User talk:Doncram/Archive 15

U.S. vs United States
Hi ... thought I'd bring this edit by User:BD2412 to your attention. With the edit, she has removed all the links from NY post offices from this page. What to do?--Pubdog (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree the change is too big and too widely disruptive to leave in place.  I reverted that edit, and explained / opened possible discussion at Talk:U.S. Post Office.  Thanks. --doncram (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So, I guess from the moves you made today that it is safe for me to make the new articles for U.S. Post Office (Lake Placid, New York) and U.S. Post Office (Ticonderoga, New York) with those names and not United States?--Pubdog (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please! Even if a new consensus decision was reached to change their names to use "United States" instead, it would be best to create stub articles at the "U.S." version first.  And I think it will not fly, by article naming convention policy, to rename all of these.  Please proceed away!  It only helps, no matter what the outcome of the current debate. --doncram (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying.--Pubdog (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. I do have some input. Also, would you mind taking a look at this thread I started and see if you agree with what the consensus seems to be going to? (And then look below ... interesting issue with the Albion post office). Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

AWARD
Cool Barnstar! Lvklock (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Historic Civil Engineering Landmark
Here's something you might be interested in (or maybe not). I noticed Category:Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks has just been speedily changed to Category:Historic civil engineering landmarks. I usually don't get much involved in categories, but I always thought Historic Civil Engineering Landmark was a proper noun, not a descriptive phrase, even if it's not a gov't designation. What do you think? Station1 (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I opened a requested move at Talk:List of historic civil engineering landmarks and put in CFDS request for rename of category back, by this CFDS.  I don't find any record of the previous CFDS or move of the list article to lower case, by the way.  But clearly this is a proper noun award. --doncram (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. I just added my support to the move request. Also just moved List of Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmarks to caps, similar situation but that cat is OK. Station1 (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, this is being reverted now; should be completed shortly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

NRHP nom link
I'm looking for the nomination for Ten Broeck Mansion. Could you help? Also, can you give me the general link to search for other noms? I always run into this problem and once I get the general search link, I promise it will never happen again. :)  upstate NYer  23:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Querying NRHP Focus
Today I figured out how to query the NRHP Focus website directly to show a listing. It involves a long and complicated URL, but if you can see through the murkiness, it's relatively easy to adapt it to any listing you'd like. The URL breakdown is as follows:


 *  http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregadvancedsearch.do?searchType=natregadvanced  – This part you already know
 * &selectedCollections=NPS%20Digital%20Library – This tells the database where to look
 * &resourceName=Crane%2BHill%2BMasonic%2BLodge – This is the NRHP listing name. % 2B corresponds to a plus sign ("+") in URL encoding (You'll have to look at the page source to see % 2B.. WP apparently encodes them already), which tells the database to look for results with all terms instead of results with any of them. (i.e., without the +'s, the database would return items with "Crane" in them, even if they didn't include "Hill", "Masonic", and "Lodge".)
 * &natregadvancedsearch=Search – Without this, the form doesn't submit

The full url for "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge" would thus be http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregadvancedsearch.do?searchType=natregadvanced&selectedCollections=NPS%20Digital%20Library&resourceName=Crane%2BHill%2BMasonic%2BLodge&natregadvancedsearch=Search.

If there is more than one listing with that name (i.e. here), it will return all of them, so you'll have to select from the list it brings up.

I can probably adapt this to use reference numbers so only one listing will be displayed (for use in citing sources in articles), but if the refnum isn't known, this is a good way of finding it (besides using Elkman's tool of course.. but this is more open to all readers, and it's a clickable link, so they don't have to type in anything). I posted at Talk:List of Masonic buildings with the link; hopefully that'll help you out.

I'll look in to making it work for refnums too.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, well that was simple. To use a reference number in the link, simply remove the "resourceName=_____" variable and insert "referenceNumber=________". Thus, if you wanted Crane Hill (#01001294), the link would be http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregadvancedsearch.do?searchType=natregadvanced&selectedCollections=NPS%20Digital%20Library&referenceNumber=01001294&natregadvancedsearch=Search. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Draft Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings
I have started putting together a draft in what is, I hope, fairly neutral language. Please feel free to expand on the arguments for your favored positions (and for mine, if you come up with any); I will also be adding some links and additional evidence for my positions, based on our previous discussion of the matter. Also, regarding, WikiProject United States courts and judges/United States Congressional naming legislation, until the naming issue is settled, it would probably be a good idea to redirect as many of those names as possible to existing articles, if we have them. I'm sure you agree that irrespective of the title of the article, if Congress has designated a name for a federal building, that should at least be mentioned in the article. bd2412 T 04:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

