User talk:Appraiser/Archive5

Congratulations!
. . . on your RfA! Kablammo (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Darn it, I never hear about RfAs for people I know. Congratulations anyway :-) --Bobak (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch at my talk page. Best wishes, WjBscribe 02:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work
On your RfA! Best of luck,  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the new admin gig!
Actually, this isn't a picture of a barnstar, as you've guessed. It's a picture of a house on the National Register of Historic Places. This house was owned by George R. Newell, one of the founders of what became SuperValu. I took a few other pictures on Sunday after lunch, so I'll work on getting those uploaded. Enjoy the admin gig! --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe more than once upon a time a Newell was on the UofM West Bank, smiling, on her way to sing in Rio de Janeiro. Small world in need of your help, sir. Congratulations to Appraiser on this happy occasion! -Susanlesch (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A great big congrats from me too! ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota museums
I noticed you edited some Minnesota museums recently. Please take a look at Museums in Minnesota T able M anners U·T·C 06:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Susanlesch
Do you know about ? The reason I ask is I get some strange comments from her on a template talk pagesTemplate talk:Museums in Minnesota regarding "WikiProject Minnesota during December" and Jakob Nielsen and user interface design. I've tried to be friendly with this contributor, but was most recently snubbed. Am i missing something? Table Manners C·U·T 15:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am Susanlesch. There is a reply for TableManners from me on Talk:Minneapolis, Minnesota, posted yesterday. Maybe it got caught in other message traffic in your watchlist? Regarding a snub, no I really don't answer each and every post to Wikipedia and I don't expect everyone to always reply to me, and in neither case would I describe it that way. Please pardon me while I return to my box of Kleenex. I have a bad cold and am not feeling well. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. On second thought I asked this person to leave me alone. Thanks and sorry for any misunderstanding but good grief. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you have a speedy recovery. Stay warm!--Appraiser (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks that worked for a while but my use of Wikipedia is tenuous thanks to continued borderline whatever this is. -Susanlesch (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow a closed issue. This user says they were being whimsical and a third party kindly helped at Editor assistance. -Susanlesch (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is in a search engine so I guess a note is all right to say that someone I consider to be a senior sysop took care of this this week (maybe you admins acknowledge things like that in a private channel). -Susanlesch (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Bot help
Sounds doable. Just to clarify: you want this done only for articles currently in both categories of that form? Alai (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. If there's already been discussion of this, could you point me towards same?  Alai (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could double-check at the NRHP WPJ that the groupthink's in line with this change, so that if a BRFA is necessary, I can cite that discussion. I'm probably being rather cautious about that, but rather that than get yelled at halfway through.  Alai (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. I've posted the BRFA here. Alai (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just finished the Texas cats, would you care to double-check before I continue with the rest? Alai (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

McName
Surnames starting with "Mc" should be indexed as "Mac" to assist category sorting; this has been the case for a long time now. Surnames starting with O'M or O'H (for example) are indexed as Om and Oh. The latter reindexing (O's) has already been completed by other editors as far as I know, so I stick with the "Mc" names.

As far as edit summaries go, I'll try to prepare a boilerplate entry and use it in the summary. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what example you looked at (Mace after McC), but is how it is supposed to look, as you can see there are a lot of name left to be done, but I'll hold off until this is resolved. Believe it or not I wasn't doing it b/c it's fun. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See from 22:45, 15 April 2006, where the note first appeared about the category sorting (Mac, not Mc).


 * First of all, it's not what I want to do. I first became aware of the Mc/Mac situation on Martin McGuinness' article. I did the research back and found the entry (see ) from 22:45, 15 April 2006, where the note first appeared about the category sorting (Mac, not Mc). Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And it's not only Scottish surnames that are involved, obviously (American, Canadian, British, English, Irish, Australian) Yellow-bellied sapsucker Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

idea?
Let's form a small RFA class of 9. These are admin who became admin at about the same time. John Carter, Jeepday, Rudget, Jayron32, Archtransit, Appraiser, Kbthompson, Canley, J-stan. It would just be a friendly support group or like a school class. No administrative tasks needed to form this group, just know each other so if we need an opinion or want to discuss something, we'll be there for each other. Archtransit (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey there Appraiser. I noticed you on Archtransit's talk page.  Then I looked at your userpage and realized that you are eerily close.  I live in the northburbs {yay blue collar burbs!  Booo white collar burbs...)  but hold no grudges against Crapple Valley I mean Apple Valley.   I'm planning on watchlisting the rest of the Class of 9 myself.  Cheers to you, ya know, eh?  To prove my location:  It is friggin' cold outside today, but only going to get colder this weekend.  Hi temps below zero starting Saturday if you haven't heard... Keeper   |   76  21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey - I live in Happy Valley, right next door to Pleasantville. You should try to make it to the next meetup. They're a lot of fun.--Appraiser (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a 2008 meetup planned?  Keeper   |   76  22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

