRHP list-articles are getting occasional cleanups, very efficiently, by use of the Dab-solver tool by various editors. Perhaps u are not aware of that. Dab_solver tool here. It's easy to use to fix all of the ambiguous links in one big NRHP list-article in one edit (particularly by editors using Firefox rather than Microsoft internet explorer). A separate edit to fix just one not using the DabSolver tool is inefficient, not necessary. The overall project to reduce links to dab pages is making great progress, via tools like that and its daily/monthly contest. Yes, i do have confidence in the rapidity with which double redirects are fixed. --doncram 05:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I continue to be dismayed about your attitude toward the inbound links that get broken when you move articles and/or retarget redirects. How was a bot supposed to figure out that the link to Saint Ladislaus Church in the article Ödön Lechner was now supposed to point to St. Ladislaus Church (South Norwalk, Connecticut), and when did you figure that a bot was going to get around to fixing it? And, as I already comment in response to your comment on my talk page, 10 hours is plenty fast for fixing redirects that aren't in active use, but it's too long to wait for a bot to fix a double redirect that is used by an article. --Orlady (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're mostly unaware of the Wikipedia processes for updating links to disambiguation pages. I've participated and contributed more in that. Maybe you could watchlist the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig for awhile and gradually familiarize yourself with that world. Basically, i do think you are worrying about small beans here, that would be taken care of by well-running processes (correct, not all to be done by bots, but well-running nonetheless). With regard to buildings dab pages that i work on, the difficult thing requiring attention is identifying need for the dab pages and creating good ones, i.e. that consolidate together a good list of similarly named buildings/places out of existing Wikipedia articles and that also includes all NRHP-listed ones (whether there's an article yet or not for the NRHP ones). After that it is easy and mechanical for the links to be updated. Note, any reader of the Odon Lechner article would have been inconvenienced only by having one more click, to get to the correct page, if brought to the dab page first. Correct, a bot would not have fixed that; it requires quick human intervention, but there are lots of specialists using good tools who can do that far faster than you or i. I am confident in the pace and accuracy of those processes. --doncram 20:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but when I move pages or repurpose existing pages -- whether acting as a user or as an administrator -- I believe it is my job (not someone else's) to fix the backlinks that would be broken as a result of my action. I guess it's time to christen you "Cavalier Doncram." --Orlady (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh, i don't think that label would be fair. I have contributed plenty by setting up good disambiguation, in >3,000 NRHP-related dab pages (in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles) and in many other dab pages. Which actually really help readers find their way to existing articles, and help editors find their way to place new contributions. It never seems useful here on Wikipedia to criticize a volunteer here (me in this case) for not doing something else. There's lots that you have not done! I don't even feel critical that you have not set up a lot of disambiguation, because I don't feel a need to criticize you for that "failing". What we choose to do, as volunteers, is a function of what we perceive as priorities, of what we feel we are good at specializing in, and of simply personal taste. I often prefer to work where I think i am relatively more efficient than others, not in doing something which a bot would do in a few hours or that any editor can do anytime (like update a dablink given accurate choices already stated in a dab page).

And we're not talking about any high-profile pages. If i thot my edits were affecting a featured article on the front page of wikipedia, sure, i would update the double-redirect, rather than letting a bot fix it later. The pages we're talking about are very obscure, marginally notable at best, with near-zero readership. Don't be too grand about who you think is reading your work! --doncram 00:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy Name of Jesus Church (Stratford, Connecticut)

Per your comment on the AFD, I've refined two of the citations for this article. The Stratford Star citation was to show that as of June 2010, the church still hosts the meetings for the Sokol (Group 2). The Falcon citation (and I see where you could have missed this) is on page 5, in the top right corner. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at List of Michigan State Historic Sites

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from List of Michigan State Historic Sites, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request ThreeBot

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ThreeBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 17:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Re Montana list

Was working on backlog of articles that don't appear to need images--will not be removing tags from lists in future. We hope (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Have reverted the list. I can't promise that someone else won't come along doing backlog cleanup and do this also. Can you get specific with what the page still needs and tag it with the following for what's still needed to stop the bot from adding it? We hope (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_which_may_no_longer_need_images

"Some articles have images and yet would still be improved by an image of a specific place or event -- for example, an article about a war veteran that has a photograph of their memorial but not a portrait of the person. Editors can prevent PhotoCatBot (talk · contribs) from adding such an article to this category by replacing the image request with a reqphoto|of= tag."

I've requested that the bot be revised to exclude NRHP list-articles, at User talk:PhotoCatBot#reqphoto for list-articles that have many pics, yet need more. Thanks for letting me know of this problem. --doncram 03:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Canton Bridge Company

So... how many of these would you like me to find for you? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Canton Bridge Company

The article Canton Bridge Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

notability, lack of citations from reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to restore the del tag as the first cited source does not say anything about the topic. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

St. Louis NRHP

I am actually from Seattle and am not too familiar with Missouri. I took all these pictures during a 2008 vacation trip so if any of the buildings I photographed were on the National Register it was just by chance!

As for ways to re-organize the list.. I'm not sure. There is a large # of listings in St. Louis and it would be hard to classify them by neighborhood or street location like New York City. You could start by placing all the listings in the central business district maybe as far west as Union station on a separate page and keep the rest together. First you need to define the parameters of downtown St. Louis and go from there. Let me know if you have any other questions or quandaries. G'day, Publichall (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How to mention NRHP (and other notable) buildings in Grand Lodge articles

I note that you recently added a "See Also" link at the GL Alabama article, pointing to the Alabama section of the List of Masonic buildings. I think this is quite appropriate and have no objection. More to the point, I am wondering if something similar could be a way to resolve our debate at the Grand Lodge of Idaho article.

I would propose the following: add a "see also" link in all of the various GL articles, pointing to the relevant section of the Masonic buildings list... meanwhile, in the text of the GL Articles, we would only mention notable masonic buildings if they have a direct tie to the Grand Lodge itself (for example: if the Grand Lodge meets, or historically met, in a notable building, that fact would appropriate to mention in the text).

Would something like this be acceptable to you? Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I added "See also" type links as an expedient and as sort of a compromise to you in a few articles, where i was not myself willing to develop a more detailed statement about buildings associated with a Grand Lodge. However, I can't agree to some too-formal compromise agreement, akin to a gag order, saying that encyclopedic articles on the topic of Grand Lodges cannot include discussion of buildings associated with the Grand Lodge. Surely they can include such discussions where relevant, sourced, encyclopedic, etc. But if you go around putting See also type links in, i likely won't get around to doing more. --doncram 13:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you start an article for me?

