User talk:Doncram/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reassessments for NRHP articles[edit]

Hi Doncram: I hope all is well. Do you remember the Courtlandt Place, Houston article that I created to provide context for the James L. Autry House (Courtlandt Place, Houston)? I have added a bit to some of the entries and included some new photos. Do you know anyone with the WikiProject who does reassessments? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up[edit]

Do you even understand what the issue was with the edit summary I pinged you on? (Hint: it's at least the third time I've had to make that sort of edit after you broke something.) Magic♪piano 13:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no I don't. I doubt that I "broke" anything that wouldn't get fixed by semi-automated processes, and I think it is possible you are not aware of how some stuff works, both in general practices and in my general practices. Please enlighten me. Also, I suggest/request that you don't be sarcastic and that you don't try to evoke and invoke bullying/shitty tactics that were long used against me in the past. I would think you are probably aware of those going on, but I would be happy to explain if there is only an accidental resemblence, and if you seriously are not trying to allude to the bullying/shitty tactics of others. --Doncram (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you move an article (as you did Former Fire Station), you should fix the links to it, since you have actively broken something. You're an experienced editor, and you move articles; it's not sarcasm to point out that this is something you ought to know to do. (If there is some automated process by which they get fixed, then you should enlighten me, because I've never seen it in action, and I fix the links that break when I move things.) Magic♪piano 14:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you are not denying, nor confirming, that you were trying to refer to previous bullying/shitty tactics by others. Okay, so I won't immediately go into that, though I will note that in general an approach to try to denigrate / run down an editor by creating a false narrative about how horrible they are, by repeated jabs, would indeed be bullying and shitty behavior.
About my own general practices with respect to article moves and fixing links to disambiguation pages, I certainly do understand that moving articles because I am creating an appropriate disambiguation page does require follow-on edits. I have created many thousands of disambiguation pages. Here is one such edit (maybe after if not before your criticizing edit, but one would only have to go back another day or two before, to show more, it is simply what i do). I doubt that you can understand how many thousands of edits I have invested in "cleaning up after others" or otherwise, in setting up suitable disambiguation pages where others did not see or respect the need, and in checking for inbound links to the disambiguation pages and fixing all of them. When I determine that there is shitty article naming going on, and better disambiguation is needed, I often do create disambiguation pages, and I generally do follow out all the related fixes to the Nth degree, but it takes multiple edits and it can be an imperfect process. For example, if you check "what links here", there may be dozens or a hundred inbound links, all or most stemming from an appearance on a navigation template that appears on dozens or hundreds of pages. If you fix the inbound link from the navigation template, then check "what links here", it does not update, it seems to take a day or two or three. So it is hard to see if you made all the fixes necessary. I don't know if that happened in the cases you refer to, or not.
But anyhow, about creating any link to any disambiguation page, there is a huge amount of semi-automated processes in Wikipedia addressing those, to which I myself have contributed fairly significantly. See wp:Daily Disambig (that is a redirect set up by me to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig) about daily bot reporting on such. There is a whole world about it, Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, addressing what was more than 1,000,000 such links at one time. And there is a monthly competition about fixing the most such links, which I won with several thousand edits one month [yep, my name appears here in the "Disambiguator Hall of Fame"]. And there are several tools devoted to semi-automated fixing of them, one or more of which I think I have described at wp:NRHPHELP. I am pretty sure that I have fixed a hundred or a thousand times or more as many NRHP-related links to disambiguation pages as I have accidentally caused and did not fix myself, though you may indeed have found 3 instances of my not doing so.
So, about your fixing one accidental link left to a disambiguation page, because I moved an article to make way for disambiguation and set up the disambiguation page and probably fixed other incoming links and created a necessary article or two to support the disambiguation page, but I accidentally missed fixing one inbound link, well bully for you that you found and fixed it. If that is what this is about. The huge links-to-disambiguation-pages-fixing-process would have fixed it soon anyhow. Thank you for fixing such a link, though.
About pings in edit summaries with possibly critical tones, they are certainly subject to misinterpretation. I hope that i did misinterpret in suspecting that you were following along in the approach of others, and trying to build up some negative record to invoke later in some nasty arbitration or wp:ANI proceeding. --Doncram (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Doncram, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Waterman House[edit]