National Historic Landmarks
National Historic Landmarks and Registered Historic Places are two separate lists. When you add National Historic Landmarks, please do not delete Registered Historic Places - Thanks Nv8200p talk 23:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right. My mistake. Sorry about that. -Nv8200p talk 05:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation Badr (Iran-Iraq War)
Will you please delete the unsourced, unreferenced article Operation Badr (Iran-Iraq War)? I would really appreciate you to remove this worthless, pov-article. Angela from the Blue (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I already declined that request and replied on her talk page, since her reasons didn't meet Criteria for speedy deletion. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder/request/idea/memo/suggestion/[insert a word of your choice]
Hello! I suppose you barely remember me... Well, it has been some time, has it not? As you might guess, I am here on SBS business. Alas, I have to be a little pressing at times, no matter how much I might hate myself for it. The problem is that participation in WikiProjects is on a purely voluntary basis, so it is both highly impolite and extremely insensitive for me to be taking such steps, but... Well, call me eccentric and it's settled (I hope).

To the subject: as always, there is a severe activity deficiency in the project—too much to do, and nobody to do it. I am not as much concerned about the editing progress, as this is supposed to be done by all editors. No, I am more worried about the guidelines and the templates, where there are still many things to be taken care of, numerous holes to be closed, countless loose ends to be tied up, immeasurable improvements to be made. In four words: decisions to be made. All I am asking for is a helping hand once in a while: add the SBS page to your watchlist (if you have not done so until now), and vote in the polls; as the majority of the proposals are rather uncontroversial, polls usually suffice for business to move on. If, of course, there is the slightest disagreement (succession boxes are rather straightforward, after all), more discussion can take place, until consensus is reached in the good old Wikipedia way. The fact is that the entire process will not take up more than a few minutes of your valuable time in any given day—and it is a rare event indeed to see more than two or three proposals submitted in a week. Actually, that speed would be ideal, as things right now move at much slower rates.

If we are to note any progress, we need participation. If you are interested enough to have signed up, I am not asking for much, am I? After all, aren't we all here because we are trying to make a difference? Waltham, The Duke of 21:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Ever heard of hard spaces? They are required in many cases by the Manual of Style, but most editors seem to ignore them entirely. There is an initiative attempting to change this situation; click here if you are interested. – Waltham


 * mmK. I just looked and talk:SBS is still on my watchlist, but if I remember correctly I stopped reading it when some particularly boring aspect was being debated. I'll make a point to start reading it again. Thanks for the reminder.--Appraiser (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Just remind me to be less polite next time I shall have to remind you. ;-) Waltham, The Duke of 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New Semester, New Appeal
This semester I am teaching academic writing to a group of teachers at my school. This course starts on Monday Jan 28. I would like to know if you are still interesting in "mentoring". You can see the syllabus at School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/SyllabusIf so, please leave a message on my talk page and update the mentor's page School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors, if. If not, please remove your name and information from that page. Thanks! Thelmadatter (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:SAB-plaque.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SAB-plaque.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:SibleyHousePlaque1.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SibleyHousePlaque1.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:RamseyMillplaque.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:RamseyMillplaque.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:SibleyHousePlaque2.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SibleyHousePlaque2.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:TWirth.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TWirth.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Minnehahaparkmap.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Minnehahaparkmap.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Johnhstevensplaque.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Johnhstevensplaque.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Portaging.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Portaging.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Josephnic.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Josephnic.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:GrandRounds.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:GrandRounds.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:JosephNicolletPlaque.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:JosephNicolletPlaque.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Islandbusinessesplaque.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Islandbusinessesplaque.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:BellofTwoFriendsPlaque.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BellofTwoFriendsPlaque.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Stevensplaque.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Stevensplaque.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Elizawinston.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Elizawinston.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:MoundsBeacon.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MoundsBeacon.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Minnehahamap.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Minnehahamap.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I created this one using a computer graphics program. I removed the non-free tag.--Appraiser (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dividemn.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dividemn.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Images
Appraiser: I have posted this response to one of the proposed deletions of your images:"This work is a photograph of an image created by a government unit of the state of Minnesota, which is public data under the Minnesota Data Practices Act. Minnesota Statute Section 13.03, subdivision 1.   As set forth in an opinion of the Minnesota Attorney General, public data such as an informational work may be used for noncommercial, nonprofit activity, including teaching and scholarship.  The sign is informational and itself is educational; the use in Wikipedia of an image of the sign is for purposes of teaching and scholarship.  Accordingly its use on Wikipedia is permissible, although it may be appropriate to amend the claimed license to specifically refer to this rationale.  Kablammo (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)" Here is the issue. While the photographs were self-made, they are images of signs erected by the state or the MSHS. Accordingly they are being proposed for deletion as derivative works. Changing the rationale to be consistent with the language of the Minnesota Attorney General's opinion (to which deference is owed under the Data Practices Act), should be adequate to keep the images of that text available as fair-use even if not released under GFDL. The Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration would have made all state-created content public domain and therefore not subject to copyright; the AG narrowed that interpretation but emphasized that such content can be used for education purposes, which is how you are using the images here. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. This effort by User:Calliopejen1 to purge WP of photographs of informational signs doesn't make me very happy. I have no legal background, but I see that she is a law student. So, perhaps she knows what she's doing. I don't see any real difference between photographing the sign (e.g. Image:SibleyHousePlaque1.jpg) and quoting the text with attribution to the historical society. Viewers of the photo have no doubt who wrote the text, and I doubt I could convey the same information as accurately and elegantly in my own words. I wonder what the legal difference is between a photo of someone's words and a quote of someone's words.