I'm not sure how to run the NRHP article generator myself. Edith Marion Patch House, NRIS#01001269. Thanks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Article started. wp:NRHPhelp is where instructions on using the generator should be, too. --doncram 11:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Gracias, and thanks for the pointer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GedUK  07:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

NRHP

Thanks! So I would have to send an email request for the nom forms for each of those to get more information, I take it. You've set me up on a path to improve some of those articles. I don't know why Wickenburg has two separate entries...that will have to be dealt with. Raymie (t • c) 01:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sent the nomination requests. While combing NPS Focus for names and numbers, I found a new entry from the end of 2009, the A-wing at Buckeye Union High School. I also included the NRIS number for the Phoenix Indian School HD because I want to write an article about that school. I'm pretty pumped! Raymie (t • c) 04:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wales House (Minneapolis, Minnesota)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wales House (Minneapolis, Minnesota) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't recall this one at first, so i asked for and got a copy of the article. Yeah, it was a sorry article, on a topic that i thought was going to be legit. I was fixing up Wales House dab page from this version that showed that item with a supporting external link, plus other then-red-links, responding to an editor seeming-wrongly removing all of the redlinks, and i went to just start the articles, to remove the issue. Other former redlinks turned out to be very legit articles; this one didn't. I don't object to it being removed. --doncram 00:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Photos of MS NHL

Could you take a look at Talk:Lyceum-The Circle Historic District#Image gallery? I was in Oxford this weekend and took some pictures, but I don't really like the way I was forced to add them. Can you comment there?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Jonesborough Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee)

Once again, I think you are "over the top" in your insistence that a name recorded in the National Register database takes precedence over current reality. I refer to your edit to the lead sentence of Jonesborough Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee). The fact that a variant spelling was recorded in a federal document 42 years ago does not magically make that spelling the "right" spelling forever and ever. --Orlady (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please continue discussion at wt:TENN where i opened discussion and you have participated already. I am happy to open a formal Requested Move to ask for other editors' opinions, if it is not clarified there. However, as i have suggested there, there's no evidence yet that there is such a place as the name "Jonesborough Historic District", and there is evidence of the actual NRHP listing. It would be over the top or whatever to coin a new name, or to ignore wikipedia's basic policy to use reliable sources. Etc. --doncram 20:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fort Worth Elks Lodge 124

I quote The Fort Worth Elks Lodge 124, also known as Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks or YWCA of Fort Worth and _, - I think something should be in place of the underscore. Please fix. Griffinofwales (talk) Simple English Wikipedia - Come and join! 17:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That's about Fort Worth Elks Lodge 124 article. I agree that needs to be fixed. What shows in the wikipedia article is, i think, all of what shows in what's called the Elkman generator for this place, that cut off that field after a certain number of characters, in info it reports from NRIS database. I need to check my own full copy of NRIS database another way. Thanks for the reminder! I'll address it when i can (it requires some computer update on my end before i can), and will keep a note of it here. --doncram 19:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of St. James Catholic Church and Cemetery

The article St. James Catholic Church and Cemetery has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dab page with only two links, both of which are red. Both of these criteria make a separate dab page unnecessary per WP:DAB

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the prod. It's a dab page with 2 redlink entries, but with proper supporting bluelinks. Please discuss at St. James Catholic Church and Cemetery#validity of dab page for 2 topics lacking articles. --doncram 18:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Excited bounty

I opened my inbox this afternoon to see I'd received the remaining NRHP nom forms I'd asked for. Here's the bounty:

• Safford
• Casa Grande Union
• Brophy Chapel
• Florence
• Wickenburg HS, both parts
• Nogales
• Glendale Auditorium

Florence is listed as Florence Union, but it is known in its modern form as Florence High School.

I can gladly send these to you via email if you would like, since I don't know if I have the time to write all these articles. There's an additional source I use for my more historical AZ schools, this PDF with historical enrollment figures for all schools in Arizona from 1912 to 2005. It's very complete, and it's also the basis for most of my closed schools list.

By the way, Phoenix Indian School was written with solely the nomination form and the AIA enrollment numbers as sources. It's one of my longest articles to date.

The one I did not receive is the Buckeye Union A-wing, which I found too late. I do plan on adding an NRHP infobox etc. there. Raymie (t • c) 23:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Great, glad you received all those! And it is useful to learn that the National Register is sending out scanned copies of Arizona nomination documents in response to requests. I can't take on another project now to develop all these articles either, but if you have the Carver High School (Phoenix, Arizona) / Phoenix Union Colored one that i edited on a little before, and could email it to me, then I would try to develop that topic further. Thanks! --doncram 01:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

O of I A?

pic of building

Just wondering if you've ever run into the O of I A. An internet search didn't get much - a picture of a cemetery flag-holder with masonic symbols and speculations about "Order of Independent Americans" and a sub group of the Association of Junior Mechanics (or some such). In any case File:Building of the Order of Independent Americans, Pottstown, Pennsylvania.jpg is one of the most impressive buildings in the Old Pottstown, PA Historic District (Montgomery County), but the nomination form says little about it (they use the 309 address). Any clue? Smallbones (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. But interesting, and nice pic / nice-looking building. I hadn't heard of Order of Independent Americans (redlink now) before. Here is a Flickr pic of same building i expect, with caption mention of six patriotic orders: Order of United American Mechanics (bluelink), the Junior Order United American Mechanics (redlink), the Daughters of Liberty (bluelink), the Daughters of America (redlink), the Order of Independent Americans, and the Patriotic Order Sons of America (redlink), all involved in a bible-reading requirement initiative.... These seem to be different than societies so far covered in Category:Fraternal and service organizations. You probably came across that internet hit already. I'll watch for what you might add to Old Pottstown Historic District? I'm not going anywhere with this, otherwise, offhand. Thanks for sharing. --doncram 22:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you've got it. The Flicker link is the same building, and the text there is maybe everything that will ever (maybe should ever) appear on the internet about the O of I A. I'm not planning to do much here either, but will probably start Old Pottstown HD sometime. Smallbones (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Quid Aere Perennius

Actually, I had already used it in describing the building, but yeah, I had meant to use it at that time as well but couldn't remember the exact words. So I just added it.

God ... that was a task. Didn't expect it to be so long (the nom document is rather fragmented, making the article more difficult than it should have been). But, once I get more photos, there's definitely something there for some recognition (that's a big "once", however ... with current fuel prices, I am not just casually driving out to Waterbury).

Now I can do another Aspen building, then I will probably be disappearing from NRHP for a week or so to write another long Supreme Court decision article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business/Accountancy_task_force#Renaming_the_Accountancy_Task_Force_to_Institute_of_Wiki_Accountants.
Message added 17:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business/Accountancy_task_force#Renaming_the_Accountancy_Task_Force_to_Institute_of_Wiki_Accountants.
Message added 17:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

