User talk:Wingerham52

Welcome!
Hello, Wingerham52, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562580210 your edit] to National Register of Historic Places listings in Muskegon County, Michigan may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * |image= File:Horatio N. Hovey House.jpg

National Register of Historic Places listings in Muskegon County, Michigan
What happened with your edit here? Chris857 (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Benzie County Courthouse


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Benzie County Courthouse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Jinkinson  talk to me  14:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback
00:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Michigan State Historic Sites in Calhoun County, Michigan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bedford Township. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Mackinac County, Michigan
I actually didn't think of Photoshopping two images together - that seems like a good solution. Take a look at the listing now to see what you think - feel free to revert. (There are occasionally more than one distinct building that share a listing; I know of two listings like that in Detroit. Practice so far has been to assign a single representative photo to the "list" article, and try to photograph each in the subject article.) By the way, I really appreciate your uploading all these images. It really fills out the Michigan lists and articles. Andrew Jameson (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Images
The consensus is that larger, more detailed images (and, in general, better quality photos) are preferable to smaller, less detailed, or poorer images. Also, for the most part, present-day images are preferable to older images (like postcards), so long as quality isn't sacrificed.

If you're looking at the list article, I'd go ahead and replace the historic image with the modern one, or replace a poorer quality image with your better one. (Although admittedly sometimes "better quality" is a matter of opinion :)

However, I think that there's a lot of value in having multiple images, particularly historical ones that can be compared or contrasted with present-day photos. For articles on specific buildings, if there's a page with a historic photo, I'd replace it with your current one and move the historic one to later in the page (see Elmwood (Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan), for example). If the picture currently on the page is relatively modern but of poorer quality, I would still move if it shows some details that are not in the new image.

If you want to ask about a specific image substitution, or just gather more general opinions, you umight also ask the same question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. The folks there have thought a lot about images, and it would be pretty easy to get a good consensus. Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michigan Heritage Park (August 12)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michigan Heritage Park and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Michigan_Heritage_Park Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Michigan_Heritage_Park reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added lots of citations (used bing.com to search—much better on this than google.com) and resubmitted. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The underlying problem is that this park is so new that it was difficult to find WP:RS.  A lot of the tourist sources aren't there yet.  And (surprisingly) Google search engine didn't pick up on a lot of them.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * These large group of words in red are word for word, which is not allowed = copyright violation. Reword in your words and try to keep the number in this copyvio tool detector under 30%. Should not have more than 6 words in a row identical word for word. An example would be like my last article. Better to catch this now, before others see it as a live article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would just second what Doug says. Indeed, the problem could be worse.  You can get into a real morass over the question of "close paraphrasing" which is even broader in its application.  So it is just better to be proactive on this, and nip it in the bud.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideally, it would be like my previous article on Chester H. Pond. But if you can get it under 30% for now (by putting it in your words) that would be a good start and probably few complaints from other editors then.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are some more sources you can mull over. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is my uploads on Commons of my pictures. Note at the bottom of each picture is at least one category (many have several). Should have at least one category (i.e. Category:Michigan Heritage Park) for each picture.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And please don't take any of this as a personal criticism. We want the best encyclopedia.  And Earwig is a great tool.  When creating a big article, it is easy to lose the forest for the trees. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 22:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Once the article becomes live, which I think will be soon, then I will submit for a Did You Know nomination. I see this article becoming a Did You Know article and presented on the main page.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice that now on Earwig's Copyvio Detector that there is no group of words that exceed six without names involved. That would be what you are aiming for in any article. Make all wording into your own words. Put Earwig's Copyvio Detector as a shortcut on your desktop so you can use on future articles.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't get the notification, I've accepted the draft. Big thanks to and  for their hard work. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you have been at this park, perhaps you can expand some of these sections that have white space. That would make the article much nicer - thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so much interested in talking about the subject itself, as you are correct that it is covered in the main article in Wikipedia - which I have noted in a "hatnote" at each of the sections. Just interested in a description about the park exhibit itself (how was it constructed, what buildings are there, what is planned for the future, how do the attendees participate in that exhibit site. Like what is in this Up Close article. Perhaps you have a park brochure that describes the exhibits? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand there is a replica mastodon skeleton there. Do you have a picture of it? Any description information?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any pictures of artifacts that were found at the park. I could perhaps use such a picture for the Archeology site section. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any pictures of the park's visitors center?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Michigan Heritage Park