3RR Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of Masonic buildings. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MSJapan (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please discuss the repeated deletion of sources at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I am fully aware of 3RR rules. MSJapan, you are involved in some rather silly machinations, which just has the effect of deleting sourcing from an article.  How about your actually contributing something positive, say by your requesting or otherwise digging up an actually better source providing more substantial information?  I don't believe you've added any source or any sourced content to the article where you are disputing sourcing. --doncram (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI... you may know the 3rr rules... but you don't seem to care about following them. You are now over the limit, and I have reported you. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Masonic buildings
I just closed the ANEW report against you. I have decided against blocking in this instance, but you may consider this an admonishment. Just because I haven't blocked you doesn't mean that your behaviour was acceptable, merely that blocks wouldn't solve the problem and would therefore not be preventative. I've also revoked your rollback rights for abuse of the tool in this edit war. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cray House, Henley-on-Thames


The article Cray House, Henley-on-Thames has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * I'm unable to find treatment in reliable, independent sources that would satisfy the GNG. Does not appear to be a listed building.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deor (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe i thot it was going to turn out the building was a Listed Building or was otherwise more notable, but I agree not much more has turned up. I'm not disagreeing with its deletion.  Thanks for caring about the content, and for checking with me. --doncram (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

List of synagogues in the United States
Hi Doncram,

Do you intend to continue updating List of synagogues in the United States? It's currently missing almost two hundred entries. Jayjg (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just added an "incomplete/please expand" tag there. I could say more, but could you please give me some idea why you ask? --doncram (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's another one of those articles whose existence seems a bit tenuous to me. You recreated it, even though you knew it was deleted at AfD, but you don't seem to have any intention of actually filling it. Or did you intend to add the other 200 or so? Jayjg (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your point? If you want to talk constructively about developing the list article, I would prefer to do that at the Talk page of the article.  Or do you want to open an AFD on the list-article, is that what you're driving at?  If the latter, I don't want to help you, and I think that would be a waste of many editors' time.  Thanks. --doncram (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Masonic buildings
I asked that each of you post when your statements were complete. Blueboar did, and you didn't, so I've let it sit. If you're actually finished, I can go get people to look at things now. MSJapan (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This regards Talk:List of Masonic buildings. I clarified that i was complete with that statement. --doncram (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Keith House
Much obiliged. I'm debating whether or not to move it just "Keith House" per WP:COMMONNAME, but, for some reason, not liking the prospect of disambiging it with "(Upper Makesfield Towship, Pennsylvania)" This house also has an intriguing history and has the potential for a DYK if you want in on it.

Am unsure of what to do the PHMC marker lists; on one hand it could be listcruft, but it could be useful to someone. I did, however, clean up the Erie County list to alleviate most of the red links. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 14:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am assuming you've figured out how to log into the CRGIS system. On the main database page, directly below the "Map Layers" key is the "Ask 'ReGIS' Text-based Search"; click "Ask ReGIS". A popup should appear; depending on what you're searching for, I usually skip "Where?" and "When?" and click on the "What else?" button. In the top field, click "Historic Name" and type in part of site's name in the text field. You can the second field to specifiy only NRHP sites (useful as the CRGIS system also includes most Elgible and Inelgible buildings) by clicking "National Register Status" and then clicking "Listed". When finished, click "Search Now" and results should appear, clicking on a result will bring up another popup where the link to the nom form, as well other relevant documents, can be found. To do another search, you have to click the "Search For" tab (the browser's "Back" button doesn't work here).


 * This should be helpful, let me know if you still can't figure it out. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you were able to come up with a way to cite the nom form (it is similar to how I've done it, although the type of form I place in the work parameter).