 * Concerning the Minnesota Statutes, I believe that any of these created by the state of Minnesota are available to us for "inspection and copying," which it seems to me includes uploading to WP. The ones created by municipalities and the MHS may not be covered under this statue however. Although 61% of MHS's budget comes from the state, I believe it's not technically part of the state government. I'm not sure who put up the Heritage Trail plaques (e.g. Image:Elizawinston.jpg); there's no copyright information and no date of creation indicated (there seems to be a significance to 1978).


 * As for using the Attorney General's interpretation - I don't think that helps us any, with respect to Images since "free for commercial use" is a requirement and the AG rejected that.
 * Reviewing the ones listed here, they are all created by a municipality, a non-profit, or have no indication of the creator's affiliation or date of creation. I guess, for the small ones, I'll either quote or rephrase the text in the articles. There are a couple with maps and photos that could be construed as copyrighted "artwork", which I suppose we'll lose, unfortunately. For the larger ones with text only, I'd like to figure out a way to keep them. I think readers are well-served by them.  Any ideas?--Appraiser (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello there! I'm just curious if anyone has provided you any sound legal basis for deleting your plaque images? I, of course, didn't get to see your plaque photos since they've been nearly all deleted. I find the hard-line campaign against this valuable facet of NHL work quite discouraging, since most of the plaques without engravings would probably not be considered copyrightable under Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Simply putting commonly available facts into sentence form does not in and of itself rise to the level of originality, regardless of who made the plaques. -Cg-realms (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2008 (EST)

State historic sites?
Appraiser: I was not aware of Minnesota State Historic Sites.  I have added text to that effect to a few of the sites. Should there be a category or template? Kablammo (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My inclination would be to create a list similar in format to the List of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota and a new Category:State Historic Sites of Minnesota. Thanks for pointing this out.--Appraiser (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

derivative images
Even if the images were created by non-profits or (non-US federal) governments, they are still copyrighted. (There was some talk of Minnesota government works being available freely, but further discussion has shown that we cannot assume that.)Unless we have an explicit release from the copyright holder (for any uses - i.e. CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, GFDL, or PD), we don't use those, even if the copyright holder probably wouldn't complain. This is part of making WP content unassailable from a copyright perspective as well as aiding reuse of Wikipedia content. Wikipedia's stance on copyrighted images vs. copyrighted text (as in, if you just typed in the sign contents) can be a bit incoherent, but in general we wouldn't allow whole paragraphs where you could just write it in your own words--see WP:NONFREE. As for the further examples you gave me: Hope this helps! I'm happy to answer any other questions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Think ph.JPG is ok because the copyright for the sculpture has expired (it was "published" before 1923)
 * Image:Fly-Angel.jpg is ok because English law has a concept called freedom of panorama (which US law doesn't have) that says you are allowed to take pictures of artwork permanently installed in public places.
 * Image:Advertisingman.jpg is ok because the subject of the photo isn't really the copyrighted text, but the entire scene, and the inclusion of copyrighted content is de minimis. (Plus the text on the sign might not meet the bare originality threshold required by copyright law to be copyrighted anyways.)
 * Image:Smithwick's billboard NYC May 2005 Wikipedia.jpg is kind of borderline. The photo isn't only of the billboard, but the billboard is a prominent element... Maybe technically this is fair use but the copyright holder isn't going to complain and I don't think it's worth losing sleep over.  In modern life ginormous ads are everywhere.
 * Image:Priestley Burning Lens Replica.jpg is ok because it's a useful object, which isn't eligible for copyright. The text on the little sign is technically copyrighted but it's ok to have there because it's not the subject of the photo.
 * Image:SaigonFord.jpg is ok because the text is too unoriginal to be copyrighted and the inclusion of other copyrighted elements (the car and the ford logo) is de minimis.
 * I just noticed your discussion above with Kablammo. I guess the broad issues here is that the text is copyrighted (a copyrighted image and copyrighted text have the exact same legal status), and we don't use copyrighted text where it could be paraphrased.  (This is the same reason we don't paste in paragraphs from books, we write them in our own words.)  Ideas and facts can't be copyrighted, but specific expression can.  The moral here is I guess that you can't add photos of the signs or paste in the sign contents verbatim, but you can use the signs as sources for articles, assuming you don't run into problems with WP:V. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Last thought: Even if Minnesota officials agree that government works are available for nonprofit educational purposes, that is not enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia treats noncommercial-only licenses the same as things that are full-on copyrighted, because the goal is to have content that can be reused in any possible way (and to ensure wikipedia's continued existence in case the foundation comes to an end).  Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ack! I keep thinking of one more thing.... You might want to contact the organization directly that posted these, and see if they might release their content under a free license. Wikipedians have had remarkable success with this, and it's not like the Minn Historical Society is making any money off the sale of their plaque information.... See WP:COPYREQ for tips and what you need to ask for. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Florida State Parks in Alachua County
The reason the article was set up in that fashion (without links to the "main articles" and with the appropriate categories appended) was because it was a demonstration project; the intent was to merge all of the relevant articles (all six of them, you only caught three) into a single article. There is no content in the original articles that is not on the county list article. The Florida state park articles are almost all stubs, and don't really need to have their own articles; consolidating them into single articles by county was one possible way to reduce clutter, but discussion at WikiProject Florida resulted in an apparent consensus to not consolidate them. Since it was only a demo for an abandoned proposal, I don't really care if the article is kept or deleted, but I wanted to let you know why the article was contructed without links and with "extra" categories.  Horologium  (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Stephens.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Stephens.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:TWirth.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TWirth.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

