![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There's no prohibition on linking to redlinked articles in body text, but there is an absolute rule against applying redlinked categories, especially when the redlink is the only category on the page. The problem is that when you're doing a batch run in AWB, it's not really possible to make a complex "do Thing A to some articles, do Thing B to some other articles" rule instead, nor is there any easy way to check every non-existing category to see if it's just misspelled. Really, the only thing one can do, when working with the uncategorized articles list, is to either tag everything or go through the entire list manually — and I'm not about to do the latter on a day when the list has almost 600 articles on it. Bearcat ( talk) 17:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry S. Baird, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Henry S. Baird, the first lawyer in territorial Wisconsin, bought a small Greek Revival former land office building to serve as his law office (pictured) as he felt its style befit his position? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 20:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baird Law Office, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Henry S. Baird, the first lawyer in territorial Wisconsin, bought a small Greek Revival former land office building to serve as his law office (pictured) as he felt its style befit his position? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 20:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This comment, particularly "So whatever he states, with or without supporting proof, should basically be disregarded," is not acceptable. Please re-read WP:No personal attacks, if you've forgotten the substance there. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I came across an article about Hickory Hill in McLean, Virginia. Robert&Ethel Kennedy lived there with their family and before them US Justice Robert Jackson. Apparently, Hickory Hill was nominated for a National Register of Historic Places designation. You might be interested in the article. Thanks- RFD ( talk) 22:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
-- Kumioko ( talk) 04:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be interested in doing some occasional stubbing. Haven't looked at Connecticut recently, but I'll try to look more into it when I have some time. I just saw there was a big debate about using a bot on the NRHP talk page. Of course, I'm fully supportive, and that would allowus all more time to categorize and improve articles if they were all created efficiently. I was thinking about stubbing some churches in the States in the Deep South or Mid West at some point. That's great you can copy and paste basic articles from the talk page there in Connecticut. That should really help with article creation and elimination of redlinks. Swampyank ( talk) 06:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
What does Davenport MRA mean? CTJF83 chat 18:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm starting the split up :) CTJF83 19:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
See my talk page for an update to the discussion on coordinates. Good luck with all your efforts! -- The Anome ( talk) 22:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Question... does the new citation (<ref name="nris">{{NRISref|version=2009a}}</ref>) link to a working on line version of the database, or does it cite the database without a link? Blueboar ( talk) 14:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Something impelled me to split off the City of Milwaukee from the County. So now there are 2 lists. User:Freekee had requested on the talkpage in April that somebody do this. He wasn't around to help, but I think I've got it. Another set of eyes to recheck never hurts though. 165 + 62 = 227 Smallbones ( talk) 05:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I know that you are aware of WP:NPA, but it appears to me that you are stepping over the line in some of your recent comments at User talk:Polaron#unsourced CDP info. Please try to limit your comments to substantive discussion of the issues related to Wikipedia editing, and refrain from personalizing the discussion or making personal accusations. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Kudos for this comment. -- Orlady ( talk) 19:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You've got newer e-mail. Lvklock ( talk) 21:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It's been done. Feast your eyes. :o -- Ebyabe ( talk) 02:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Doris (Sailing yacht) at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
PM800 (
talk)
18:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
That was about Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 50, where i have replied. Trial run looks great there. -- do ncr am 16:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Doncram. I continue to appreciate your enthusiasm for creating articles about National Register properties, but it doesn't justify creating articles about topics for which there is no information. I just stumbled upon Roaring Brook sites, BOC Site, and Selden Island Site (a stub that you didn't create). These are three archeological sites with undisclosed locations, all based on the same study report. There are links to online documents, but all of those links point to placeholders -- none of the documents exist online. Bottom line is that there's nothing of substance in any of those three articles. The articles wasted my time by making me click on links that don't work. IMO, it was premature to create these three articles, as there is nothing in them that cannot be fully documented in the county NRHP lists. What do you say to deleting them? -- Orlady ( talk) 17:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
How about a single article for all 36 or so sites in the thematic resource? These are all archeological sites from the same time period and the same general locale. Having separate articles is indeed an invitation for people to find as much information on them, including their location. -- Polaron | Talk 20:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess this means that you won't consider it rude behavior on my part if I take these articles to AfD. I was trying to be respectful by discussing them here instead of going to that sort of forum. -- Orlady ( talk) 04:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the DYK nom and will comment on what you brought up on the talk page. Candy o32 - Happy New Year :) 19:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to try to fix that one, because looking at the history, I'm not completely sure what happened, so I'll leave it for someone else to get. I'm going to restore my hatnote for Start Me Up, though, because I honestly thought that was the article that belonged here. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 06:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Clinton Historical Society has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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.