 * The covered bridge stubs are generally going to be pretty low priority because (as you found out) the nom forms don't provide much to go on and would require additional research. I was going to focus on expanding the buildings for now, but first I'll see what I can find on Bailey (it'll probably be a few days). ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:MPS
It seems that all of our links at WP:MPS have gone down; I'd guess that it's part of the process of the NPS taking down nr.nps.gov. Do you have any ideas how to find MPS forms on NRHP Focus? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Search focus for the MPS number. It shows up the same as regular NRHP nominations. They can be found at http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/########.pdf, where ######## is the MPS number.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) I was worried about that myself, trying an MPS link earlier. But i am not sure the links are down.  The whole NPS Focus system is down, for regular new searches, too.  I was thinking (but was not sure) that the MPS links stay the same, are what are provided when you search on the same MPS title in the NPS focus system.  Just apply regular search there, when NPS Focus is back up.  Hmm, what Dudemanfellabra says is that the links will now be different.  Then we need a bot request to replace all our MPS links at wp:MPS and in articles and Elkman should be alerted.  But still i'd wait til NPS Focus is back up. --doncram (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just updated the page. I used Word to find and replace all the nr.nps.gov links to Focus links. If they don't work after Focus is back up, just revert my edit. Btw, have we thought of splitting the page out? It's over 250k...--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd rather the page be kept whole, so it remains a one-stop-shopping lookup resource for us.  If it must be split, i'd rather it was just split in two, so that still half the time it would be one-stop-shopping. --doncram (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't too worried, since we together downloaded all of the forms after the threats of taking them down some months ago. Elkman's been very little active recently; I asked him for a minor change recently, but he's neither implemented it nor replied at his talk page.  Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Post Office/NHRP discussion
Thanks or the reply. I'm posting this reply here since it's getting off the main topic of the other discussion (U.S. vs United States). I understand and support the reasoning behind reformating the convoluted comma deliminated names. I guess I would argue that that reasoning could be extended to post offices on the NRHP. It appears from the guidelines that the efficiency of listing and sorting similar places is the primary goal of the NRHP application. Therefore, "United States Post Office--Beaver Main" is more about stating "this is a historic post office -- and this is which post office (since there are so many)." Yes, the documents say you should use the most common name historic name related to the site, but it also says the preferred format is "USPO - name." In most cases, I think the NRHP forms should be the deciding factor, unless there is some other official source that gives a different name. I'm not talking about local usage or even a congressional naming decision. I'm referring to the United States Board on Geographical Names and the Geographic Names Information System. By law, the USBGN is the arbiter over official names for places or features in the United States, with limited exceptions. For example, the Forest Service gets to decide what to name a national forest. While GNIS does not normally rule on the names of Post Offices, leaving that the postal service (and Congress) it will do so on request. In the case of Beaver, the official name is [ Beaver Post Office]. It wouldn't work in all cases, but I wonder how we would resolve these conflicts when two federal agencies have different names. I would lean toward the U.S. Board on Geographical Names, which oversees GNIS, and was madated by Congress in 1947 to resolve naming disputes. I really don't have a dog in this fight and in only limited cases would care what an article is named. I'm just a history buff who likes place-feature name etymologies.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

List
Tx! I think I'm done adding for the moment, but one can also find the synagogues from looking through the synagogue cats. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Pequonnock River Railroad Bridge
Doncram, thank you for the verbage re: Pequonnock River Railroad Bridge in regards to the alternate name listed by NRHP as it is both agreeable and factual. It's what I've been trying to get at re: the Housatonic River Railroad Bridge, and hope that we can compromise likewise on it for that article. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 * You've got e-mail. Lvklock (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And another email. Nyttend (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Stokes House
Does the new look meet with your approval? 98.82.0.102 (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, yes, thanks! --doncram (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

More travel
Don,

At the end of next week I'm going to Aspen for a wedding. I will be there long enough, and have enough free time, to get pics of all the NRHP listings there, which should help fill up the Pitkin County list. I may be able to get some others on the way there from Denver; we'll see.

And, at the end of the month, I'll be in the Lake George area again. In addition to getting a few more in that area my main goal will be to visit some dive shops in the area and see if they have any regulars who would have some pictures of the Land Tortoise they could let us use. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Your plans
"Currently i will plan to wait till 24 hours from my first revert, so as not to be in explicit violation of the letter of 3RR rule."

You're not serious, are you? --  tariq abjotu  23:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of citation needed without immediate rationale
I'll be opposing your blanket removal of CN. See Talk:Shotgun house for further discussion. --Lexein (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And i referred to discussion already underway at Featured article review/Shotgun house/archive1. --doncram (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On track at the FAR now. --Lexein (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked for violation of the three-revert rule on Devon Bridge. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Appealing a block. --  tariq abjotu  22:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request was: Umm, the situation was resolved by my adding a 3rd Devon Bridge to the dab page, which Polaron accepted (and had signalled by his adding a link to a Saskatchewan Rivers page. I followed up about this at the wp:3RRNB discussion even.  It has also been followed up at a Wikiproject Disambiguation page, and at User talk:Polaron.  And, technically, my edits at the Devon Bridge article never exceeded 3RR:  the 4th edit today was, crucially, one which significantly changed the dab even from the point of view of the opposing editor (who had insisted that another entry was required before he would accept the dab).  Mine was not a mindless revert. The block serves no purpose and seems to indicate misunderstanding of the situation originally and now.  I would appreciate if you or someone would please remove the block. --doncram