national register of historic places cats
no grand plan; I was just standardizing all such cats to be the same; most just had the two cats: the overall one for the US and the landmark of state. So I made them all the same. If there is a different plan to make them uniform (without a lot of overlap), so be it. Hmains (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

George Bonga image
Here's what the Minnesota Historical Society sent me: Thank you Dale. Go to the Photo database and find the Bonga portrait you want to use and click the BUY button. That will take you to the permission part. Fill in all the boxes and our Photo Lab will e-mail you your permission form signed by a librarian. You don't have to buy an image. The best thing to do is to read "Order Help" first. Should I do this, then send the permission form to Wikipedia, or something? Thanks.Dale662 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Continental Divide and Sibley House
I've sent a note to my contact about the two images you mentioned, to see what the procedure is. Thanks. Dale662 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the response I received on these: -Original Message-

From: Grabitske, David Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 12:30 PM To: Nielsen, Steve Subject: RE: George Bonga image

Hi Steve,

While it's true MHS owns the text, whoever took the photo owns the photo. I mean, so long as he attributes the marker to MHS and Mn/DOT I think he's safe. The caption/credit line could look like: A Three-Way Continental Divide historic marker erected by Minnesota Historical Society and Minnesota Department of Transportation, 1983. Photo: Firstname Lastname, Year.

What do you think?

David Dale662 (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal
Hi, Appraiser. Thanks for your note. Are four columns too much? Do you think this page can be used for suggestions for all the categories? If you do I could ask Cricket about that. -Susanlesch (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks fine on my big screens; I'm not sure what it would do on a small monitor though. I do think we could have suggestions for each category.  If people actually used that area, changing the page would be easier.--Appraiser (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That helped. Selected pictures are down to one at a time and moved to the right column, as now I worry they could go out of the viewport to the right in somebody's environment. Would you possibly look sometime at this template for the FPQ? 19 images are live at this writing. The Selected community, which is inspired by a Wikipedia user's photos I found in the commons, has 43 or so at the moment. No hurry at all and I noticed you are deep in the current collaboration at WP MN so I apologize for asking about half-baked work. Scare me off editing if you see a better way to do this. Thanks either way. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that Portal:Oregon was recently promoted to featured (Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Oregon). I'm not sure what this template is doing. Is that the one currently on the portal page?--Appraiser (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only a few as the template is brand new. I can add the rest of the queue today so it will make sense. Thanks, will look at Oregon. I also borrowed bits so far from Utah, Iceland, Louisville and others. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PD-MNGov
Template:PD-MNGov has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Nv8200p talk 02:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Primary Map
Thank you for noticing my work on the map of democratic primary results. I did not create in originally but I have been working to keep it up-to-date. I changed the mistake in the key. Thank you for bringing it to my attention! Maryland is not colored-in because those poll results are rather dated in this quickly-evolving race. They also include John Edwards before he suspended his campaign. I have only filled in data from polls taken after his announcement. Thanks again for noticing! Infoporfin (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review on List of National Historic Landmarks in New York
Hi Appraiser -- Your input is invited. I've gone ahead and asked for peer review on the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York list, including the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City (hopefully to be considered by the peer reviewers as well). Open at Peer review. doncram (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments! I responded partially there, and ask some questions back.  I happen to agree with you about the photos of people by the way.  Also, I wonder if you could comment on whether county names oughta link to county articles or to county lists of RHPs, a point that there seems to be disagreement about. cheers, doncram (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I-35W Bridge
I found the information off of http://www.visi.com/~jweeks/twincities/pages/ms32.html. You were right about it being double because I never added the estimates for the North and South sides. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegates
OK, will add that to the citation as clarification. --Ross UK (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Appraiser (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RHSbanner.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RHSbanner.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Good MN trimming
Good trimming of the MN landmarks list. I encourage longish descriptions for redlinks, but landmarks with their own articles make it easier to have shorter summaries on the List articles. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Minnesota
Portal:Minnesota is at Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates if you can find a minute to vote. From memory, you are both an administrator (someone with knowledge of Wikipedia), and a member of WikiProject Minnesota (someone on the list of participants). The most recent portal promotions had only a few more votes than Minnesota has now. Thank you kindly. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The NHLD color
I don't like that pink shade. I know you used it in the model list table, but I think the project infobox color scheme has always worked well with colors in that same general blue-green range. And I think those colors could be used just as well in the table coding. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * moved discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places--Appraiser (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Holz Farmstead
Was listed May 2007. Here is the Weekly Update for June 1, 2007 Einbierbitte (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Please see Talk:United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 2008.—Markles 00:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

