User talk:KTrimble

To see or comment on works in progress of pages I am thinking of rewriting, go to User:KTrimble/Sandbox

To see older Talk Page contents, to go /Archive001

Please, state your thoughts KTrimble (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ADIOS MESHUGGENAHS !!!
I'm not going to attempt any more new content, and I hope to refrain from making any edits on existing pages, even for correcting errors, unless I am directly affected.

I quit contributing to WP several months ago, and I haven't made any explanation as to why I am no longer doing this. I figured that it was best to just leave. But I found myself starting to edit a page that I knew was incomplete. I was going to add information with references and everything, but then I caught myself. I refuse to get sucked into this again. Instead, I decided that I would leave a note explaining to anybody who seeks me out why I am abandoning any involvement with WP.

I approached Wikipedia with a great deal of energy. I started editing existing pages and then tried to author some new pages that I thought were missing. I saw that the appraisal and real estate appraisal subjects were poorly covered and disorganized, and I really thought I had something to contribute. The pages on law enforcement and criminology are a complete mess. There are a bunch of aviation related pages that I really did have content to add. I take photos of a lot of interesting stuff that would be of use, particularly my aerial photographs. I have access to a lot of machinery and equipment, vehicles, aircraft, and landmarks for which there are articles, but no photos, and I could have provided photos. I thought I would be able to contribute a lot to the project, and I was in a position to train and encourage others to join the project and collaborate to improve and create content as well. I have experience with fundraising, which might be of value to this lame fundraising effort they have going with their banner ads. I could go on, but I just can't help but think that I am the type of person that the project NEEDS to continue to grow.

But I learned something about how this works that is not immediately obvious.

I was hoping to start a framework of a series of related pages that I and others could build on over time. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the way WP works, at least not anymore. I would author a page, and it would immediately be pounced on by somebody nominating it for deletion. I had other problems with edits. There are some pages that are protected as territory by some editors and any edit I might make would be immediately reversed, even if extensively documented, even if what the article contains is obviously incomplete or even if it was wrong. I had problems with photos. I would upload an aerial photograph, and I would have people in other countries wanting me to drop what I was doing and put it on commons. I was still learning how the mechanics of everything worked, and I was getting discouraged and really didn't want to try to learn anything new anymore like figuring out a commons account.

Apparently, there is an hierarchy of contributors and editors in WP, and a higher status allows you higher powers in the WP universe. Apparently, you build status and gain new powers by building statistics on pages you create and edit and on the pages that you delete and edits you reverse. Apparently, if I created a new page, there is an army of people out there looking for something to delete trying to build brownie points by tearing down anything (regardless of its quality or potential for quality) that would essentially wipe out anything I tried to contribute. Sometimes the pages would be deleted or 'nominated for deletion' within a few seconds of being posted. I found that instead of building a framework of pages that could be added to and edited back and forth to produce a quality collection of articles on a subject, I had to completely author a 5,000 word essay on the subject fully referenced and complete with photos on a subject that nobody else claimed as their territory, or the article would be deleted. Or I would be sucked into a quasi-flame war under a timelimit to 'defend' my contribution after it had been nominated for deletion. I found that the only way I was going to be a success with this was to become completely engulfed in it, spending serious time composing an entire series of articles before attempting to make any of them live, and gaining enough brownie points (or whatever) to have enough status to be taken seriously. It was almost like I was playing World of Warcraft in some sort of competition with people that were making their bones by tearing down anything I was trying to build.

I did manage to get a couple of pages authored and done extensively enough to stick. I just looked at one on Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions, a very esoteric backwater of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice having to do with regulation of real estate appraisers. It was an article that nobody should have any heartburn about, and it was originally intended to be one of around 100 or 150 pages on real estate valuation and appraisal that would be strongly interlinked with each other. I never bothered to attempt to write any of the other pages, so there are probably no other pages out there that will ever refer to this page. And guess what. There is a banner on this page now that says something about 'This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available.' Do you want to know what my response is to that? . . . . . fuck you.

I am doing this as a volunteer. My compensation is the joy of doing it and the satisfaction of creating something that might be useful to somebody else. If I have to compete with a bunch of 'Wikipedia Jocks' and 'Jockettes' in some sort of status structure, I'm not going to participate. It's just not fun anymore, and it is not MY mission to get any of this done.