West Main Street Historic District

West Main Street Historic District needs a cleanup. Plus West Main Street District should redirect to the one in Ohio with a hatnote on it unless you plan to create the others in the next few days. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sure, I'll clean up West Main Street Historic District. But no, West Main Street District should not redirect to the one in Ohio. It now redirects to West Main Street HD, which is a combo dab, I think properly. I don't know about official guidelines for combo dab pages like this, but i have implemented many of them and I think it is fine/good to be set up like this. IMO, there is no need for 2 separate dab pages about historic districts that include vs. omit the word "historic". If you want to start a guideline/policy questions about how combo dabs should be handled or prohibited or whatever, perhaps at WikiProject Disambiguation, please feel free to do so and I will join in (or let me know if I don't seem to see it). --doncram 21:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I don't object to the combination - it seems reasonable in this case. But right now there is only one article on WP with a title "West Main Street District" - the one in Ohio. The others are redlinks. When there's only one article using a title, it gets the plain name (as a sort of default primary topic). If the other "West Main Street District" articles are developed, I agree the plain title should point to a dab page. Station1 (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good to be talking. Okay, glad u agree the just-merged combo is reasonable. Note the combo includes several places named "West Main Street District (City, State)", and I didn't check but I assume that the Ohio one is the only one of those being a bluelink and the others are redlinks. What you propose is to to have the redirect go to the Ohio one, until a different redlink turns blue. Think about it, redirecting to anywhere other than the combo dab page does not make sense. You agree the redirect should go to the combo dab page later, when more articles have been created. Or you would agree the redirect should go to the combo dab page if the Ohio article did not exist, too. So if there are 0, 2, 3, 4 articles, you would redirect to the combo dab page (i.e. you would allow for disambiguation of "West Main Street District" to take place). The combo dab page is the dab page that gives multiple places of this name. It doesn't make sense to redirect readers looking for places of this name, to somewhere other than the dab page that lists the places of this name, whatever the number of redlinks vs. bluelinks. I think you will agree if you contemplate this further. Happy to keep chatting about it here (though going offline soon, will be back later). --doncram 22:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, I do disagree. That's basic: You never have a dab page at a plain title with fewer than two articles that could have that title. Station1 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, i appreciate that this is a civil discussion, but we disagree. There is in fact general acceptance by disambiguation editors that a dab page can exist when there are multiple valid article topics of the same name, whether or not there are actually articles for them. As long as the topics are valid redlinks (i.e. have supporting bluelinks per MOS:DABRL). A dab page can be valid with ZERO "primary bluelinks", with all entries being "primary redlinks" (with supporting bluelinks). It is NOT assumed that the first article created is automatically wp:PRIMARYUSAGE for the topic. There are in fact multiple dab pages that i have built which have 0 or have just 1 primary bluelink. This was covered in several previous discussions at WikiProject Disambiguation. I can understand you not being "on board" with this, but it is the practice and it was compared to policy and found by consensus not to be in violation of any policy. And it is sensible practice, besides being consistent with policy. Of course there can be cases where multiple valid topics are known to be valid, and of course a dab page can and should be set up, for various good reasons (provide resolution for article title conflicts, provide readers with news that a topic does not yet have an article, etc., same as for any redlink entries in dab pages).

If you want to bring this up for a new discussion, I suggest taking a different, cleaner example than this combo dab page whose supporting bluelinks are not perfectly compliant with MOSDAB (although you can use this if you wish). But I suggest a simpler fully-cleaned example like Lake Street Historic District or Lancaster Block (dabs each with 2 entries, only one being a primary bluelink, neither being a primary topic). Or John Thompson House (dab with 3 entries, only one being primary bluelink, where 3 similar-but-not-exactly-the-same names appear). Or, i am browsing for some example where there are zero primary bluelinks currently.... I am browsing in Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/NRHPdabcleanup2010, whose crossed-out entries are "cleaned up" NRHP pages. Ah, Lawrenceburg Commercial Historic District is one, referring to what i think are 2 separate NRHP-listed districts (not just one spanning a state line...in fact i just checked in an NRHP database, they are different). That has 2 primary redlinks, and no primary bluelinks, and is a valid dab page serving several good purposes (serving editors, serving readers). I am happy to explain again to others why that is necessary and good, and also not against any policy or guideline. Or to expand further, to you here, why it is necessary and good, if you do not see. --doncram 02:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I believe your first paragraph is completely mistaken. Consensus is just the opposite. Dab pages with only redlinks have always been subject to speedy deletion. Other than pages you've created, you will have trouble finding any such pages. Station1 (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I grant there probably has been many deletions of all-redlink dab pages, and there may have seemed to be consensus for that among some deletion focussed editors. The consensus I am referring to is among disambiguation-focused editors who specifically considered the dab pages involving NRHP redlink entries. These discussions include Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 21#feedback requested on NRHP dab pages discussion (with first section about Morey House example of all red-links) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 22#Masonic Temple Building (a discussion in which you were involved early on, and which eventually confirmed the all-redlinks-being okay position, though maybe you had dropped out by then).

Deletions of dab pages where items were MOS:DABRL compliant should not happen, but I concede may have sometimes happened, perhaps by mistaken reliance upon wp:SPEEDY's G6 for Technical deletions, which mentions "unnecessary disambiguation pages". I have noticed and responded to one or two deletions that happened (by requesting and obtaining restoration of the dab pages). If you could point to any such deletions giving evidence of a pattern of use relying upon G6 or otherwise, I would appreciate that, towards justifying placement of a clarifying statement into any appropriate spot within wp:SPEEDY. It is obvious to me and is eventually clear enough to anyone who really considers it, that disambiguation pages such as Lawrenceburg Commercial Historic District are "necessary" (that they serve good purposes, as do other dab pages including any valid redlink entries).

The wikipedia policy about dab pages has to do with valid "topics", and does not require articles exist. And consensus of disambiguation editors (in those 2 discussions) has been in support of these dab pages. Please do try to find any policy or guideline statement against an all-redlink dab page; if such has been introduced i will argue it needs to be rolled back.

Also, this has taken some time to write out. I believe that you are writing here in good faith, but also I am not interested in endlessly rehashing the same stuff with you. You know, or should see, that the disambiguation pages that i have built serve good purposes, and that actions such as proposing deletion of a dab page like Lawrenceburg Commercial Historic District is just a waste of your and my and other editors time (not that you have proposed it, but it would be contended and would not be accepted, and would be a waste of time of all concerned IMHO). I suggest we should work at developing non-dab articles, rather than battling about attempts to tear down useful disambiguation. What is your interest here, honestly? --doncram 04:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My interest here is making WP better. Honestly. Or, if you're asking specifically about this thread, my interest was to let you clean up West Main Street Historic District before I do, because you asked me to on my talk page a while back, though I'm beginning to think that agreeing to that may not have been such a good idea. Station1 (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your agreeing a while ago to a compromise in which you agreed to request individual page cleanups here, was a good decision, heading off escalation to ANI or mediation or other bad alternatives for you. Your quest to remove redlinks from NRHP dabpages, rather than improve their supporting bluelinks, had run on too long, and you did not / do not have support for that. It was wise for you to back off.

Okay, done, i.e. West Main Street Historic District has been cleaned up, by my refining its supporting bluelinks and by setting up a needed redirect or two. You had started off this discussion asking for that, but also asserted "Plus West Main Street District should redirect to the one in Ohio with a hatnote on it unless you plan to create the others in the next few days." As long as you are now dropping that second assertion (which you should, based on this discussion and linked discussions), we are done here.--doncram 05:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually did have support for removing redlinks with dead-end bluelinks from dab pages. It's odd how we can read the same discussions and come to opposite conclusions about what they say. Anyway, thanks for fixing the bluelinks, although I do see one entry with a double bluelink. I do not drop my assertion about the redirect, but am still willing to wait a few days before changing it. Station1 (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You might have gotten some support, e.g. Dudemanfellabra's interjections in one or more of those, but I believe the conclusions of discussions were as I recall. Please don't redirect that in a few days. We have discussed it civilly enough here, and I guess clarified that you and I disagree about some matters. You are not taking my word on what is policy and guidelines and practice and sensible. So, raise the question properly somewhere central, such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation to get others' opinions, please. Or read the discussion here and in linked previous discussions, and decide on your own to drop it. That will save your and my and others' time. --doncram 05:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Or you could drop it and save the same amount of time. I don't intend to open any unnecessary discussion, but if you want to, please just let me know where. I'll certainly abide by any consensus, hoping you will do the same. Station1 (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

New article help?