William Williams House
No, i don't know of any reason justifying stars for the William Williams House article. It is a different template, it appears., nrhp_infobox_map rather than nrhp_infobox, or something like that. I have nothing to do with it, expect it should be abolished. Check with person who added that, the one who edited it after i created the article. doncram (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks--Appraiser (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NRHP county list generator; Hennepin County
I'm working on an NRHP county list generator (here) that queries the NRHP database and generates a table similar to what you did at List of Registered Historic Places in Dakota County, Minnesota. It isn't perfect yet, and the resulting output will require hand-editing to put in pictures and descriptions, as well as to fix names where our article title doesn't match the NRHP name.

I'm working on a list for Hennepin County at User:Elkman/sandbox. (I had to work on the biggest one first, of course.) I thought I'd point it out in case you had any comments or in case you wanted to try the generator.

I've also been putting my NRHP tour photos up on my web server. I haven't been able to get all of my photos uploaded to Commons or to Flickr on a timely basis, so it's just easier to copy the photos there and to run a simple script that creates a photo album page. I'll let you know when I'm done with that, and I'm willing to allow use of any photos on there under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License. (I just need to finish running the album scripts and to put a license on there.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very cool. Is there any reason not to advertise the "county generator" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Standardizing NRHP lists discussion?

Comments:
 * 1) I think the lat. and long. coordinates should be rounded to the nearest second, instead of .01 seconds. One second is 22 meters at 45 degrees latitude. For our purposes, I think that's enough precision. Precision to 22 cm is misleading, (especially if the site is a block away, which I have encountered sometimes, according to Google Earth).
 * 2) I'm thinking that for sites in Minneapolis, we should manually put a neighborhood in parentheses under "Minneapolis", or perhaps (formerly St. Anthony).
 * 3) I think you said one time that you had a photo of the train station in Burnsville (Minneapolis Saint Paul Rochester & Dubuque Electric Traction Company Depot). Do you know where it is? I'm planning to complete List of Registered Historic Places in Dakota County, Minnesota and that's one we need. For that matter, do you have any other of the missing photos?
 * 4) Whenever you want me to help work on your new Hennepin County list, signal that by moving it to main space.
 * 5) Is there an easy way to find out which NRHP sites are "districts?" The color code on those rows should be changed to HD. Also the color for any NHLs and NHLDs will need to be changed.

thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a picture of the depot at Image:Orchard Gardens Depot 2.jpg. It's a lot more humble than any other railroad depot I've ever taken a picture of -- in fact, it's kind of a shack.  That's part of the reason I was hesitant to create an article of the depot.  I have more pictures available here.  I don't have any of the other missing photos.
 * To answer your other comments:
 * You're right about the lat/long coordinates. I'm converting them mathematically from Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates, which accounts for the non-integer point coordinates.  I don't know how accurate the UTM coordinates are in the National Register Information System, but we probably don't need to pretend that we're accurate to 22 centimeters.
 * I'll see about adding neighborhoods to the Minneapolis entries. I don't know if I want to get to the specific level of CARAG, Minneapolis versus East Calhoun, Minneapolis, but I'll probably wing it as I go.
 * I'll let you know when I move Hennepin County to mainspace. I want to finish correcting links first (like Washburn "A" Mill versus Washburn A Mill Complex), at a minimum.  Then comes the task of classifying historic districts and NHLs by color, adding images, and adding descriptions.
 * I could probably make an educated guess as to which properties are historic districts, by looking for "historic district" in the name. That won't be perfect, of course, but I think it'll make sense.

--Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a good thing they didn't try to fit a sign on it that says, "Minneapolis Saint Paul Rochester & Dubuque Electric Traction Company Depot.". Thanks. Actually, I was wondering about Historic Districts when working on List of National Historic Landmarks in Alaska. Some of them aren't completely obvious.--Appraiser (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They probably would have abbreviated the name if they had to write it somewhere. I took this picture at the Minnesota Transportation Museum, which shows that they abbreviated it as "M.St.P.R.&D.E.T.Co." And, actually, I don't think they ever made it past Faribault (and maybe not even past Northfield, except on trackage rights).  I guess that's why they nicknamed themselves the "Dan Patch Line" and later changed their name to Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railway.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Map of DC
Here it is - same color scheme and format as the other state locator maps. Thanks for asking, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Appraiser (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome - glad to see it is already being used. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dakota County List
Fantastic! I like the concept. The rest of the county lists should look this good. Einbierbitte (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image question
Not sure if this belongs in Minnesota maps or not, feel free to move it if there is a better category. Gopher backer (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Question for you
Hi, Appraiser. If you have a minute, Portal_talk:Minnesota. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your changes / when is an NRHP a HD
Hi. I'm curious about your placing these as historic districts, as they aren't: Oakleigh Historic Complex (Mobile, Alabama), Faunsdale Plantation, Cedar Grove Plantation, Demopolis Town Square/Confederate Park. They are listed separately. Faunsdale Plantation and Cedar Grove Plantation are a part of the "Plantation Houses of the Alabama Canebrake and Their Associated Outbuildings" Multiple Property Submission, this doesn't make the individual properties into historic districts. Plantation Houses of the Alabama Canebrake and Their Associated Outbuildings would be the historic district. Oakleigh Historic Complex is within but listed separately from the Oakleigh Garden Historic District. Demopolis Town Square is also listed separately from Demopolis Historic Business District.  Altairisfar  talk 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I may be wrong, but I'll tell you what information I used to make my determinations You can review it and make determinations for yourself.


 * 1) Oakleigh Historic Complex (Mobile, Alabama). There are two entries for "Oakleigh" in Alabama. A) Historic Site - Oakleigh 350 Oakleigh St. Mobile, AL #71000104 B) Historic District - Oakleigh Garden Historic District Roughly bounded by Government, Marine, Texas, and Ann Sts. Mobile, AL #72000171. The article I modified includes three houses, with no nrhp # listed, and an address of 300 Oakleigh Street. If this article does indeed describe the individual site, I think it needs some work.
 * 2) Faunsdale Plantation. The only Alabama entry with the name "Faunsdale" is the historic district, #93000602, which is the number presented in the article.
 * 3) Cedar Grove Plantation. Again this is an historic district, #93000599, again the number given in the article.
 * 4) Demopolis Town Square/Confederate Park. Two entries appear with the string "Demopolis" in AL. Demopolis Public School, #83003453, an historic site and Demopolis Historic Business District, #75000319, an historic district. Again, the article I modified had the nrhp number that matched the district.

In case you aren't already using it, I highly recommend using Elkman's infobox generator, which gives you the code for the infobox, including the nrhp number, the official name, and a "type=hd" for historic districts. I have been surprised how many "sites" are really districts, usually if there are multiple improvements to be protected. There are many of these to review, so I'm not going to argue with you, but I hope you take the time to look at the data that I was looking at and fix as necessary. BTW, if an article exists for an individual property within an HD, the infobox should have type=cp (for contributing property). The article should also clearly link to the nrhp article on the district.--Appraiser (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The address of 300 Oakleigh Place is the one given by the Mobile Historical Society, owner and operator of the property, but looking at it further I think that 350 is correct for the main house. The entrance to the grounds is at 300. I'm quite sure that NRIS is wrong about Oakleigh Street though, it has been Place all of my life and there is no Oakleigh Street in the city.  The build date given by NRIS is wrong also.  I know about contributing properties, however, it's often not clear whether a property is one or not.  It's my understanding that just because it is located within the boundaries of a HD, it isn't always a CP, even when it is historic and listed.   Oakleigh was listed before the district was created so I think it is safer to not indicate it as a contributing property until this can be verified.  The Mobile Historic Development Commission maintains a Historic District Building Survey that details CP and non-CP, but Oakleigh Garden isn't online yet.  The Infobox Creator (nor any other refs of which I am aware) doesn't list Oakleigh #71000104 as a HD.


 * Demopolis Town Square is listed in the article and at NRIS as Confederate Park with the refnum #75000319, both titles are listed in the infobox, but Demopolis Town Square is the commonly used name, thus the name of the article since it isn't completely NRHP-centric. Demopolis Historic Business District has a refnum of #79000391. Again, the tool doesn't list #75000319 as a HD.