KTrimble (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Very relevantg points and well communicated. I feel your pain and am not sure what the answer is.  Not even sure what "side" I am on.TCO (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Checking in on you.
Hi there, I wanted to see if your transition was going easier. If you need help just buzz Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been attempting a rewrite of the article you deleted. I don't have all the references added and cleaned up yet. I expect to ask to have it reinstated in another week or so.  You can check it out at User:KTrimble/Sandbox/Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions and let me know if I am on the right track.  Thanks  KTrimble (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The section that deals with USPAP Development and Reporting Requirements can be pared down considereably specifically where you specifically reference * Standard 1: Real Property Appraisal, Development[22] * Standard 4: Real Property Consulting, Development[23] * Standard 6, Mass Appraisal, Development and Reporting[24] * Standard 7, Personal Property Appraisal, Development[25] * Standard 9, Business Appraisal, Development[26] Maybe you can reduce the bullets and make one string of sources. You might also pare down the examples. These are only my opinions and others may differ but I think you are making a headway. By way of small worldness, I see you're from Branson Mo. My family lives in Neveda MO and Lamar MO. I myself am in Colo. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point I am not trying to create the perfect article, only one that won't be deleted and will survive to be revised and edited by other appraisers.


 * Also, the redlinks mostly refer to articles that I hope to write later. I may remove the red links in this article until they are written, if I write them.


 * BTW, I do a lot of work in Joplin, though I think I've only done one job in Nevada in the past ten years. Love to know more KTrimble (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if You've meet the Leers or the Digheros in Nevada they are my family. As far as the article they have a template for too many redlinks. Just keep a listing and add them as you go, or not it didn't appear to be excessive. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done.
I think you need to add your refs and you have an article that can survive. You'd have my vote on this one at least! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. It's a lot clearer from the new text that this is about concepts of particular relevance to real estate appraisals, and the business about Bobby Kennedy and God is just being used as an analogy.  Still wants a better title, one that makes it clear that the subject is real estate and not various sorts of hypothetical or conditional statements in philosophy or linguistics.  What that should be, I am not sure. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions are both assumptions with a minor distinction between the two that impacts a reporting requirement under USPAP in the US, so they almost have to be treated together. In almost every textbook on the subject and in every course or seminar on the subject, they are almost always discussed together. In fact I think that the Appraisal Institute has one of their mini-seminars structured around just recognizing the distinction between the two. If you write a separate article about each, which is what I originally tried to do, the two articles would be mirror images of each other and would refer back and forth to each other. They really need to be treated in one article. (I am not sure whether a separate article is required for General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions.) I agree, the title sucks, but I think it really is the best one for the subject matter, though I am not sure of whether all the words should be capitalized or not.

I would like to know how to revert this back to a live article. I would like to write other articles on related subjects that would refer out of this one and refer back to this. Thanks KTrimble (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just boldly went ahead and moved it back into main space as Extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions. I also rewrote the opening sentence, mostly moving around elements to make it as obvious as possible that real estate appraisals are the topic of the article.  If these are technical terms, best for the article to use them but to make it unmistakably clear that they're being used as terms of art in a field.  If in doing so I got something wrong, correct me of course.  I also removed the capitals, which aren't favored under the style manual.


 * For the time being, the user subpage redirects to the article page now. Theoretically, that shouldn't be; but mostly the problem is from redirects out of article space into user space, the other way is less of a problem.  I'll leave it up for the moment so you will be able to find it easier. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Shortening citations
Could you take a look at Citing sources/Example edits for different methods and maybe shorten those repeated references to appraisal standards? Also, look at Citation for a way to standardize the formatting. (I could do it myself, but I think I'd get the formatting wrong somewhere, since I'm not familiar with the works you're citing.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Photos
Thanks for the awesome photos of the College of the Ozarks and Branson, Missouri. The College photo really hit the nail on the head! Would you mind identifying some the landmarks and orientation on the Branson photo (e.g., "looking from the north" and identifying the "strip"). I was surprised that the strip was not more recognizable. BTW, you sent me a list of your photos would you mind posting one of The Shepherd of the Hills tower on that article? Your photos are quite nice. Sorry I didn't respond earlier but I only had limited computer time in the past couple weeks. Thanks again! Americasroof (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Taum Sauk photo
Thanks for adding that that aerial photo of the Taum Sauk plant construction. I think it's a great addition to the article, and I enjoy poring over the details at full resolution. I have an inordinate amount of unexplained interest in that topic, witnessed by the fact that I started the article and created most of the non-disaster images for it.