 * I'm personally not convinced - it's still an edit war, and a comment quoted above that the editor is going to be careful to wait 24hrs to ensure they don't break 3RR is unbelievable. Additional comments available to other reviewing admins available at User_talk:Tariqabjotu.  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * - Well I think the block was a little severe, but it will soon be over. I would like to thank Docram for his fine contributions to wikipedia over many years and welcome him to the contributors that got a little heated club and made that caring extra revert. Many thanks, wear your record with pride, respect to you from Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, Off2riorob. I do think the block was harsh/unfair in its effect in the relationship between me and a difficult contributor, but indeed it will be over soon, and no big harm done.  It's a good experience in a way;  i never have been blocked before and have therefore not seen exactly how this works.  Good to have the inside experience, i guess. :) --doncram (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was a little startled by the block, but I've been close to that edge myself. Is there a melted down barnstar for getting overheated? --Lexein (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Boy's and Girl's High schoool
I created two articles and spelled both incorrectly. How do I change the page names on Girl's High School and Boy's High School to Girls' High School and Boys' High School?AMuseo (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But I don't have a "move" button.  Is it something you have to earn?AMuseo (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I see. thank you for your patience.AMuseo (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comments at Acroterion's talk
I was confused by your comments about the buildings in my pictures (although I wasn't confused by the last little bit; thanks :-) of Italianate architecture — you refer to "The brick one", but both houses are brick. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * responded at User talk:Acroterion.... --doncram (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

NRHP Question
So what's the MOS on naming if the building name (German American Heritage Center) conflicts with the NRHP name (Germania-Miller/Standard Hotel)? Redirect? Should the listing on National Register of Historic Places listings in Scott County, Iowa say Germania-Miller/Standard Hotel ? C T J F 8 3 chat 03:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Yes, set up a redirect from the NRHP name.  Then the NRHP list article can just display the NRHP name, and the redirect gets you to the article at its actual name.  It's not necessary to set up a pipelink to the actual name from what is displayed in the NRHP list-article, but u can if u want. --doncram (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, C T J F 8 3  chat 04:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I do one of these numbers...'The German American Heritage Center, formerly/or the Germania-Miller/Standard Hotel is a...'...or just leave it? C T J F 8 3  chat 04:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think u should do one of those numbers, meaning show the NRHP name as a bolded alternative name in the lede of the article, like that. Or " also known as..." or however.  Or state that it "...was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 19xx as Germania-Miller/Standard Hotel" in the lede.  There is not a formal rule for the display of redirect names, but I think it is a good practice to always show either the name in bold or to have a hatnote saying "X redirects here", so that readers arriving from the redirect can see why they arrived at the article. --doncram (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks again, C T J F 8 3  chat 04:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

E-mail
One more sent. Where's the little thing so you can edit a specific question without editing the whole page? Lvklock (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Romanesque Revival architecture in Connecticut
In response to this edit summary, it did not show before because the first time, the creator did not create a category, (s)he created an article, which was subsequently A3 speedy deleted for being an article with no content. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh! Thanks for following up and explaining.  I had thot it was a case where the state-specific architecture category had not yet been split out from the U.S. or world-wide one, and I was confident it was time to do so as i have come across that architecture type in Connecticut artilces several times.  Thanks! --doncram (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

ACE, and Aspen

 * I responded to you at Talk:Alternative Center for Excellence as to why I made the move. It is generally my experience from working in schools that people who do use the current name for a building rather than the historic one. Especially when it's been over 30 years since the old name applied and the district has continuously owned it. Also note local usage here, where the current name is used first and the building is later referred to as "the Loucst Avenue school". Here, the old name isn't used at all.