So another editor and I have recently started Pioneer Woman which just so happens to be NRHP listed, which made me think of you. Any chance you could look over the parts where NRHP is actually involved and let me know if the categories/tags/reference#/whatever are correct or need fixing? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Dilemma

I see you've been stalking my contribution page. If you're going to turn The Dilemma (film) into a dab page, you should really at least fix all the incoming wikilinks so they point to the right article. Station1 (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the redirect The Dilemma (film). The dab page is wrong for the follwing reasons:

• The Dilemma (1914 film) is a redlink that doesn't appear in any article. The two bluelinks don't mention the film. I know you're familiar with MOS:DABRL.
• The first line has multiple bluelinks. MOS:DAB suggests one per line.
• If a dab page were necessary, The Dilemma (film) would redirect to Dilemma (disambiguation) with the template {{R from incomplete disambiguation)}}.
• You did not clean up all the incoming wikilinks, all of which intend the popular current film, thereby inconveniencing anyone who tries to click them.
• The talk page no longer matches the main page.

In short, there's only one film anywhere on WP called The Dilemma, so the page The Dilemma (film) need not exist, but since it does as a former title with incoming links, it needs to redirect to the obvious article. Please fix it. Station1 (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Station1, your detection of disambiguation rule violations may be accurate, but I often disagree with your remedies, which seem to me often to tear out appropriate structure. Rather than delete "primary redlink" entries not perfectly compliant with MOS:DABRL, it is often better to create an article on the topic (or to set up technically correct supporting bluelink linking to another article edited to include the same redlink, in context). Either is friendlier to the new Wikipedia editors who often add items to disambiguation pages, because the disambiguation pages are reasonably seen as lists of article topics, i.e. as new article request lists. It seems better to consider the notability of the topic and accept many of such suggested items, rather than fighting the tide and needlessly turning off new and experienced editors.

About your suggestion of my stalking you, I will acknowledge indeed that I checked your recent contributions and found that I disagreed with several of your recent edits. I checked your contributions upon noticing you were making judgments and editing in violation of Wikipedia policies and practices, and/or in violation of specific agreement you have made with me and others, on one or more disambiguation pages on my watchlist. It is mistakes on your part, or at least disagreements between me and you about some of your recent editing that brings my attention to your other recent editing. That is not "stalking" in any bad way. In policy/guidelines somewhere, it is specifically suggested that reviewing other editors' contributions in such a case is fine and good.

About The Dilemma (film), I opened discussion regarding this page at Talk:The Dilemma#Requested move 3 needed?. There were apparently 2 previous requested moves and a number of participating editors watching there, so I think The Dilemma (film) dab page is best discussed there. --doncram 17:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. To others, discussing this topic is best done at the discussion suggested just above. No negative, personalized comments needed here, thanks. --doncram 22:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to comments at Talk:The Dilemma#Requested move 3 needed

I don't want to take up more space at Talk:The Dilemma#Requested move 3 needed? because I don't think what I say will necessarily benefit anyone else, but I did want to respond, so I hope you don't mind my doing so here. I assume your comments there are in good faith and this is not intended to be hostile, but it appears you don't understand what I'm trying to say or do, which might be my fault for not being clear, so I want to try one more time by showing specifically where we differ or misunderstand each other. Italics are your comments there:

• Sure you did indeed first make this edit at my Talk page with edit summary "(→The Dilemma: new section)" asserting "If you're going to turn The Dilemma (film) into a dab page, you should really at least fix all the incoming wikilinks so they point to the right article." I didn't quote that because it doesn't explain at all why you would convert a disambiguation page to a redirect.

• I think it does explain why I reverted the recent conversion of the redirect. If there are numerous incoming links to a dab page, that are inteded instead for a very popular article with tens of thousands of views per month, anyone clicking on those links will wind up on a dab page where they don't wish or expect to be, rather than at the article they want. Obviously there are two ways to fix that problem: fix all the incomimg links or fix the page they point to. I decided to fix the page they point to, but you did neither, even after I pointed out the problem both in my first edit summary and in my message to you quoted at this bullet.

• If the disambiguation page is valid, it is valid, it does not matter one iota that some mainspace pages link to it.

• That sentence is absolutely true. If the disambiguation page were valid, the only proper thing to do would be to fix the incoming links. But in this case, both another experienced editor and I judged the page to be invalid. An IP with no previous recorded edits had, undoubtedly in good faith, converted the redirect to what he thought was a dab page, and which at first glance had the form of a dab page, but which disambiguated nothing on WP. Another editor immediately put a speedy delete tag on it. The speedy delete would normally be correct but I noticed the incoming links that would be broken by the deletion, so instead I just reverted to the redirect that had existed since the move. It had the same effect as the speedy delete but saved the wikilinks from breaking. The dab page was invalid not for some arcane reason, but because it disambiguated literally nothing.

• Sure, the mainspace pages should not link to disambiguation pages, and there are systems which catch and fix those dablinks.

• If I'm wrong, please correct me, but the only "systems" I'm aware of are other editors who try to correct such links when they find them. But that "system" is certainly not foolproof, and it often takes a great deal of time. During that indefinite time, readers clicking on links to this currently popular article will be inconvenienced. To purposely allow that to happen I think is disruptive, frankly. In any case, it's considered poor etiquette to knowingly leave a mess for other editors to clean up later, if ever.

• What you said then and here doesn't make any sense at all towards supporting removal of the disambiguation page.

• I hope this makes it clearer.

• "The main problem" of incoming links pointing to a valid dab page, is not to be fixed by removing the dab page. So what you said throughout the discussion such as it was, all seems wrong.

• Again, I would agree with the first sentence if the dab page were valid. But since the dab page was not valid because it didn't disambiguate anything on WP, the problem was fixed by removing the dab page, and restoring the redirect.

• Again, you gave no indication that there had been a requested move about this.

• That's true. But the very first edit summary at the redirect very clearly said so. I usually try to research for a few minutes rather than revert someone else in haste, and by looking at the history and clicking through the half dozen or so edits at the page it was clear what was going on.

• And, there was perhaps new information since the requested move, that an IP editor had seen fit to create a sensible-looking disambiguation page (with an entry that you deemed faulty, but could easily be fixed).

• I didn't believe the entry could be easily fixed. If it were easy, you could have done so too rather than reinstating it without fixing it. But more importantly, even if that entry were fixed, there would still be no use for a dab page because the current film would still be the obvious primary topic.

• It seems mean to the non-logged-in editor, perhaps a new editor, to remove their contribution with no comprehensible explanation.

• It's in no way "mean" to edit anything on WP. No one doubts the IP's good faith, but it was an edit that almost any experienced editor would have reverted for the reasons I previously mentioned. Again, I was not the first to notice the problem. And I honestly believe my explanation was comprehensible to almost everyone except you. I appreciate your concern about new editors possibly being discouraged; one way to take care of that would be to leave a short note of explanation on the IP's talk page if you think that might be helpful.

In short, the reasons I reverted the dab page conversion was not because of any minor technical violation of some "rule", but because the conversion was fundamentally unsound and reversion was the best solution. I don't want to get into this kind of detailed explanation every time I do something, but I really hope this helps you see that there are reasons other editors do the things they do. If in the future you want to revert something I did, please feel free to ask me why I did it. Station1 (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Historic Buildings Humboldt County, CA

Glad to be of help adding photos. I hope to get all of them in the near future for that page. Also I am starting/adding or updating any pages that already exist on those buildings from local historic research materials and other sources. They are also in categories on WikiMedia Commons. We have several fraternal organization buildings up here that are not on the Historic register, a few IooF halls, Masonic Halls and so on. Is there a need or desire for photographs of them as well? With best wishes, Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

NRHP nom docs vs. NRIS

Thank you so much for the kind tip about the NRIS citations. I had no idea I was removing something important; I just thought the articles were using the only source of available information known to the author. I'll try to get everything straightened out. I must say, that's one of the most tactful corrections I've ever received. Thanks for assuming good faith. Ntsimp (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Charles R. Jonas Federal Building

Hi, can you add the NRHP info for this one? Cheers! bd2412 T 15:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Grand Lodge of Iowa building for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grand Lodge of Iowa building is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Iowa building until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..