I wonder if while in the area you picked up any photos that would clearly illustrate the damage to the forests by the May 8 2009 storm. I noticed in this picture what appears to be an area of large trees on the hillside that are all laying down the same way. I don't know if that's from the storm, but it's not really suitable to illustrate the storm article anyway. I drove through there in August and saw several areas areas that suffered severe damage and just wonder if you happened to capture any of that.

Could I also ask you to think about uploading your pictures to Wikimedia Commons? That makes them available to all Wikimedia projects, most particularly to the foreign language Wikipedias that have versions of many of the articles that are in the English Wikipedia. The same images usually serve to illustrate an article regardless of the language of the writing, but keeping the images on en.wikipedia.org makes that difficult to do. I hope you take it as a compliment that I value in your pictures enough to want them more widely available. You can make your login common across all Wikimedia projects so when you log into one you're logged into all, which makes it that much easier. It also keeps someone else from creating a KTrimble account on another project... if they haven't already. You could upload new pictures to Commons and your others on the English Wikipedia could be moved over by yourself of by others on an as-needed basis (which can actually happen without you creating an account there).

Thanks. --Kbh3rd talk 22:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I took this photo along with a few others while flying between Branson and Farmington last Sunday. I was showing a friend how easy it was to edit Wikipedia.  About all I took was of a few lakes and some random shots of the woods.  You can look at these photos at http://www.marritza.com/Archive/Photos/indextestarea.php?Project_Search=Doug+Edens+Nov+2009  If there is anything there that you think might be useful, let me know and I will upload it.


 * As for Wikipedia Commons, I am learning this in bits and pieces. My first few attempts at edits brought responses that almost ran me out, and I haven't done much since then.  So far, all of the photos that I have uploaded have been for my own use in articles that I write or otherwise edit.  I will eventually figure out commons and move everything there.  KTrimble (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Branson Airport 9-26-009 by KTrimble.jpg
Hi Kelly! I transferred File:Branson Airport 9-26-009 by KTrimble.jpg to commons since we need it in de.wikipedia. Is the photo really from "7000 msl" - looks more like 700 meters over ground or something like that. Could you please answer me on my de.wikipedia talk page - I am not frequently here. Cheers --Saibo ( Δ ) 17:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Gruß Saibo, mein Deutsch ist schlecht, aber ich werde es trotzdem versuchen. Das Foto wurde bei 7000 Meter über dem mittleren Meeresspiegel getroffen. Der Flughafen liegt etwa 1.000 Meter über dem Meeresspiegel, so dass das Foto auf 6000 Fuß Höhe über dem Boden, oder etwa 1.825 Meter über dem Boden. KTrimble (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Auch ich habe noch versucht, nichts in den WP-Common zu tun. Sie sind willkommen, alles zu bringen, das Sie benötigen. KTrimble (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, your German isn't that bad. Nevertheless, feel free to talk in English.
 * Your response was fast, too. :) I understand now: It's 7000 feet msl. Sorry - I am so used to meters that I haven't thought of feet. Also because I tought msl stands for meters over sea level. I made the corrections in commons:File:Branson Airport 9-26-009 by KTrimble.jpg. Could you please check if it is correct now? Viele Grüße --Saibo ( Δ ) 19:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons help
Just answer me here, if you like, I will check sometimes now. I saw that you do not have a SUL (Single User Login) account yet. this, for example, is mine - see all the different wikipedia versions. If you also had one you could easily edit in all wikipedia versions and commons without having to login there first. I guess this was also a problem regarding your commons difficulties in the talk section above. Please see Help:Unified_login to get this activated. After doing so, it will be easy to upload new photos to commons. Photos in commons can be used directly by all Wikipedia language versions. Cheers --Saibo ( Δ ) 20:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Clark Taney Co Airport 6-1-09 by KTrimble.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BransonLogobyKTforUserBox1.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:BransonLogobyKTforUserBox1.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add permission pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 04:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)