Greetings. Can you locate the NRHP nomination form for this property? I haven't been able to find it and was curious about what's in it. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:FloridaArmy, am on n a phone can’t copy the link. This time, just clicking on the refnum in the info box gets you to pics and doc.Doncram (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:FloridaArmy, given edit conflicts there, I see that you see what's available about John R. Waterman house. I think i have clarified in the article what are the overlapping NPS-published and RI-published versions of NRHP documents. I think you are interested in a related Waterman or two. The Watermans seems to have been one of the founding families of Rhode Island, i think i saw arriving in 1628(?) in the original settlement of the colony. The full MRA document, e.g. this Rhode Island-published version, has more about other Watermans. And there are other Waterman NRHP sites in New England/the northeast, including:

some of whose NRHP documents might be independent and might have further info about the Watermans you are more interested in. Good luck. --Doncram (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway[edit]

I really have no desire to make more of this than necessary, but your editing around Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway is becoming disruptive, and I really have no idea why. I'd like to give you this opportunity to take a step back, think things over, and reverse yourself. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't. Don't be a jerk. This is about, among other stuff, my creating an article on a missing railway which relates to a NRHP-listed site, and indeed indicating, properly, alternative names being used. And the other editor disputing naming apparently and removing WikiProject NRHP designation, which is not their concern. And the editor repeating themself in asserting in mainspace by category choices, that a 1902 subsidiary is a predecessor to the 1866 parent company, which seems stupid to me, it does. --Doncram (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This gives me no pleasure, but I've raised the matter at ANI: Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Mackensen, I just commented at the ANI proceeding. I was taken aback by your opening the ANI, which I perceived as simply hurtful to real discussion of content issues, and I mention there that I perceived bullying-type behavior to have gone on. What I perceived did contribute to the nature of my editing "around Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway". ANI is awful, in general, IMO, in terms of victimizing a target named in a section title, which makes it into a one-sided, long-running attack. I changed the title there towards making it a more general discussion, and you changed it back. The name of the discussion item is powerful, obviously, in attracting editors who have any personal grudge, related or not, and/or editors who, for whatever other reason, engage in negativity at ANI. From past experience, I perceive that no matter what is said by a named target, the target is abused more and more; whatever they say will be used against them. I participated for a while in a campaign to change ANI section names to be relatively unbiased, some time ago; i perceive the problem to be general not just against me. Anyhow, I was appalled and taken aback and depressed about the ANI proceeding, and while I tried drafting a response a few times, each time I figured that it would end up hurting me more.
Because I mentioned my perception of bullying-type behavior, I could now be pilloried for having said that without providing extensive proof of the reasonableness of my opinion. I may try here to detail some of the reasons and diffs. Mackensen, I would appreciate if you could consider my perception of what has gone on, and perhaps see your way to disavowing some of the behavior that has gone on. --Doncram (talk)
WP:POVRAILROAD seems apt in describing what has gone on. All five of the tactics described there. --Doncram (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the list[edit]

Hello. I am WP:boldly culling the membership list of the Los Angeles Area Task Force. Some people don’t participate any more. Because you joined more than ten years ago, I am asking if you still want to be listed as a participant. I’ll be deleting those who say no or don’t answer, and then we can move merrily forward. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:BeenAroundAWhile, that's fine, drop me, thank you for taking action. --Doncram (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galveston County Historical Museum[edit]

I just found out that the Galveston County Historical Museum has been closed since 2008. Hurricane Ike damaged the building and all of the artifacts were moved to the Galveston County Courthouse. Since Ike, the building has not been in use. So far I do not know what the county plans to do with the building. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

back atcha - a barnstar for you[edit]

The Original Barnstar
For your contributions to Women in Red Meet Up 94 “Clubwomen” and addition of the NRHP Women’s clubhouses as a resource for the meet-up. Thank you!

WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

article references[edit]

Doncram, I believe there is history about referencing going back at least eight years. I thought I would run this by you. A typical article includes an infobox like (shortened for clarity):

Ames Cottage
Location43 Church St
NRHP reference No.92001458[1]

The infobox includes a link to the document in the NRIS database, while the reference links only to the NPS NRIS page. To look at the document, I know to click on the ref number in the infobox. But other editors/readers do not always know this and try to get to the document through the link in the reference section. This has caused confusion with DYK reviews. The problem is compounded when the ref is reused in the body of the article - someone may want to verify some fact and not even be thinking about the infobox.

standard ref:

  1. ^ "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. November 2, 2013.

Now this can be improved easily by just adding the refnum to NRISref template (and the name helps too):

Ames Cottage
Location43 Church St
NRHP reference No.92001458[1]

expanded ref:

  1. ^ "National Register Information System – Ames Cottage (#92001458)". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. November 2, 2013.

This seems like it would be a trivial change for the Elkman tool. It would obviously be a bigger job to update existing infoboxes. But before dealing with that aspect - am I missing something here? Why hasn't this been done long ago? --User:MB

Yeah, there is a long history here. I can explain more later if this first version doesn't suffice, please ask more. I could link to previous long debates.
Briefly, the standard reference refers to the whole contents of the NRIS database, as drawn from NRIS by the Elkman NRHP infobox generator. Like in article Ardmore Historic Commercial District which I just started, my source for the "133 contributing buildings" is from NRIS, via Elkman's interface.
Link to the NP Gallery "asset detail" webpage does not suffice, because it displays only selected info, not including the "133 contributing buildings" factoid. It would be wrong to link to the NP Gallery page, because it is not in fact the source of the information.
I think Elkman prefers that the Elkman tool should not be considered a source to be linked to; they don't want the notoriety or whatever, and it is just a convenient interface to the NRIS database, and I agree. I myself in the past used my own database program to extract info out of a downloaded full copy of NRIS, and I don't want to cite myself, either. So there needs to be a way to refer to the NRIS database as a whole. The current "standard reference" is meant to do that.
It is quite arguable whether the NRIS standard reference should include the link that it does, which I think goes to where a person could literally download the entire database, but no reader would want to do so. So why direct people to somewhere useless.
About the fact that the infobox does include a link to the NP Gallery "asset detail" page, which is pretty useless, well, maybe that should be deleted from the infobox programming also, I am not sure. Note that, as in your example, there is no NRHP nomination document available there, and there is no accompanying photos document, while both are available for the Ardmore case. Note that sometimes/often the "asset detail" page shows neither of those are available and states incorrectly that they have not been digitized, when that is simply false as they are in fact available, from state sources or in fact from the NPS directly, but at a different URL. There are a large number of so-called featured listing NRHPs where the docs are available at a featured listing page, which the NRHP infobox does not know about.
Certainly every NRHP article should be edited to link to the NRHP nom doc and accompanying photos docs if those are available, by use of a regular inline reference such as the one I provided in the Ardmore article. Consider that I and other NRHP editors are engaged in a massive longterm campaign to do that.
I don't want to be all negative. Maybe some improvement can be made again now. It has been a fairly long time since improvements were discussed anywhere. I could help in a new central discussion. Perhaps at wt:NRHP or perhaps just with notice there, with discussion to be held somewhere deliberately outside the NRHP wikiproject. --Doncram (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I completely understand everything you said here. I agree that the link in the reference that goes here is pretty useless - which is what started my thinking (I think there is a guideline on referencing somewhere that says a ref should go directly to the source, not an intermediate search page). But the link from the refnum in the infobox (the NP Gallery "asset detail" page) often brings up the summary information and a pdf link to the form. I don't find it useless at all. I understand your point about it not always being correct. If I don't find the form that way, I turn to google and sometimes find it at the state or somewhere else. So yes, activities by editors to improve the articles and refs certainly need to continue. But I don't see why the change I suggested isn't a small step in that direction. Is the link in the infobox ever worse than the link in the ref?
In the case of the Ardmore Historic Commercial District, the link in the infobox brings up the coversheet to the nomination and a clicklable "download PDF" to get the whole form. The second reference in the article goes straight to the PDF. So they both get you to basically the same place in this case.
So all I am saying is why don't we improve the useless "default" ref to be as good as the usually better "default" link in the infobox. I don't see how that makes anything worse. MB 23:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is important, actually, I think to address that link in the standard reference which goes to the download database. I think I opposed having that link one or more times previously, though maybe I supported it. It is time to get rid of that, it is just plain unhelpful. It would be better for the standard reference to have no link at all.
Unfortunately there is no way to link directly to a complete record for any given site in the actual NRIS database. The "asset detail" pages show just selected information. No one, or hardly anyone, creating articles actually use those pages as sources, so it seems bad/immoral to link to present them as the sources used. They simply cannot be the sources which were used, for the contributing buildings and other information that is not available at them, but comes from the full NRIS database via the Elkman or any other private interface. It would be false/misleading for the standard reference to show the "asset detail" link that is shown in the infobox as if it is the source (when it is not), unless perhaps there is some clarification explained. Some wording might be constructed that is acceptable, conveying that the information is from the NRIS database, selected parts of which are available "here" with link to the "asset detail" page. That would be a way forward which would be a real improvement, I think. You are only the most recent of many who have questioned the most recent status quo, but the first in a couple years perhaps, and I am glad you are contributing a new focus upon this. Unrelatedly, I am blocked right now, oddly enough, see below, and I probably won't respond further about this NRIS referencing topic until that is cleared up and some real life stuff is concluded, too. --Doncram (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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:

Umm, excuse me? I think this is about my having created Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the U.S.. It is an administrative category, i.e. it does not display in mainspace for regular readers. I intended it to hold and collect a number of articles which are categorized in the National Park Service's NRIS system that way, to facilitate a future discussion and removal of "admin category" status, and move to the more natural Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States, which was only ever a mainspace category, and was previously salted. Towards furthering discussion and not losing the comments previous made about this, I included paste-in links to previous discussions about the category. I think what I created was deleted immediately and I do not have access to it now. Anyhow, I did this fully believing that this is outside of mainspace, effectively, for future discussion--this is not being sneaky in some way or in any way avoiding proper discussion. I do not think that developing this should be considered controversial. I do recognize that the future discussion might not accept these being put into mainspace, but that is to be discussed. Note I followed a suggestion in the last discussion, by User:RevelationDirect, that an admin category might be used. I also created Category:Late Victorian architecture in the United States and Category:Late Victorian architecture in the United States which I do not see as controversial. Late Victorian is a period of Victorian architecture. I saw that the article Late Victorian architecture was redirected long ago (2009?) to Victorian architecture, but that does not mean it is not a valid topic and category. User:BrownHairedGirl, perhaps you were mistaken in seeing the creation as being in mainspace, and not understanding my intent. Would you please reverse this block. And/or please give some further guidance. Doncram (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have read all of the argument about this. There does seem to be some genuine disagreement about how to interpret your actions. However, whatever view one may take of the details, the fundamental point is that over a period of just over eight years you have been determined to create a category of a nature that has repeatedly been agreed to be unsuitable. The fact that you recently attempted to get round consensus by creating the category slightly differently does not alter that fundamental fact, nor is the situation significantly altered by the issue of whether or not you sincerely believed that making a content category hidden transformed it into an administrative category, nor by any of the other issues about which you have wikilawyered. The bottom line is that you have persistently refused to accept that consensus is clearly and ambiguously against you on whether this category should exist. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