 * Just submitted, now we will wait and see what happens on the DYK nomination.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article and copyedited. That should qualify now as a Did You Know article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to add Template:Did you know nominations/Michigan Heritage Park to your watch list, as well as the article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Multiple article hooks are difficult, as in this 2-in-1 nomination I recently did. A lot of research is involved.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Colonial Williamsburg
Yes, Michigan Heritage Park is a miniature Colonial Williamsburg. I have been there a few times. Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User Page
Suggest to put something on your User Page, then it will go from red to blue. Examples might be that of your past career (assume you are retired), you are a professional photographer, your hobby interest, your education, your main interest. Then others will know a little about you.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent articles
Here are some recent articles I have created --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hartford Electric Light Company
 * Mary-Ann (turbine generator)
 * Woman's World's Fair
 * Shelby Gem Factory
 * Larry Paul Kelley

DYK for Michigan Heritage Park
— Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Emmet County photos
Hi, thanks for all the work you do taking photos in Michigan. I am in awe of what you and Andrew Jameson have done. I've been categorizing several images on Commons, and I noticed you uploaded the same photo for and. I see that for the Jacob Miller House, you overwrote a previous image, which looks like it is the John Kabler House. If you still have a photo of the real Jacob Miller House, please re-upload it, since I have hidden it on the NRHP list article. If you need a refresher, it looks like it has been documented here, and that seems to match Google street view. Thanks again. kennethaw88 • talk 02:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, I messed up on that one. And what gets me is this was right next door to another one. All I had to do is swing my camera and I could have gotten a two-fer. On this trip I took 800 photos. It was a bit overwhelming to process them and get them labeled. I number each stop on a printed copy of the Register, so I don't get them mixed up. I missed this one. I am also doing the pictures for the Michigan Historic Sites also, so I go back and forth between two listings. It always seems I miss a few. In another matter, there are listings on the National and Michigan registers that don't exist. I don't feel it is my place to remove them. For instance, the listing for Fourth Ward Polling Place in Petoskey is now a parking lot. I did a lot of research to verify this address and it is a parking lot.

Wingerham52 (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean. I spent a lot of time looking for . After looking into it some, I have found that you can report demolished-but-still-listed buildings here, although I haven't edited it yet, myself. kennethaw88 • talk 21:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Overwritten picture on Commons
Hi, I noticed at you overwrote the original file with a different image of the same church. Was your intention to have the old image be deleted and not used again? If you're ok with using both images, it would be nice if you could let someone know, or re-upload it yourself. If someone re-uploads the old image under a new file name, that just means an extra image to use at Commons, and they love having extra images there. Hope to hear back! kennethaw88 • talk 05:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I posted that picture like 3 years ago. I don't remember overwriting any picture. I have only done that once to replace a picture from a postcard and I received permission from Andrew Jameson to do so. I have well over 500 pictures on historical buildings on Wikipedia. I have pretty much got them all in the area I covered. I have not contributed to this heading in well over a year.

98.243.116.61 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Pix!
It's great to see you adding more pictures - getting those last few that are difficult to access are way harder that getting the first ones. I kind of thought no one would ever get that Sugar Island one. To answer your question, I think that generally folks prefer photos that are (a) high resolution (b) contemporary (c) color, (d) well lit, and (e) well composed (f) that show any architectural detail. Generally, seeing your work, I would think what you have would be better than older images currently there. A 100-year-old half-constructed building picture is better than nothing, but shouldn't prevent someone from subbing in a new picture that's better yet.

Still, there could be the occasional older or lower resolution image that might be preferable because it highlights some important detail of a particular structure. Even in this case, though, it's not that big a deal for another editor to simply re-substitute the older picture if they like. However, I understand your preference to respect the first post. If you want to be extra-cautiously polite, you could include an edit summary saying something like "I have substituted in a newer image. If the older one is preferable, please feel free to revert." I can't imagine anyone would object to that.