RoninBK
T
C
11:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doncram, I've added back the Nichols Farms Historic District's Villages in CT cat as it is a CT village and having a seperate article wouldn't make much sense. I was wondering what is the thought process behind these edits? Best, Markvs88 ( talk) 14:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you refactored the requested move discussion at Talk:Blue Hills (Bloomfield), probably due to some frustration that it hasn't closed yet. I sympathize, but I suggest that you un-refactor it. If you look at WP:RM, you will see that there is a huge backlog, which explains why this one hasn't closed. Based on my experience with having closed some contentious RM discussions there, I think that your refactoring is likely to backfire -- it may delay the closing by making things harder for the closing admin. (By rearranging the discussion and adding to its length, you are making it more difficult to review the discussion history.) Moreover, I see no purpose in relisting that one, as it's had plenty of attention relative to the typical RM, and relisting would likely add at least a month to the process. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.-- Kumioko ( talk) 02:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I just wanted to let you know that there is already an existing article for The Katharine Hepburn Cultural Arts Center that may or may not need to be merged with your new Old Saybrook Town Hall and Theater article. In both the articles current forms, a merge seems to make sense but I'll leave the editorial decision to you. They should probably point to each other if they're going to stay separate. -- Polaron | Talk 21:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know who your new friends are. LOL. -- Orlady ( talk) 03:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Jack E. Boucher does fit in pretty well with WP:NHRP. It's not a great article in that there aren't many references, but the tone is straightforward and the article is informative, even authoritative. If you could find references with TEXT to Boucher it would be a great improvement. Also, it appears that User: Jack E. Boucher wrote about half the article [1], but "don't bite the newbies!" Smallbones ( talk) 15:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Woodburn, Midlothian is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodburn, Midlothian until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:NHLsmlegend has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
134.253.26.10 (
talk)
23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 14 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prudence Crandall House, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Prudence Crandall School for Negro Girls operated in a Canterbury, Connecticut, mansion (pictured) until mob violence led to its closure? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edits are all available in the article history at Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee). (See 10 January.) -- Orlady ( talk) 04:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Don, Why did you unilaterally move Carroll County Court House (New Hampshire) to a less concise title [2]. I've started a discussion on this here: Talk:Carroll_County_Court_House_(Ossipee,_New_Hampshire)#Article_moved_unilaterally_without_justification, but, for the record, any move of an article to a less concise title should be considered potentially controversial and therefore should go through WP:RM. Please don't make potentially controversial moves without going through WP:RM again. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Don, this comment is strictly about your behavior which is why I'm making it on your talk page rather than on the guideline talk page from whence it stems. You are again displaying behavior that suggestions violations of WP:OWN when you make statements like, "you want now to begin to butt in on the disambiguation of U.S. historic places, like you have butted in on Connecticut neighborhood names,..." [3]. No editor has more business making these decisions than any other. There is no such thing as "butting in" in Wikipedia. These are not private matters.