 * Cedar Grove Plantation and Faunsdale Plantation are part of the Plantation Houses of the Alabama Canebrake and Their Associated Outbuildings MPS, even though the generator places them as historic districts, I don't see how this is true in reality. I know that a MPS can be and most often is considered a historic district but I fail to see how these individual sites within the MPS can be considered historic districts unto themselves.  Maybe I'm just being dense, but could you elaborate further?   Altairisfar  talk  06:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think Appraiser is saying Faunsdale Plantation is a HD because it is part of an MPS. An MPS is a collection of widely separated NRHPs, each getting its own refnum.  Coincidentally a point I was just making to Altairisfar is that the Elkman NRHP infobox generator gives a line with the MPS name, which is good to include, and perhaps to wikilink and make into a list-article.  I think Appraiser is saying Faunsdale Plantation is itself characterised as an HD on its own, because that is suggested by the hd indication in the Elkman infobox generator output.  However I'm with Altairisfar that this is not very satisfying.  I would like to see more verification than just an indication in the Elkman output, and I don't know where to see that in an NRIS report.  Perhaps it would appear in the NRHP nomination/inventory PDF document, but that document is not generally available on-line.  There should be a place we could definitively look up district vs. site vs. building vs. structure vs. object.  That can be done for NHLs I know it appears in NHL webpages, but I don't know how to determine this for all general NRHPs.  By the way, the definition of district (as opposed to site, building, structure, or object) appears in the evaluator's guidebook that is a big PDF referenced in article on National Register of Historic Places. doncram (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * O.K. Now I have read the evaluator's guidebook PDF and now see that Faunsdale Plantation and Cedar Grove Plantation could be their own historic districts, since it can be applied to large farms with numerous outbuildings.  I also located the PDF at NRIS for Plantation Houses of the Alabama Canebrake and Their Associated Outbuildings MPS but it doesn't make a distinction that I can see.  I know that Faunsdale has the main house, the site of a church, and two slave cabins, so it could easily fit the NRHP definition for a HD.  Cedar Grove only has the main house and a schoolhouse left, so it is less likely to fit the definition.  My understanding is much clearer now, but I would like to confirm their designation one way or the other before listing them as HD.   Altairisfar  talk  08:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A few comments:

Thanks for your work.--Appraiser (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) If a listing is marked as an "HD", then the article either has to be about an "HD" or a "CP". If there is a separate listing for an individual property (which looks like might be the case for Oakleigh), then the article can be about that individual site. But in the case of Oakleigh Historic Complex (Mobile, Alabama), the article covers three houses, so the reader's impression is that it is about the district.
 * 2) All articles about nrhps need to specify the nrhp "ref number", so the reader can look it up and see what exactly is included.
 * 3) If the address, construction date, or any other information in the nris database is incorrect, you need to find another source with the correct information and cite it. Otherwise it is WP:Original research.
 * 4) If the common name is different from the nrhp name, use the common name for the article and the nrhp name at the head of the infobox.