[Note edited in later: I can't imagine anyone would object to that in the context of an image of a NRHP building in a list article, or in the infobox of an article on a single property. If someone's putting together a more complex article that depends on specific, curated pictures, that may be different. The NRHP pix are generally intended to be "the best we can get."]

One other thing to note is that in articles on individual properties (as opposed to list articles) it's always nice to have multiple images, so that's a good place to keep both older and newer images.

I'm curious about images that you took that were removed - as long as you took them yourself, gave them the proper licence when uploading, and took them legally (i.e., weren't trespassing), I don't think they should have been removed. (Although I admit I might misunderstand something.) Andrew Jameson (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

A couple of answers...
1. For those Michigan sites that are on the National Register, almost all of the documentation is online at the National Archives. For the sites that are state-of-Michigan listed only, there used to be a paragraph's worth of information online, but the state took it offline a few years ago, and it seems to only exist in the Online Archive. However, I have actually had success in the past emailing the MSHPO and asking for documentation, so if you're just looking for a few sites, that might be an option.

1a. What sites are you looking for specifically? I've been able to find the location of almost everything I've looked for, so I might be able to help with specific things.

2. The NRHP lists are updated every week by some of the folks at WP:NRHP. I don't think the lists of Michigan Historic Sites is updated, though. The Grand Haven Historic District, for example, appears on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Ottawa County, Michigan but not the List of Michigan State Historic Sites in Ottawa County. Note, though, that being de-listed does not occur automatically if a building is demolished. De-listing requires an official action on the part of the MSHPO, and they seem to rarely bother doing so.

3. Yes, the Douglas House and the Hartwick Memorial Building are exactly where new images are great. The old pictures are still useful (note I kept them in the individual articles) but the newer pictures are better.

4. Yes, multiple pictures are absolutely great. The commonscat is a good methodology - I think it's pretty easy to implement, but unfortunately I don't really know anything about it. A ton of other editors do, though - as a suggestion, you could ask User:Agathoclea I don't know him/her at all, but I notice that s/he adds commonscats to NHHP lists all the time. Instead of or in addition to, you could choose to add images to a gallery when there's an article on an individual property. See the Hartwick Memorial Building, for example, or the Ardis Furnace (randomly picking one).

5. If you like, you could scan through Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Michigan. I suspect the category isn't always promptly updated, so some articles listed there may already have photos, but it would be a good place to start. Andrew Jameson (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding your question about who keeps these pages updated: for the State Historic Sites, no one really. The Wikipedia articles were created all at once based on the MSHPO website as it existed in 2011 (which Andrew linked above). When the site went down in ~2014, it was only up to date through about 2006 anyway. So the current articles are way behind, and certainly lots more sites have been promoted. What I've found useful is http://michmarkers.com, which keeps track of all the State Historical sites with physical markers. There's a link to "Recent Additions" you could look through to find more things to photograph. And of course, anything promoted since 2006 would be new for Wikipedia, anyway. kennethaw88 • talk 04:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Commonscat in the list template works quite simple. It points to the category on commons that hosts the pictures of one particular object. Just create that category when you upload your bunch of pictures if it does not exist already and move other existing pictures from the parent categories into there. When creating such categories check its sister categories for how it is placed in the category tree. Important also to add the NRHP template on at least the category, better also on the pictures. This is incidentally how I find the pictures and commoncats to add to the lists. Agathoclea (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Mysteries!
Ooo, I love mysteries. The first two are mighty obscure, but I have a good guess as to what's going on (although I'm not certain by any means). The third one's easy


 * Whipple's Castle is at 389 N. Main in Casnovia. Google Maps isn't quite accurate, but Bing maps shows a pretty substantial building at that location. It's set far back from the road, is shielded by a number of hedgerows, and is right next door to a smaller contemporary house (which is what I assume you saw).


 * Big Prairie Grange No. 935 Hall is at 1968 Elm Avenue. Google Maps again doesn't do a very good job of locating it (Bing does). In any case, the Big Prairie Community Church, at the corner of Elm and 20th, has an address of 1988 Elm, so the Grange Hall should be right next door. As it appears to be: There's a building right behind the church which appears to currently be a church annex. That's where the grange should be, and the building there is the right shape to be a grange hall - it doesn't look historic, though so it could be a replacement building, or it could be rehab that destroyed the historic integrity.


