Talk:Middletown South Green Historic District

removal of sourced information, expect to restore
In this edit, an editor removes sourced information, which identifies overlap between this district and another one, with edit summary "doesn't appear to be true". Hey, editor, I think that is unreasonable to just remove the info, which I do believe to be true, and follow by unrelated edits, rather than calling attention to a possible question here at Talk page. Seems like a random, unjustified deletion.

About the facts, I looked at both NRHP district's maps and see the overlap. I included references to both NRHP documents. Look at them. Also, one NRHP district's NRIS listing includes mention of the other, suggesting the overlap in the first place, in the same way NRIS provides indication of NRHP-listed buildings wholly included in a district. It is sourced, researched information. Please provide sourced, good research to contradict, if you have it. I'll watch here but expect to return the info to the article. -- do ncr  am  14:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I immediately corrected myself and have specified which property is included, which for some reason you still reverted. I think a specific listing of which property is in both districts is better than a vague mention of overlap, don't you think? Also, please don't call me by a generic "editor" as we know each other well enough for this passive-aggressive type of behavior. --Polaron | Talk 14:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He probably thinks that's necessary because I blocked him for going around telling everyone how teh n00bs need to be saved from you and Orlady.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Very questionable "inventory" list
Based on the linked NRHP nomination, a lot of the addresses listed in the inventory here appear to be wrong. I fixed a few (mostly ones I had recently photographed), remedied a few blatant omissions, and noted that part of Church Street along Union Park is now Old Church Street, but really someone should probably go through and entirely redo the list based on citable sources. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 17:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The inventory list seems to be uncited and come largely from who has not been heard from in nearly five years. - Jmabel &#124; Talk
 * I guess I'll just take it on myself and work from source docs, pretty much ignoring the prior content. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 04:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now largely sorted out. A little bit is in doubt because the online copy of the NRHP nomination was poorly scanned, and matters are complicated a bit by the fact that some buildings in this neighborhood have been renumbered since the 1970s, but it is certainly tremendously better than before. For much of what was there before, if it was anything other than pure fiction it certainly came from unnamed sources. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 06:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe I've found the unacknowledged source used by the prior editor. I'll see if there is useful information I can take from there; if nothing else, it seems to have more precise dates for certain structures, as well as some names of houses. Hey, folks, cite your sources. I shouldn't have to reconstruct someone else's work like this. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 06:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)