I looked for independent sources to substantiate having a stand alone article and could not find any... so I am nominating. If we have an article on the GL Iowa (I don't think we do), I could see merging. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Doncram. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.—  Ravenswing  20:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Masonic Buildings in Trenton, New Jersey

I added a couple The old lodge built 1793, and the "Bellevue Avenue Colored School" which is now used as a Lodge. Part of an HD and an individual building. Smallbones (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! (those were added to List of Masonic buildings, which had no New Jersey section up to now) Nice to have any other positive contributions there, it's been a long slog developing that. --doncram 02:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and wrote up a stub for Old Masonic Temple (Trenton, New Jersey) based upon the name HABS uses in its documentation. Mostly wrote it up because I'm in love with the 1936 interior photo. I'd like to put an NRHP infobox on - but you might know better how and if it is appropriate. New Jersey is a pain as far as getting NRHP info (maybe I should try the Feds). All I know for sure is that the corner in front of the building is in the State House Historic District, but don't know if it is both sides of the street. 99+% sure it should be included, but ... Any help appreciated, and do take a look at the HABs photo. BTW is 1793 the earliest construction date in the set?

All the best.

Smallbones (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Iowa Masonic Library and Museum

As a member of the ARS, I am amazed at the attempt to delete the Iowa Masonic Library and Museum article only 19 minutes after you created it. This circumstance may suggest that creating an article in a sandbox and then going to mainspace is the best approach, but that is hardly required. There is also the under construction template, but that is not really required, either. I have added a comment to the deletion discussion, and I will add a strong keep entry a little later. I will add talk page template ratings, as is my practice with all AfD articles I examine. The AfD may well result in a better article than otherwise, but some of the deletionists carry their efforts too far. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iowa Masonic Library and Museum. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. N419BH 17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

capitol filed under W or DC

It seems to me that DC is analogous to a state in this instance. Washington is the name of the city. Just as Washington, PA is sorted as Pennsylvania in dab lists, I assumed that Washington, DC should be sorted as District of Columbia. Today, I believe that the District and Washington, DC are coterminous. But at one time, DC was a 10 mile square area that included parts of what are now Maryland and Virginia (hence the DC boundary markers listed on the NRHP that lie in Virginia and Maryland) and there were other municipal entities that were part of the District. For example, Georgetown was a separate entity from Washington until 1871. That said, I don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or the other. --sanfranman59 (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A little advice

We work under the consensus model here at Wikipedia. That means we discuss issues in order to determine how we will display our content. Attempting to enforce your own version of a page in a dispute without discussion is not appropriate. Such behavior is likely to be seen as edit-warring and may lead to a block. Additionally, it is important to focus on the content, not other contributors, in a dispute. Failing to do this can very quickly lead to making statements that are seen as personal attacks. I am going to request that you avoid SarekofVulcan until tempers cool off. Also, please rexamine your editing and make sure you're not accidentally owning articles. Thank you. N419BH 14:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to say here (since the thread is closed on ANI) that you were correct to criticize my linking of WP:UNDUE -- it had nothing to do with the point I was making, so I should have phrased that differently.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Cedar Rapids Scottish Rite Temple‎

Regarding the Cedar Rapids Scottish Rite Temple‎... would you object to a title change (move to Scottish Rite Masonic Center (Cedar Rapids)) to reflect the change in the "official" name of the building? We would still note "Scottish Rite Temple" and "Consistory Building No. 2" as alternate names. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather discuss any title issues at the article's Talk page, within a formal Requested Move or more informally. But no, i don't have any objection offhand. Yes, I do request/wish for the NRHP listing name to appear in the NRHP infobox and to appear as one bolded alternative name in the lede. Thanks. --doncram 13:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a proper discussion and a move request. Just wanted to find out your thoughts before hand. This isn't one that I feel strongly about... so if you did object, I would have dropped the idea. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN(2)

This isn't how AFD works, and sounds like article ownership. N419BH 23:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I am sure you're trying to be helpful in some way. If it is about the fact that an editor cannot stipulate what an uninvolved closer of an AFD must say, that is exactly the point that I was making, that the deletion nominator cannot specify what the resolution is. I pointed that out, for edification of the deletion nominator. I'm not sure continued discussion here is going to be helpful, but I'll read what you have to say if you wish to clarify your intent. --doncram 15:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm noticing a pattern in your editing. Note that this is the second WP:OWN thread on your current talk page. Even if someone else is not contributing appropriately the proper thing to do in content disputes is focus on the content, not the contributors. Leaving detailed "instructions" for a closing admin, as that diff appears to do, really isn't appropriate. N419BH 17:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Updating NRIS refs

Reply on my talk page. Need info. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/ is up, which has a link to http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/, but that second link is down. Any thoughts on the subject? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed some other US government websites being down this weekend (another example is factfinder2.census.gov). I've surmised that they were taken offline in anticipation of a government shutdown. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Can't say I miss factfinder2 -- I can't even figure out how to ask the question "what's the population of Bangor, Maine" on that site. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Factfinder2 is frustrating. I have, however, succeeded in finding the 2010 population of individual cities. If the site comes back up, I'll try to replicate what I did and tell you about it. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Articles sourced by IMDB

Category:Articles sourced by IMDB, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Articles sourced only by IMDB

Category:Articles sourced only by IMDB, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Emailed you the Jonesborough Historic District map