Please restrict your comments on guideline pages to the matter at hand. Objections about behavior, like this one, do not belong there. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This is what you meant to do. Right?-- intelati talk 01:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There was almost certainly no great thought behind the redirect from East Kingston to the town in New Hampshire. It was simply a redirect created on March 30, 2004, at a time when both articles were bot-created uncategorized stubs. I'm a little shocked that there's been no move to fix this for nearly 7 years, not even with a hat note. (Only a little shocked because I trip across stuff like this a few times each week.) So I've created the sorely-needed disambiguation page. I have to wonder how many of the cities for which there is a redirect from the city name to the city, state article are improperly disambiguated in this manner. - Dravecky ( talk) 18:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doncram. I noticed on this edit you added a notation that the Main Street Bridge (Daytona Beach, Florida) is on the RHP. Do you have this referenced some place? I live in Daytona Beach and am interested in documenting this furthur, but have been unsuccessful in finding sources so far. Thank you for your help. Gamweb ( talk) 19:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to say that you did some great work on Doris - I hadn't heard of her before, but it was great to see an article, and she sounds like a fine boat.
I've been trying to track down a photo, but I've been unsuccessful so far. I'll keep trying, though - maybe I'll be lucky. - Bilby ( talk)
Hey Doncram, I wanted to get your thoughts on the idea above. The Connecticut wine article is such a tiny stub and it seems like any expansion of the CT wine trail article will naturally include some overlapping content since pretty much every Connecticut winery is featured on the trail. The wine project have merged other wine trail articles into the main region article before since it tends to provide more context for the reader. But since you've expressed an interest in working for the CT article, I wanted to get your thoughts on the idea. Agne Cheese/ Wine 04:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Greystone needs a cleanup. Thanks. Station1 ( talk) 06:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 18 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Doris (Sailing yacht), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Doris, a large racing yacht built in 1905, led the 1932 Bermuda Race until light winds undercut its advantages? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I just finished writing Elm Bluff Plantation and thought that you might be interested in this place with New York connections. Its not on the NRHP or even the Alabama Register and is slowly falling to the ground. I visited it two years ago, had to walk 1/2 a mile through the woods each way, but just got around to writing something here about it. Hope you are well! Altair isfar 23:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the request for a source regarding the demolition of Weizer Building (8935 Buckeye Road, Cleveland, Ohio):
I know that we're not supposed to be doing original research here. Fair enough. My statement that the building was demolished is just that - I've personally observed that the structure isn't there. Can you think of a way that I might cite this?
Christopher Busta-Peck | Talk 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you see anything wrong with citing Google Maps Streetview? Christopher Busta-Peck | Talk 15:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a note of appreciation... I applaud your recent work on "chartifying" the List of Masonic buildings. I am especially pleased that you are including historical information in the "description" column designed to establish the extent of the Masonic association (as you know, I think that is an important issue). Your edits are moving the article much closer to how I envision it should be. Thanks. Blueboar ( talk) 17:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I saw your AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) and reformatted it as a multi-article nomination, to include all the other similar articles that you listed in it. If you've identified more that should be included, I suggest that you add them, too -- to address the whole collection in a single consolidated discussion. To do that, tag the articles with {{subst:afd1|St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)}} and list them in the AfD using the "la" template (i.e., :{{la|Somebody's Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut)}}).
Seems like a worthwhile AfD nomination. I haven't expressed an opinion in that AfD yet because I haven't looked into the status of special notability guidelines for religion articles, nor have I searched for other sources. Right now, I expect that most or all of the list should be deleted, but SNGs or sources could change my mind... -- Orlady ( talk) 05:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed a change to the mission statement of WikiProject United States at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Mission statement for WikiProject United States and would welcome your views. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 13:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see you leave the project and I hope you decide to return. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help facilitate that! -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I renemed to the previous name, which was changed. I can accept format (City, State) as location description, but not switching Parish <=> Church. Once more. The Parish is the area, and the church is the building. The article is about the parish. -- WlaKom ( talk) 12:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been asked by James Russiello to comment on this mass AfD. I am a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, and have participated in many deletion discussions. Sometimes I have improved articles, sometimes I have limited myself to Keep, or Delete, or Comment entries, and sometimes I have just let events happen without my participation.