 * I was successful in photographing all the Aspen listings save two on the outskirts of town. Had a nice walk around a very pedestrian-friendly town doing it. Good workout when it's almost 8,000 feet above sea level. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Spring Hill Farm


The article Spring Hill Farm has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Linked articles no longer exist. Disambiguation unneeded.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Fridae'§Doom &#124;  Spare your time?  08:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a dab page listing articles not yet created, to be created in the future. I removed the prod tag and started one of the articles, the Spring Hill Farm (Hamilton, Virginia) one. --doncram (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Simmons Coaches Center
Hey Doncram, I came across a photo in my collection of Syracuse University related pictures of Roy D. Simmons Sr. Coaches Center. I decided to upload it to the commons, but then I looked at the List of Syracuse University buildings and did not see a spot of this building. Could you dig around a bit and see if there's any info about it. I guess the original list I used to create the list of cuse buildings wasn't complete. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 14:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

School for Creative and Performing Arts at FAC
School for Creative and Performing Arts is currently a Featured Article Candidate. Since you have commented on this article in the past, the review may be of interest to you. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

India Temple Shrine Building
Hi. In followup to comments at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, I researched and edited India Temple Shrine Building. I've also renamed it -- I don't think you'll recognize it any more! I think this is going to make a great DYK, but I haven't nominated it yet. (Check it out to see what I mean.) --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like a very nice job; nice work.  Thanks! --doncram (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I "suggested" it at DYK -- it's listed under articles created on August 15. --Orlady (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dayton Masonic Center
Your answer can be found from the picture on the article, which I took from Interstate 75, and which is used at the district article as well — it's part of the Steele's Hill-Grafton Hill Historic District. If you'd like, try out the district address finder for historic districts in Ohio; it highlights districts in blue. This district is in the group of districts in eastern Montgomery County. Zoom in to the point that you can see the Masonic Center marked on the map, select the circle with the i, and click on the district to get a list of CPs; while it shows very little for some districts, this district has a good list of CPs. Entry #52 on the list is 525 Riverview, which is marked as a CP. Nyttend (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a Montgomery County map for your convenience. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Two judges per week.
Greetings doncram! At WikiProject United States courts and judges, we have bot-created thousands of articles on United States federal judges. Of those 1,272 currently still have their bot-made cleanup tag. If just a dozen editors will each commit to cleaning up just two of those articles every week, we will conquer the entire list within the year. Most of the articles are quick and easy to clean up, requiring only a few minor adjustments of bot-created awkward wording. Please consider joining this effort, and committing to cleaning up two judges per week for the year. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't let this escalate
Hi. You are only at 2RR at this point, but I detect an edit war brewing over the cleanup templates at the Masonic buildings list. Please don't escalate... --Orlady (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This regards List of Masonic buildings. Of course i am aware that i made two edits removing one then two tags, though I am not sure how those count in terms of 1 vs. 2 reversions.  I was explicitly discussing it at the Talk page, in order to be able to ask others, aware of the problem, to make further reversions if needed.  But, umm, you might comment directly to Blueboar, that the tedious addition of negative templates, with nothing new to contribute, is not real helpful.  The editors of the article are fully aware of his complaints from the talk page.  No encyclopedic purpose is served by the tagging, as far as i can tell.  Well, that's what i said at the article's Talk page already, the appropriate place for this discussion. --doncram (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You've removed the refimprove tag twice now -- as well as reverting other changes by Blueboar. I am aware that you are discussing this on the talk page. I commented because I predict that both of you are at risk of getting carried away (and you are the one who currently has two reverts there) ... --Orlady (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

University of New Haven Police
Doncram, as I stated on the talk page for Hazardville on 11 August, this is a closed merge discussion unless you want to reopen Hazardville, Connecticut. Given also that you have not replied on University of New Haven Police in over a week, I'm surprised by this. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Simultaneum
You helped me once before, and I can now move pages. Unsually. Here is my problem. Simultaneum. I created Simultankirche (Dutch), which I moved to Shared church while working on it. Then I discovered Simultaneum (Latin). I have now removed all text from the article I created, adding it to Simultaneum, which I will soon expand. How do I get the names Simultankirche and Shared church to redirect to [[Simultaneum?  Also, I think Shared church is a better English term, following Benjamin J. Kaplan, and on the assumption that the article should cover this as Shared churches are a growing modern phenomenon, although for somewhat different reasons than in the early modern period, and I would like to add material to both.  But I think the name should be the term used in English, Shared church.  Thank you for helping me with these Wiki-complexities.AMuseo (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

DAB pages
Hello, my friend! I notice that you have been working on DAB pages concerning churches. I have just started cleaning up DAB pages, and I find that many of the church pages don't seem to follow the DAB style. For example, many of them give the information that the churches are listed on the NRHP, which would seem to be excess information that shouldn't be there. Also, there are many churches that have red links — again, according to what I can glean, something against the DAB rules. What do you think? Am I wrong in correcting such things? See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Paul%27s_Church&action=historysubmit&diff=380334903&oldid=377329379. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been reported at ANI for your behavior at List of Masonic buildings
See: here.
 * That unsigned comment was by User:Blueboar. I replied at ANI. --doncram (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)