Hi. Back on 5 April, I emailed you the map discussed at Talk:Jonesboro Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee)#name of district. You haven't acknowledged the email. Did you not receive it? --Orlady (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continuing attacks on editors you disagree with, most recently here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Doncram (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't think it is fair or reasonable to be blocked for noting, at a Talk page, that another specific editor is following my edits and finding fault. That is what I did in the post at Talk:Jonesborough, Tennessee. It seems basically courteous to other editors to let them know what is going on, so that they can judge for themselves if they want to get involved or not. It is factual that Orlady follows my edits and frequently finds fault. She has long done so; she has been warned not to in the past but has gotten back to doing it. In another recent situation, SarekOfVulcan has suggested that a Talk page edit naming another editor is a personal attack. I don't think it amounts to a personal attack to name the other editor. There is not or should not be a bright line rule prohibiting the naming of another editor, or stating the fact of there being a long-running dispute between another editor and myself. --doncram 21:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion about the block, including my not understanding what standard SarekOfVulcan is applying, follows below and should be considered part of this unblock request. I am really really not understanding justification for this block, and SarekOfVulcan seems not to be explaining. --doncram 21:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The reason given for the block was "continuing attacks on editors you disagree with". One example was given. That example taken in isolation certainly would not have justified a block, but the block was not given for that one example. You have a long history of failing to edit cooperatively, and making accusations of bad faith and other accusations against other editors that you disagree with, and all put together your comments about and to other editors more than justify a 1 week block. You have asked that your comments in the discussion below be considered part of this unblock request. Those comments show you being combative and making accusations against those you disagree with, which certainly tends to confirm the block. Also, since you have stated that those comments should be considered as part of the unblock request, have you read WP:NOTTHEM? Quite simply, the more you give what you think are arguments for unblocking the more confirmation you give that the block was justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I had not in fact read wp:NOTTHEM, am not surprised about this as it is analogous to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments in AFDs. Thanks. --doncram 14:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In the other recent situation's discussion, i see now that SarekOfVulcan later asserted, incorrectly, that I had characterized a new user's edits in a way that "is misleading to the point of disruption". SarekOfVulcan apparently believed that I meant to misrepresent that a new user's contribution was acceptable as written, which I did not say or mean. In this instance, Orlady, as usual following my edits, actually helped out by providing some advice to the new user. SarekOfVulcan has made some too-strong, snap judgments, I think, that are incorrect. I think there are differences of opinion worth discussing, but that SarekOfVulcan's block is not justified. --doncram 22:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you took Polaron to WT:CONN for reverting an unsourced BLP violation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, I think you are not aware of the larger context, covered in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut#vandalism-reversion and other management of Connecticut articles. I have been trying to change the negative atmosphere on Connecticut articles. There has been some agreement that there is a problem and some support for my type of activity to address the problem, notably User:Sgt. R.K. Blue's comment there and his and Starstriker7's comments at Talk:Branford, Connecticut#unsourced assertions about notable persons. You don't need to block me to participate in the general discussion at wt:CONN of how to deal with bullying-like treatment of new editors, which I opened. --doncram 22:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing unsourced entries is not a problem. Attacking other editors who have other opinions about the content is a problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is the attack? I called Polaron "experienced" and I asserted it was unfortunate for a new editor to have all his/her contributions immediately reverted (in this case by Polaron). I am indeed concerned, as are others including Orlady somewhat i think, that new editors in Connecticut are routinely reverted with scant explanation. So where is the attack in that? I did not call Polaron any names or apply any subjective adjectives. --doncram 19:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"I think this is a lousy way to treat a new editor" -- then why didn't you welcome the editor yourself, instead of starting a project talkpage discussion about how terrible Polaron was being?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it is a general problem, and this is just one more example, and I am calling for other Connecticut editors to help out. I have welcomed many editors, like at User talk:Drnoanker back in December 2010 for a new editor whose contribution at a different Connecticut article had also immediately been reverted (by Polaron in fact) and whose contribution turned out to be clearly positive, upon review. For me, it would have taken some effort to respond to this new arrival, as I woulda tried to find merit in what the person did try to contribute, and perhaps add a source and so on, and deliver something more positive than Orlady actually delivered. I am trying to get more regular Connecticut editors involved in making it a more constructive, welcoming environment. --doncram 20:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, the "larger context" of the situation at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Connecticut is your persistent habit of (1) misinterpreting differences of opinion on content as personal attacks on you and (2) engaging in campaigns of harassment and bullying against certain other users who you perceive as your enemies. It may appear to you that everyone you disagree with has a personality defect, but you are the one whose behavior creates these "larger contexts" of yours. --Orlady (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Orlady has been introducing this idea of an enemies list and Nixon in several places. I've responded that is perhaps her way of thinking; I do not accept that generally as applying to me. When she follows me and repeats this type of negative assertion about, eventually it begins to seem like a self-fulfilling accusation, that I do seem to have someone following me and criticizing me personally and acting, I suppose, like an enemy. Orlady, do you want to assert you are my friend? --doncram 19:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The edit that SarekOfVulcan specifically mentions in the block, has actually led to this constructive followup by a local editor, providing factual information (and stating a preference to set aside the personal dispute). I think it shows the way that I wrote the post, clearly stating there is personal dispute going on which others could choose not to get involved in, worked well to further constructive participation by another editor.

SarekOfVulcan has also intervened in Jonesboro Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee)#Requested move, by creating a Requested Move which I criticized as being unhelpful for his not taking a position himself. I infer that he thought creating a Requested Move discussion would help settle a long-running discussion, while I think that it was premature (as information was pending) and I happen to think that what I would term "false" requested moves and AFDs (where a proposal is put forward by someone not actually advocating for the proposal) are usually/basically unhelpful. He never replied to question there. SarekOfVulcan has also disagreed with me at Talk:Order of Women Freemasons, where he and another editor followed my edits and disagreed with my organization of some material in October 2010, and where a local editor showed up recently and is bringing about restoration of my original organization. SarekOfVulcan has been involved in content disputes with me and has differences of opinion on what is appropriate etiquette in Talk page discussions. SarekOfVulcan has certainly commented about me many times, including in drafting an RFC/U about me which was not sustained, and in making comments regarding me which have seemed snide. He should not be the editor imposing a bright line rule that I should not mention other editors names or the fact of long-running disputes. That's all for now, I'll come back in a day or two. --doncram 22:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You tried to start a personal fight, the editor who responded refused to be baited, and you call that a victory? Also, LeDeluge is _not_ restoring your original organization. You had a single building listed, and complained when we changed the heading from "Building" to "Headquarters", claiming that we were destroying your enjoyment of editing the article. LeDeluge has added two other buildings that the Order owns. Commenting on edits, not editors is hardly a "difference of opinion on appropriate etiquette".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Those comments seem disjointed and to contain inaccuracies or misunderstandings. I did not try to start a personal fight; that is you ascribing motives/goals to me. About LeDeluge's initiative, what that mainly does is re-merge an article on just the building that had been split off over my objection; that was my main objection back then, I didn't even notice he also changed the heading of a section to be more like what i had initially preferred. What you focus here on is/was not the major issue there. And so what if in October i gave you the accurate feedback that your and others' pressure on that article, forcing a split of the building material, took away from my enjoyment of having found and added material back then. It did. There is/was nothing wrong with me saying that, back in October, or now. It is okay also for me to point out that another editor, uninvolved, has arrived and is substantially reaffirming/implementing what I recall was my position. --doncram 16:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Who would call this a personal attack?!, I second Orlady does stalk/harass Doncram, I've seen it in the past. CTJF83 21:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As the target of the harassment, I call that long diff harassment, particularly when you consider that this same Doncram has not deigned to respond to multiple queries about whether he received a source for that article that I emailed him 10 days ago.
As for the earlier incident that you describe as "stalking/harassing" Doncram, I believe it was a sequence of edits in which I commented out a meaning-free placeholder sentence that he had inserted in a large number of minimal stub articles, Doncram restored the sentence with an edit summary that said "Remove comment inserted --somewhat harassingly perhaps-- by another editor. Comment changed meaning, implied something else sourced by a reference. Confused rather than helped.", you attempted to prettify his meaningless sentence, and one thing led to another, including a long harangue at Talk:Riverview Terrace Historic District. In isolation, that looks like much ado about nothing, but when an experienced user (who ought to know better) creates hundreds of stub articles that are essentially free of content (sometimes even with blanks to be filled in) -- and refuses to reason with other users who object to that practice, I happen to see it as a form of vandalism -- systematically undermining Wikipedia by making it look ridiculous. --Orlady (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That was a long time ago, Orlady, and you were more than arguably wp:wikihounding me and in fact you violated 3RR there and were reported for doing so. Please anyone see Talk:Riverview Terrace Historic District.