I have never participated in a mass AfD before. Please explain to me the process. Suppose, for example, I review some of the church building articles, and find ways to improve them with history, or controversy, or something else. On the other hand, some articles I find not to be particularly notable at all. Should every church in Connecticut be on Wikipedia? I am not so sure of that, and I would not try to make it so.
What I have done is to review the three churches in New York City and add sources, and perhaps make improvements, and reserve judgment on the many Connecticut churches.
What I would like to learn from you is whether the result of a mass AfD can be to Keep in a few instances, Delete in some instances, and perhaps not reach a consensus on others? Is it all or nothing, or by particulars, or what?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 22:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. Your requests for mass deletions don't meet Wikipedia requirement and can be treated as the act of vandalism. Please remove all you requests. Of course, if you repeat such disruptive actions i will seek to have you blocked from editing in Wikipedia. -- WlaKom ( talk) 10:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads ( talk) 00:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Nyttend ( talk) 01:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Please note my request, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)#One list needed and comment or volunteer to make a list. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
| Wag more, bark less, Don't bite. |
Brown House needs cleanup. Station1 ( talk) 18:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Heya. It's been a while since we've talked! I had a (what's hopefully a quick) question: Why would Alhambra Theatre (Sacramento) be listed here and here but not on the official list? I was tipped off by the message that Elkman's generator gave ("Note: This property may not actually be listed on the National Register - listing code is RN"). I'm not quite sure what RN means. Killiondude ( talk) 07:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Please stop claiming that moving unnecessarily disambiguated articles to a name that was previously a red link is move warring and please stop associating renames to the misguided AFD you proposed. Anyone could have undone the moves and created the needed disambiguation pages if there were name conflicts. As I said, if there is an article on a topic with some name, that name has to be one of three things: the article title, a redirect to the article, or a disambiguation page. You cannot leave a name a red link if there is at least one Wikipedia article that exists with that name. There is nothing controversial about this notion. Would it be reasonable for me to assume that you think I'm here only to vandalize Wikipedia? If so, then I will respond to you appropriately. 71.21.81.61 ( talk) 18:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Polaron, I am not going to argue this out here with you, but I will note that Polaron's statement here is misleading. I state clearly my objections to Polaron's adversarial moves of numerous Connecticut church articles in User talk:Polaron#random moves of Connecticut church articles and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive667#Polaron moving articles and creating redirects. Polaron, despite numerous recent requests that he use the Requested Move service rather than make contentious moves, and despite specific request that he cease making moves of those CT church articles, responded to those requests by expanding the set of disputed articles by moving more. Given further request, he expanded the scope further by moving more. It was only with the ANI report that he ceased making moves of those articles. Actually i noticed at least one further move, and maybe there were more that i have not yet noticed. The move warring engaged by Polaron was the moves of multiple articles, all generally of the same type, where the type of move was specifically disputed. It has since been pretty well established by side discussion in the AFD and its Talk page and elsewhere, that all other editors regard all of those moves by Polaron moves as having been unhelpful.
- It complicated the AFD discussion that the articles were moved to bad names, and it complicated it that Polaron's contentious editing style was interferring with the articles. Polaron repeatedly sets a bad example and escalates contention, in this arena where there are new editors watching. It complicates matters because it is hard to be appropriately negative and cut Polaron's shenanigans off quickly, without dismaying the new editors who should not have to be involved.