(ec)Hi Docram
I have blocked you for repeatedly re-creating a page which was deleted by consensus.
Here is the history of Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States:
  1. created by Doncram on 21 December 2010
  2. deleted on 10 August 2011 per WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 3#Category:Late_19th_and_20th_Century_Revivals_architecture
  3. re-created by Doncram on 26 November 2011
  4. deleted on 22 December 2011 by WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 28#Late_19th_and_20th_Century_Revivals_architecture
  5. re-created by Doncram on 29 August 2017
  6. deleted on 28 September 2017 WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 19#Category:Late_19th_and_20th_Century_Revivals_architecture_in_the_United_States
Despite no less three separate discussions reaching a consensus to delete this category., today you created Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the U.S.. You explicitly stated that you did so to evade the salting of the previous title:
This is a severe case of WP:IDHT. How many times does there ave to be a consensus to delete a page before you accept that consensus?
WP:CONSENSUS is one the pillars of Wikipedia. Please follow it --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you have not acknowledged that I created the category as an admin category, which is completely different than creating a mainspace one, which should not be done without obtaining some new consensus. In the category page which you have deleted I pasted in exactly what you pasted in above, i.e. I was not hiding anything (not saying you are directly suggesting that but others might assume incorrectly so), and I obviously set a burden of having the proper discussion, probably involving everyone past involved. Probably requiring consensus around a new lead article about the topic, to be created before restoring a category. There is no prohibition against revisiting a past decision in Wikipedia. It is random that this happened to start today with your pointedly pinging me twice from edit summaries, but there is nothing wrong with my beginning to collect information again today, either, through use of an admin category. I have created other admin categories including Category:NRHP architects, Category:NRHP builders and others, which have been useful in collecting information. The first one of those was originally/temporarily a mainspace category, but was disputed in a CFD, and was changed to an admin category, completely resolving all objections as far as I recall. That was the idea here. Could you please acknowledge and address this aspect. --Doncram (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) PS I wrote the above before Docram's unlocking request. A few quick points in reply to that request:
  • Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the U.S. was created in mainspace. Its title describes it as a content category.
  • Yes, you did tag it as a {{Wikipedia category|hidden=yes}}. But see WP:HIDDENCAT hidden categories are for administration, not for re-creating deleted categories
  • If three successive CFDs are not enough for you, then you can go to WP:DRV to seek a review of the deletion. But it is not acceptable to recreate the category to air your views on previous deletions, as you did when you created the new page with the text There has been nastiness in the past about this. Some editors refuse to believe, contrary to facts, that a building can display a mix of elements of various revival styles. This is not laziness on the part of NRHP nominators. It is correct to show the mix.
  • You may well believe the previous deletions were motivated by nastiness and that Some editors refuse to believe, contrary to facts. But there is a venue to challenge consensus which you believe to be wrong: it is called WP:DRV.
If this notion of a hidden category was your first re-creation, I would not have blocked you. But since it is your third re-creation of the same page, I think that a block of only 31 hours was generously light.
I have said all I need to say. The block reviewer can make their own judgement on the facts set out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is fair to be blocked, which permanently damages my reputation/record in wikipedia. This amounts to a difference of opinion about a technical matter about the nature and usage of hidden categories, I guess, and I have not gone against any previous guidance or discussion anywhere on this matter. You blocked me without discussion at all about that. I see that you say you are done with this discussion and I gather that has not concluded the unblock request; I do hope that someone else then will remove the block. --Doncram (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should address Doncram's point about Category:NRHP architects and Category:NRHP builders. Both were explicitly converted to hidden cats per the closure of WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 6#Category:NRHP_architects. The WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 19#Category:Late_19th_and_20th_Century_Revivals_architecture_in_the_United_States was explicitly closed as "delete and salt". The "salt" indicates a clear intent to prevent re-creation in any form, and it is unacceptable to try an end-run around that.
Reading that Sept 2017 CFD now for the first time, I see that @Nyttend wrote It's time to sanction the nominator for continued tendentious editing, with this as a good example. I also see that this ANI discussion in 2011 led to Doncram being blocked for disruptive editing.
This is not a difference of opinion about a technical matter. It is an attempted end-run around a consensus sustained in no less than 3 CFDs, which should give adequate warning not to create this sort of category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that comment in the 2017 CFD, which was hurtful then and reading it again, which contributed to how I characterized the previous discussion. I also saw defense by another editor about NRHP nominators not being uninformed or incompetent or whatever, for their explicit usage of the mixed category to correctly characterize the architecture. I also saw the suggestion that the category could exist as an administrative one, and I thought/think that such can be part of a new way forward, which would require re-consideration of how many and which articles have been affected. It would be okay to discuss this, and perhaps for me to collect such information a different way, but I don't think I should be blocked without discussion.