About the repeated criticism by Orlady that I am "an experienced user (who ought to know better) creates hundreds of stub articles that are essentially free of content", that is a kind of slander and negative comment. I have indeed created hundreds of articles, fully within Wikipedia standards and consensus. I object to the stringing together of accusations which I believe do not have merit, in Orlady supporting this block of me. --doncram 16:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That situation with Davenport, Iowa, was a long time ago, but it's what Ctjf83 was referring to. The edit that upset him was one of a series in which I edited stub articles that included blanks to be filled in (like "___") and/or unmeaningful sentences like "The district has some significance." I did not find those articles by following your edit history, but rather by searching on strings of text. I still contend that those edits were addressing a form of vandalism, and I believe my biggest "sin" in connection with the Riverview Terrace edits was a failure to repeat the same detailed edit summary I had provided on the umpteen previous identical edits. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is repeated, negative badgering about my edits. It is a personal attack to call me a vandal or to call any of my edits vandalism. Orlady and some others have expressed displeasure about my creating--for good reasons of setting up disambiguation and otherwise--many stub articles. It has been called vandalism before but that is not been upheld in any discussion. Consensus is that my work is positive and allowed and wanted in Wikipedia. (About how Orlady found that article, it is plausible she was running a search to find them, as part of her approach to finding articles that I had edited. Orlady, was it not a focused search to find articles that I edited? Orlady, do you assert you have not followed my edits to a great degree in the last several years, and recently? It would be absurd to suggest you do not.

This is basically slander. Orlady has been following here a pattern of asserting negative things about me; this is similar to her edits elsewhere and to which I generally respond about the facts and do not comment with derogatory language as Orlady often does. Where is anything derogatory in the edits that I am blocked for? --doncram 18:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. --doncram 22:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Orlady has followed my edits and repeatedly made probably dozens of accusations, that I am asserting personality defects in others. That is false, I believe. The accusation seems like many others Orlady has made, which are arguably personal attacks. I don't know what she is referring to, about the personality defects. It adds up to her ascribing a personality defect to me, that I am a person who ascribes defective personalities. Should Orlady be blocked?

What has been under discussion at wt:CONN has been churning of articles, both of vandalism and of reversions by experienced editors (addressing vandalism and also enforcing unfair/unexplained standards for keeping some unsourced info but disallowing new editors' contributions of same). I have at times referred to long patterns of edits, after disagreeing with many specific edits. I do eventually perceive really obvious patterns, like that Orlady is following my edits and finding fault. That is true; Orlady does not deny it. It is nonsensical to prohibit my mentioning that. It is a statement about the edits, plural. In the edit that SarekOfVulcan mentions, I term one specific edit "silly" (in challenging whether an NRHP-listed district is NRHP-listed) but I do not call Orlady that term. Whatever Orlady is asserting I have done, she has done more of towards me.

I don't actually understand the standard SarekOfVulcan is applying with this block. I don't understand a distinction that can be made about my edits, which would not apply more strongly for Orlady for example. I have discussed Orlady's edits and she has discussed mine. SarekOfVulcan seems to be applying some standard about "discuss edits not editors", which is overall probably good guidance for wikipedia. But, when I become aware of an editor repeatedly, i.e. hundreds of times, engaging in a behavior, and i describe that behavior as a pattern of edits, I do not think that is prohibited. It is not helpful to prohibit that.

For example, in the discussion at Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)#Revisiting, Orlady writes "My apologies to anyone who cares about Franklin, as it appears to me that Doncram's changes here have less to do with the substance of the article than with Doncram's habit of personalizing disagreements over editing -- and carrying on long-term wars against individuals who have gained his enmity by disagreeing with him. If he were as high-minded as he lets on, ...." I think that is far more obviously a personal attack, commenting in derogatory style about me, than any comments I have been criticized for making. Look at what I wrote, someone, please.

Note, Orlady has refused mediation previously and has chosen not to answer repeated questions whether she would engage in mediation now. Above she complains that I did not reply about a private email. It is a worse offense not to reply to on-line request to engage in mediation. I requested her to answer whether she would, three times, within this recent discussion and she has not answered. --doncram 16:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That private email that you did not acknowledge was sent in relation to contentious talk page discussion at Talk:Jonesboro Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee), where you indicated that you could not see an online source that other discussion participants had cited. You apparently did not believe what we were saying regarding the source, since you couldn't see it. I went to the trouble of taking a set of screenshots, combining them to assemble an image of the page, and emailing the image to you, both so you could see what we were talking about and so you could use the source in your further development of the article (something you had repeatedly said you planned to do). I consider it impolite -- at best -- that you did not acknowledge the email -- nor reply to my talk page queries (both on that talk page and on this user talk page) about whether you had received the email.

For the record, i received that email. I would comment about what the map means or does not mean at the relevant Talk page now, but I am blocked; there's something semi-involved to say about it, more complicated than I wish to compose and state here.

Thank you for acknowledging the email. Knowing that messages can go astray, I couldn't be sure. Now I needn't wonder any longer.
I am well awere that it is sometimes difficult to keep up with communications obligations, but I didn't think you were experiencing time limitations, seeing that you were able to find the time to post lengthy comments such as this series, this comment, and this comment on that same talkpage, not to mention other extensive discussion engagements such as this post and these subsequent comments on the Old Town talk page. --Orlady (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

To suggest I was rude in that discussion, as part of this block discussion, seems absurd. In the past years I feel have only begun to learn what rudeness is from the heaps of abuse that Orlady shoves in my direction. I believe Orlady was outright far ruder throughout that discussion already. I cannot be at her beck and call to respond to every new rude suggestion that she makes. One way that she was rude there and here, is in her suggesting that I would not ever acknowledge the map and its implications. I have been busy; i can't reply to all the badgering promptly; this one point seemed and seems not too important to respond to quickly. No harm was done by my not getting to it yet; she had clearly introduced into the discussion her assertion that there was a map with a certain label, and that was not disputed. To comment about it, with the additional information I wished to compose, was not something i had opportunity to provide, yet, but I would have gotten around to it.

I'm glad to hear that you think that you did not dispute the existence of that map, since I had interpreted your comments on that talk page as rejecting the existence of the map and other sources provided. After all, it was after I sent that email (not to mention posting several other sources) that you wrote:

For the district, there is no common usage so far established for any alternative to the proper noun name "Jonesboro Historic District", so it is correct to use that as the proper noun name for the district. Do you have any publications or other verifiable sources about a different name being used?

I believed at the time, and still believe, that I had already provided you with "verifiable evidence" (in the form of the map and other citations) that the "Jonesborough" spelling is used for the historic district. Your question "Do you have any publications or other verifiable sources...?" led me to think that you hadn't seen my email. --Orlady (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a forum for general bashing? I fail to see the relevance of Orlady's assorted complaints to a discussion about reversing a block. --doncram 19:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As for my alleged refusal of mediation, note that "third opinions" are not relevant to situations where several people are already discussing the topic, and I would not want to waste the time of a volunteer mediator to address the kinds of incredibly petty issues involved with pages like Old Town, Jonesborough Historic District, and The Dilemma (film). --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"Alleged"??? For a long time i sought to have discussion with Orlady at her talk page, imploring her to modify her tone, and I specifically asked for mediation and she declined. In the Old Town discussion, she did not answer new requests. It is not merely alleged that she did not answer there; she did not.