 * I apologize for having generated this long (and very helpful & informative) discussion on you talkpage! I do see some of your points and have tried to address them.  The Oakleigh article in particular, as it was the 2nd or 3rd article that I wrote for WP and I hadn't done much with it since.  I do hope that you see my point too, there just seems to be a great deal of ambiguity on the subject of historic districts and I just don't feel like the articles should indicate something if even we aren't certain about it.  Altairisfar  talk  18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's no problem having the discussion here and I appreciate this type of discussion in general. I always learn from other editors. There is ambiguity about nrhps from our primary source, the National park Service, but if we deviate from their information, we ought to have a source giving us the opposite information. Is it any better to say it's not a district when it is, then to call it a district if it's not? I think they are equally bad, so we need to go with a cited source. As an encyclopedia, we are still at the "tip of the iceberg" generating articles on nrhps and it's my hope that as the community proceeds in this area, we'll ponder these issues and strive for well-sourced accuracy. I'm reviewing many articles, fixing infoboxes, templates, and categories, mostly in hope that future articles will be better from conception, expecting that some article creators will notice the changes. I didn't mean to pick on you - I certainly appreciate the work you've done and hope to continue our collaborations.--Appraiser (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate it when people have to apologize for me! :) doncram (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Elkman speaks :)
(unindenting because I don't know where to reply) I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there could be errors or mistakes in the NRIS database. It's always possible that someone may have made a typo, or transposed fields, or something like that. When I was checking to see how the historic district field was set up, I did a query on property names matching 'Historic District' and I noticed several that weren't flagged as historic districts, so the reverse situation could be true as well. I noticed some dirty data in the Hennepin County, Minnesota listings, right near Lake Harriet. For instance, it says one of the bridges is on "William Beery Drive" (it's actually William Berry), and another bridge is on "Queene Avenue" (there's no "e" in "Queen".) As far as multiple property submissions go, most of the time those nominations are online. Here's the link entitled "NRIS Search by Multiple Covers." --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What would be more satisfying in the Elkman output for historic district sites would be if it also reported the area (acreage) of the historic district, and the number of buildings, structures, objects, and sites included within the historic district. The NRHP.COM reports do this for historic districts (for example, see this Marengo County Alabama report including Faunsdale Plantation), so I am figuring the NRIS database has this information, at least for historic districts.  Those additional pieces of information constitute corroborating evidence that the given NRHP is indeed a historic district, that it is not the case that just one "Historic District or not" 0-1 column is checked incorrectly. doncram (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To point out that NRIS has errors is not confidence-building, but it is true. That is all the more reason that it would be helpful for an editor like Altairisfar to point very specifically to a direct NRIS report, when it seems that the information coming out of NRIS (via the Elkman report or not) does not make sense.  One can't really point at the current Elkman output as a source for a wikipedia article.  In a wikipedia article just because there is an hd in the NRHP infobox is not convincing evidence that the NRIS system says a site is a historic district, as that can be edited.  I have gone back and forth with Daniel Case on whether Adirondack Park is a district or not, and we both changed the field.  (I don't mean to imply that I disbelieve the Elkman output;  on the contrary I very much do believe that a freshly generated NRHP infobox from the Elkman generator is at that moment accurately representing what was in NRIS on 1/23/2007, but still I can't point to it.)  Unfortunately I don't know of a webpage to point to that displays HD or not for a given site, except the NRHP.COM reports.  Do we have to start crediting NRHP.COM and driving traffic to them?  The NRIS "impromptu web query" report based on state code and name, e.g. this one where the reader would have to input "AL" and "Faunsdale" is not satisfactory as it does not report any of the fields for historic district or not / acreage / buildings / structures / objects / sites.  (An example citation in an article is reference #85 in Joseph Priestley House article, where the user has to type in "Priestley" alone, not needing to enter the state.)  Would it be possible for the Elkman server to provide a hard-code-linkable query, for any given refnum, that includes a statement "This is the NRIS data as of January 23, 2007 for REFNUM ######" which could be linked to, from any given article where the information for a given RHP seems to be surprising/controversial? doncram (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I am also aware that NRIS has errors in other fields: the NRIS field on whether a site is an NHL or not often has errors, as I have noticed that various specific errors and that generally often the NHL field does not seem to be entered in NHLs declared after 2000 or so, based on working with the NRIS-based table reports of the NHLs in each state. doncram (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks about the MPS cover, we have that sourced now in Plantation Houses of the Alabama Canebrake and Their Associated Outbuildings MPS. That MPS document does not detail whether Faunsdale and other RHPs are HDs or not, by the way. doncram (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. the pizza was delicious. and i'm using it to make cappucinos now, too. doncram (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I've seen you doing a huge amount of work on historic site entries of all sorts.Bigturtle (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Apple Valley, Minnesota
If you have a moment, could you take a look at the discussion here? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pepsicup.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Pepsicup.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Humble pie
O.K. It's time for me to eat some pie, I called the current owner of Faunsdale Plantation today and it is considered a historic district. So I'm sure that the same applies to Cedar Grove Plantation also. Well, I guess that's what one would call a learning experience, or much ado about nothing! :)  Altairisfar  talk  00:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for letting me know. I was trusting the output of Elkman's generator, but the final answer could have gone either way.--Appraiser (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Another image issue
The issue of whether or not a photo from the National Weather Service is in the public domain if contributed by someone not from the NWS has come up again. If you want to comment on this, the deletion proposal is. Thanks, Gopher backer (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One more question while I'm bothering you. I made a new artice, 1968 Tracy tornado.  That tornado has a well known photograph of it.  The photo is inlucded (grainy) on a .pdf file (page 551)on a government server so I assume this is public domain.  Would it be okay for me to do a screen print of the .pdf and crop the photo, and add it to wikipedia?  I'm not sure if doing a manipulation like that would be okay.  If it were not okay, could we include some kind of fair use rationale seeing that it has historical significance?  Thanks, Gopher backer (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's clearly a NOAA photograph in a NOAA publication. I would "screen shot" it, crop it, run a grain-reducing program on it (I can do that with Corel Draw for you if you want), and then upload it with dual licensing: U.S govt. work in the public domain and modifications, including cropping and noise-reduction by User:Gopher backer, no rights reserved.--Appraiser (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I may have the software to be able to do this, but I took a look at it and couldn't figure it out. That would be great if you could do that for me.  Gopher backer (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected areas
Maybe only land areas should be in the protected areas categories, and not buildings, and such. The protected area definition seems to not support buildings, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs) 02:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I began a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places on this topic. Feel free to comment there.--Appraiser (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And Hmains opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas which is also appropriate. I will watch both of those discussions, but am signing off here, will probably not see any further comments here. doncram (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

US insert on NRHP infobox map, cool!
Dude, thanks for adding that. It looks sooo neat. I see you added it to a few other states, obviously the ones where there's room for it. Keep on, and gracias! ;) -Ebyabe (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'm glad you like them. The rectangular states are going to take some extra work, but I'll get to them eventually.--Appraiser (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Suitcase.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Suitcase.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can confirm you are the Photographer noted, the matter can be resolved rather quickly :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:050820 GrandPortageNationalMonument.jpg
Over zealous tagging, removed. Suggest adding a note confirming source is uploader.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)