So in total, we have the consensus of 4 CFDs being ignored by Docram this evening. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of there ever having been such a CFD. That was back in 2011, as you note. It is random that that came up today also. I am aware from common usage that "Late Victorian" is a term, and I created Category:Late Victorian architecture in Colorado, assuming it was needed within a larger U.S.-wide category, which I assumed existed but wasn't there, and i fixed the omission. I suppose that there should have been some indication in the process that the category had previously existed, but I did not notice any such indication. There is no "end-run" involved. --Doncram (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When attempting to re-create a previously deleted page, there is a large salmon-pink box at the top of the page indicating its history, headed in bold "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.".
In the case of Category:Late Victorian architecture in the United States, the note did not link to the CFD. However, i found the CFD within seconds simply by clicking on the "What links here" link in the sidebar, which took me to Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Late_Victorian_architecture_in_the_United_States.
Taken on its own, I might give your dubious defence on that Victorian category the benefit of the doubt ... but when you just did an end-run around another CFD, I see no reason to believe you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well i did not see it, and I am not sure whether you are saying the expected note definitely did exist or not, but I am not lying, and I am not a liar. However I will grant that perhaps I should have anticipated that such an omission was unusual at this point, because such a category should have long ago been created, and I should have looked for such a note or otherwise browsed around about the topic. It is even possible that somewhere in the past I was involved in discussion about Late Victorian or otherwise was aware of disagreement about it, it doesn't seem unlikely, although I am not recalling it now. I did consider the possibility though as far as going to Late Victorian architecture, which is a redirect, and checking the edit history there, which showed nothing relevant, just the fact of a redirect. User:BrownHairedGirl, I recall that you and i have crossed paths in the past, I think agreeing about some copyright stuff and disagreeing about some other, but I do believe/expect/AGF about you and I would be very disappointed if you mean to accuse me of lying here or anywhere else. --Doncram (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The block-reviewer will be able to verify the existence of the prominent notice on Category:Late Victorian architecture in the United States, and draw their own conclusions.
I have no recollection of previous encounters with you, and this block is solely about your actions as set out above.
Good night. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that category shows new notices from BrownHairedGirl's actions, and shows "10:28, 9 August 2011 Timrollpickering (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Late Victorian architecture in the United States (merged to Category:Victorian architecture in the United States)". At this point i am confused about what I saw, but I think i may have seen that, and judged that it did not mean there is any problem with creating a category on Late Victorian architecture. Back in 2011 there was a lot fewer articles existing that would have belonged, but I am aware of running into the "late Victorian" term a lot now, and it is my judgment that it is worth splitting this out. This is not justification either for a block or suggestion that I lied (if that is what "draw your own conclusions" is about). --Doncram (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And my unblock request was denied. As if I have been waging war for 8 years to create some bogus category. Hmm, perhaps I have been developing 10,000+ articles about historic places for eight years, and again and again and again seeing places appropriately categorized with the category, so it has repeatedly come up. And, pretty obviously to me, though not to editors not extensively involved in this area, there is an obvious need for a category of late 19th century / early 20th century architecture which is a mish-mash of styles. Certainly some/many editors prefer to believe, contrary to fact, that buildings are purely one or another distinct, single style. Whatever. --Doncram (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Hobart Historic District[edit]

Downtown Hobart Historic District. --Doncram (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ardmore Carnegie Library[edit]

Ardmore Carnegie Library. --Doncram (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CFD: NRHP architects etc[edit]

Hi Doncram

I have proposed at CFD that 4 hidden categories created by you should be either converted to WikiProject tracking categories on talk pages, or deleted. (I prefer converting them). The categories are Category:NRHP architects, Category:NRHP builders, Category:NRHP engineers, and Category:NRHP artists.

The discussion is at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 13#NRHP_occupations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Doncram,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
  • Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old Iron County Courthouse[edit]

Iron County Chamber of Commerce. This related page gives info on the museum including when it was converted and some tantalizing bits about the building - town hall for a vanished town? A local news story with regrettably nothing on the building. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC) — I just added the first source with some info from it. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Doncram. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doncram/Archive_29&oldid=871495070"