About whether these are incredibly petty issues for mediation, they are serious enough that SarekOfVulcan saw fit to block me. I believe that Orlady's comments are generally worse. She shoulda been blocked many times over in the last year or two, by any consistent standard imaginable. I do think mediation or some other dispute resolution process is the right way to address a whole lot of resentment built up, and bad behavior going on. I might have been more diplomatic sometimes along the way about the edits that I disagreed with; maybe I should not have insisted on some things as a matter of tactics. But I do nothing like the heaping up of personal abuse that Orlady has shovelled my way. This is not fun and games for me. I have in general sought to contribute positively to wikipedia, and I don't seek out the contact with Orlady. --doncram 18:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of past comments, what about this one? "My apologies to other editors of this article, for bringing the attention of editors Blueboar and SarekOfVulcan here, by their following my edit contributions." That quote was particularly LOL-worthy, when you check the relative timestamps of mine and Doncram's first edits to the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The rest of that comment is instructive as well. "I reiterate that I think you have made the article a bit worse, and you have not provided any value in the form of identifying any other building, notable or not, which could be said to be an Order of Women Freemasons building. You don't know whether any such building exists. There are no other buildings mentioned in the article; "Building" as a section title was fine. You take away from my enjoyment of making the contribution of describing the building. Thanks for nothing." At that point, the only dispute on Doncram's wording was over the heading -- Blueboar and I supported "Headquarters", and this followed a statement that the lodges met in several countries, which would obviously require at least one building per country.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Blueboar in one edit summary and SarekOfVulcan in one other edit summary had contended with a section name "Building" in favor of "Headquarters" instead, stating or implying that there would be other OWF meetingplaces that were notable buildings. No other contender for an OWF building was produced then; even the recent addition of mention of 2 other buildings are I think retirement homes not meetingplace buildings of the type that was implied would emerge. I said then "You dont know whether any such building exists." You didn't! Your assertion others would be notable was not justified. We disagreed then and still do now about that. So what, is blocking to be punishment for past disagreements about content? Also, it was relevant then and now to point out to other editors that SarekOfVulcan and Blueboar were just involved in long contention with me about the notability of masonic buildings; we were all arriving from dispute at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, whether or not they had previously edited the OWF article ever before. If they wished to assert I was incorrect in explaining that their arrival was due to their following me from the other dispute, that could/should have been noted then, and probably was.

Yes, SarekOfVulcan is correct to note that I commented about their taking away enjoyment on the initial point about a section title. But it was the next section of discussion, Talk:Order of Women Freemasons#Started, stub for the building itself in which my judgment was most seriously overridden. In that, SarekOfVulcan and others forced through a split of the material, removing most of the building information to a separate stub article. That is what i remember more. Ironically their change was to split off exactly the kind of stub article that Orlady berates me above and elsewhere for creating, except worse for the fact that no NRHP doc or other docs would likely ever be forthcoming to provide for expansion. In all of these discussions at Talk of OWF page, I acknowledged clearly what was my opinion/preference and did not overstate facts. The immediate upshot, however, was that SarekOfVulcan opened an RFC/U proceeding for my actions, which Orlady later chimed in on, which was eventually deleted because it was not certified. Looking at what was written at the Talk page and the edits, I do not see justification for the RFC/U. SarekOfVulcan, your disagreement there was implemented in the article being split and the section title going as you preferred. It happens both are being reversed now, I believe, consistent with my judgment back then about what made most sense. SarekOfVulcan's unresolved issues about that pretty-long-ago content disagreement, should not play into a block now. Am I on trial in this block discussion for old content disagreements? Or for your failure to get an RFC certified then?

My question here is what is the basis of this block. SarekOfVulcan has been involved in content disagreements and in tending to interactions between Orlady and me and others. I don't understand the basis of this block, in any way that would justify it being applied to me and not blocking Orlady for similar/worse. I believe I have been consistently more moderate, less personally focused than Orlady over years of editing, in fact, and including in the recent disagreements. SarekOfVulcan, can you please address your justification for the block? --doncram 18:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

How many times are you going to inaccurately claim the section is being put back the way you wanted? There was one building there before, and you insisted the title had to be "building" because there was no evidence there were any others. There are now three listed -- therefore, "Headquarters" is no longer an accurate heading, and "Buildings" is (probably) most suitable. I'm a little flabbergasted that you claim that the article on the (English) building couldn't be expanded because there was no (US) NRHP document, and that no other docs "would likely ever be forthcoming". Your emphasis on NRHP listings is a bit disturbing -- for example, recently at Talk:SS John W. Brown, where you badgered a subject matter expert to order the listing to support a fact that only you were interested in keeping in the article. "Anyone interested in developing this article should get that!", "If you're actually doing research", "I don't think you should let your prior experience with government websites prevent you from getting material that another Wikipedia editor is telling you is a) easy and free to obtain, and b) likely to be pretty useful material", "How hard can it be to send an email?" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, you are misunderstanding basic facts here. I am flabbergasted that you cannot see that LeDeluge's interest in restoring the OWF article / removing the stub article, is not clear and is not largely reversing the thrust of your split (of) the article previously. Please don't suggest i was suggesting there would be a US document about the English building; I did not say or mean that. I said no NRHP or other documents, meaning nothing equivalent in scope to the typical NRHP document (that is available for almost all US sites) would emerge. I was in fact one of the main initiators of WikiProject Historic sites, and I have had experience with English historic sites articles and the sources available for them. On OWF specifically, I had asked for and gotten help of an English historic sites editor to provide the material, and I understood nothing more would likely be forthcoming. In England, it is truly not like the U.S. in that wikipedians cannot assume that an NRHP-type registration document will exist for sites listed on a historic register. About that Talk:SS John W. Brown, you are mischaracterizing me to suggest i wanted a certain number to appear in the article; I stated specifically the person could leave it out, or it could be justified to put it in, at their discretion. Also it is not a blockable offense to suggest that an editor get a free document that would probably be helpful to them, even if the suggestion seemed pointed. I was/am perplexed that this person, obviously taking steps to perform research, would not request the NRHP document, and was/am perplexed about how that discussion went. I can't figure out which webpage the person went to, and how he/she is not understanding from what I said, that all they had to do was send an email. You could perhaps help there by explaining it in different words for the person, but this is one more of several misunderstandings on your part about me. Your assertions of motive and goals for me seem to be several times incorrect. To repeat I am not understanding justification for a block here. Would you withdraw it please? --doncram 19:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I neither added the primary content to 27 Pembridge Gardens nor removed it from Order of Women Freemasons. Just for the record.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It was split by Blueboar and you adamantly supported it explicitly, after I objected, in Talk:Order of Women Freemasons#Started, stub for the building itself.

Another Orlady quote: "To summarize the above comment (and with the full expectation that Doncram will whine that I am being sarcastic), sources mean nothing, substantive information need not be discussed unless it agrees with Doncram's opinion, consensus does not exist unless it supports Doncram's opinion, and everybody who presents information or opinions that do not support Doncram's views is motivated by a personal vendetta against Doncram. --Orlady (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you seriously view that as unobjectionable, while finding blockable fault for my merely stating there has been previous disagreement and pointing out 3 items of apparent disagreement in the Talk of the Jonesborough article?

I am really really not understanding justification for this block. If SarekOfVulcan is attempting to apply any fair standard, i do not see how. In the disagreements between me and Orlady, I believe I am consistently milder and factual while she is making personal and derogatory statements. In the past, old disagreements with SarekOfVulcan, there are content disagreements. SarekOfVulcan, your replies seem to me like multiple jabs which turn out not to be fair points, rather than a substantive response. --doncram 21:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked manually, close enough to a week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Doncram