 * The Ramona Park Hotel in Harbor Springs, according to this book, has been demolished. Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply
Hi! Lemmee see if I can do my best to answer your questions.

1. I've uploaded a picture of the wrong building before, too. I've found that the folks on Wiki Commons are pretty reluctant to delete pictures or blank information, but would prefer to rename the picture and put in the right info, which seems like a reasonable compromise. In other words, ask someone to rename the "Warren Shephard House" (for example) as "House at 308 Riverside Drive Battle Creek MI" or "House on Riverside Drive" or something like that, and then make sure the correct info is in the description (which may be just "House at 308 Riverside Drive Battle Creek MI") with no reference to the incorrect Nation Register listing or anything.

2. To contact an administrator on Commons, I think you can just ask for help at the Administrator's noticeboard; even if that's not the right place, they can tell you exactly where to go, so I think it'd be a good place to start. Or pick an administrator from the list.

3. To set up a commonscat, it's a three-step process. First, create a new category (type Category:This is a New Category into the search box, and it will give you the option to create the page. For content, take a look at, for example, the "Marshall, Michigan Historic District" category on Commons, which has the NRHP template, an infobox, and other categories. Then for each picture in the category, ad (for example) to the bottom of its page, and the pic will show up in the new category. Then, you can add the commonscat tag to the appropriate page.

4. If you're having difficulty finding a particular location, there are a couple of resources. If it's in Michigan listed on the NRHP, the nomination form is published through the National Archives, and can be accessed at this link. Search for the appropriate refnum (01000653 for the Roosevelt Community House) and you can download the form. Warning! These forms can be anywhere from 5 to 250 MB in size, so if you have a slow connection, be prepared to wait. The forms will always have a picture, which is good for double-checking, and almost always a detailed map. It often has text information that might help locate it, if for example the building has been renamed. For the Roosevelt Community House, the map shows it located on Evergreen Road, south of the erroneous geo-coordinates, and north of where Googlemaps places it, and calls it the "American Legion Hospital". I checked on Googlemaps, and it looks like it might be demolished :(

5. Which leads to another point, It's not uncommon that buildings are hard to find because they simply aren't there anymore. I've had some success finding information (on locations and existence) in local history books available on Google Books, and sometimes on websites of local history organizations. Occasionally, however, I simply can't find any information at all on a structure, and am forced to conclude it's probably gone, but I don't know. If you have some specific buildings, please ley me know and I'll try researching them (I actually enjoy that).

Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Non-Free Use Images
Wiki Commons will only accept images that are free licensed, meaning they're either licensed for free use by their creator (you), or they're public domain for whatever reason. If you've found images that were published in the past, but were not copyrighted, or the copyright has expired (a lot of postcards fall into this category, for example), then they can be uploaded onto Commons with the appropriate Public Domain rationale.

If you have an image that you simply can't trace, and can't show where it's published (and thus don't know it's copyright status), then Commons will not accept it. I have had some success in the past (nowhere near 100%) with finding an unattributed image on the internet somewhere and tracking down the actual attribution and therefore copyright status. If you've got an example, maybe I can help (maybe, but sounds fun).

The other option is that you may be able to upload an image of unknown copyright status here onto the English Wikipedia rather than Commons, under a "fair use" rationale (see WP:FU for more info). Meeting the fair use criteria is a pretty high bar, so I'd recommend you contact an Administrator with some experience if you actually want to do this. However, my understanding is that non-free images may be used in circumstances where no free image is available, or can be created. For buildings that have been demolished, clearly no new images can be created. So, as long as there are no other, free images available (which takes some effort to show), this is a pretty good category for a fair use rationale. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply
1. If you have a better location for the Ernest Hemingway Cottage, go ahead and stick it in. I've seen in the past that the earliest properties listed on the Register (those listed pre-1974 or so) have a much greater tendency to have erroneous coordinates. That wasn't to obscure the actual location (the Register has an "Address Restricted" option for those cases), but (I think) because the geo-coordinates were rounded off. 2. I'm really not sure how to find state of Michigan historic listings. The state used to have a nice website with all the historic site listings, but then they stopped updating it, and then they pulled it off the web and never replaced it :( I would suggest that you ask the MI SHPO, but since you've already done that, I'm stumped. It does seem like there ought to be an archive of this material in Lansing, and the Archives of Michigan is a good place to start, but I don't tknow any more than that. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Photos
I think these photos may be OK, if tagged properly, because they are (almost certainly) public domain. If the documentation for these photos was not marked with a copyright (or later registered, which will never happen for something like this), and the documentation was published prior to 1989, the photos are public domain. See the licensing tag, for example, on.

You said you have photos of the documentation? If you can check the date of the forms, and if they're labelled as copyrighted (they won't be). Then put the correct date on Commons, and the correct licensing tag (probably, as on the 314 West King file) and it should be OK, unless it's from after 1989. Andrew Jameson (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Kinross Township Hall and School
Hi! About the Kinross Township Hall and School, it looks to me like the building image in the article is actually the Township Hall, but with major modifications. Comparing the Google Maps image and the, the buildings have the same roofline and window spacing. The "new" building just has an added porch and a strange addition to the front. I'm not 100% positive that the buildings are the same, but it seems pretty likely. Andrew Jameson (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what you saw with the Kinross Township Hall. Was the building missing at some point? The modern-looking building pictured is located in exactly the same place that the original township hall was located, per the NRHP (nomination form here). The modern structure looks like it has the same footprint, window size and placement, and roofline - it just has a wraparound porch and a front atrium glued onto the exterior (which, granted, completely destroys the historic integrity). That's not definitive, but it seems weird that someone would buy the old township hall, demolish it, and construct something of the same size and shape in its place. Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I deleted the proposed deletion on this page - it's not really appropriate to delete the article based on the image. If you like, I would suggest asking the folks at WT:NRHP for their opinion on the appropriate way to approach the image and article. Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a discussion section at Talk:Kinross Township Hall and School to discuss the image. Please add any thoughts you have. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Michigan State Historic Sites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thompson ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_Michigan_State_Historic_Sites check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_Michigan_State_Historic_Sites?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Vacant lot pics
For vacant lot pics (like the Donald Mackinnon house you mention), my thought is that an image of the location of the building is still relevant to the building itself, because (1) it still shows the context of the building, and (2) if you went to visit the building, then that's what you'd see. I don't feel strongly about it, though, and I don't think everyone agrees with me. An image of the actual building is still preferable, though. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Photo requests
Hello again. Great job on all the photos. If you have the chance, I wonder if you could photograph a few more places in west Michigan.

The Gerald R. Ford Federal Building at 110 Michigan Street NW in Grand Rapids would be nice to have at List of United States federal courthouses in Michigan. Also there are several county courthouses which are more modern and don't appear on any historical lists, but would be nice to have them documented:
 * Allegan County: 113 Chestnut Street, Allegan (also has a Historical Marker)
 * Lake County: 800 Tenth Street, Baldwin
 * Manistee County: 415 3rd Street, Manistee
 * Mecosta County: 400 East Elm Street, Big Rapids
 * Muskegon County: 990 Terrace Street, Muskgeon
 * Newaygo County: 1092 Newell Street, White Cloud
 * Oceana County: 100 South State Street, Hart
 * Osceola County: 301 West Upton Street, Reed City

By the way, thanks for photographing the Frank E. Cooley House. I never thought to look for that since its original address is gone now. kennethaw88 • talk 06:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Michigan church photos
Thanks for all the Michigan landmark photos you've added to Wikimedia Commons. At some point, it would be great if you could add photographs to fill in some of the image gaps at any of the following that may be of interest: Regards, Cbl62 (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit
 * List of churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Gaylord
 * List of churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids
 * List of churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kalamazoo
 * List of churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lansing
 * List of churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Marquette
 * List of churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Saginaw

Grand Rapids church photos
Wow! Thanks so much for adding all the photos at List of churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids. Great work! Cbl62 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)