- Polaron's assertion here on this Talk page is meant to be misleading, to assert that he was not involved in contentious moves, merely on the technicality that there were not repeated moves back and forth on any one article. The scope of the battleground was being defined by Polaron to include all CT church articles, or some such huge arena. A further waste of our time, to consider the cleverness or not of Polaron's misleading suggestion that he was not engaging in disruption. I probably will not comment further. -- do ncr am 17:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Note the nature of the AfD (expired) and the tag at the top (closing). Could you please try to avoid commenting? It's in the formal close process, and I'm going to have to disregard any comments made after this anyway. The fact that you have asked for more time for discussion does not mean that more discussion will automatically take place, nor does it exempt the AfD from the standard closing procedure. I have left a further comment on my talkpage, but the summary of this all is "wait and see. The closing tag is on. Do not debate the content, do not debate the AfD, do not debate the presence of the closing tag - any comments made after this point will simply not be considered". Thanks, Ironholds ( talk) 02:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you looked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Our_Lady_of_Grace_Church? You have a whale of a lot of work to do to fix all of the incoming links that were broken by your your page move for the New Jersey redirect! (I fear that similar issues exist with some of the other ambiguous church names.) -- Orlady ( talk) 04:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Per your comment on the AFD, I've refined two of the citations for this article. The Stratford Star citation was to show that as of June 2010, the church still hosts the meetings for the Sokol (Group 2). The Falcon citation (and I see where you could have missed this) is on page 5, in the top right corner. Best, Markvs88 ( talk) 17:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a
speedy deletion tag from
List of Michigan State Historic Sites, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{
hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's
talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. -
SDPatrolBot (
talk)
01:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ThreeBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.
Was working on backlog of articles that don't appear to need images--will not be removing tags from lists in future. We hope ( talk) 02:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
So... how many of these would you like me to find for you? Best, Markvs88 ( talk) 00:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Canton Bridge Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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. Best,
Markvs88 (
talk)
00:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I am actually from Seattle and am not too familiar with Missouri. I took all these pictures during a 2008 vacation trip so if any of the buildings I photographed were on the National Register it was just by chance!
As for ways to re-organize the list.. I'm not sure. There is a large # of listings in St. Louis and it would be hard to classify them by neighborhood or street location like New York City. You could start by placing all the listings in the central business district maybe as far west as Union station on a separate page and keep the rest together. First you need to define the parameters of downtown St. Louis and go from there. Let me know if you have any other questions or quandaries. G'day, Publichall ( talk) 04:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I note that you recently added a "See Also" link at the GL Alabama article, pointing to the Alabama section of the List of Masonic buildings. I think this is quite appropriate and have no objection. More to the point, I am wondering if something similar could be a way to resolve our debate at the Grand Lodge of Idaho article.
I would propose the following: add a "see also" link in all of the various GL articles, pointing to the relevant section of the Masonic buildings list... meanwhile, in the text of the GL Articles, we would only mention notable masonic buildings if they have a direct tie to the Grand Lodge itself (for example: if the Grand Lodge meets, or historically met, in a notable building, that fact would appropriate to mention in the text).
Would something like this be acceptable to you? Blueboar ( talk) 16:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to run the NRHP article generator myself. Edith Marion Patch House, NRIS#01001269. Thanks. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Ged UK 07:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! So I would have to send an email request for the nom forms for each of those to get more information, I take it. You've set me up on a path to improve some of those articles. I don't know why Wickenburg has two separate entries...that will have to be dealt with. Raymie ( t • c) 01:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Wales House (Minneapolis, Minnesota) 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 that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Elkman
(Elkspeak)
04:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you take a look at Talk:Lyceum-The Circle Historic District#Image gallery? I was in Oxford this weekend and took some pictures, but I don't really like the way I was forced to add them. Can you comment there?-- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 19:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Once again, I think you are "over the top" in your insistence that a name recorded in the National Register database takes precedence over current reality. I refer to your edit to the lead sentence of Jonesborough Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee). The fact that a variant spelling was recorded in a federal document 42 years ago does not magically make that spelling the "right" spelling forever and ever. -- Orlady ( talk) 20:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I quote The Fort Worth Elks Lodge 124, also known as Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks or YWCA of Fort Worth and _, - I think something should be in place of the underscore. Please fix. Griffinofwales ( talk) Simple English Wikipedia - Come and join! 17:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The article St. James Catholic Church and Cemetery has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk
16:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I opened my inbox this afternoon to see I'd received the remaining NRHP nom forms I'd asked for. Here's the bounty:
Florence is listed as Florence Union, but it is known in its modern form as Florence High School.
I can gladly send these to you via email if you would like, since I don't know if I have the time to write all these articles. There's an additional source I use for my more historical AZ schools, this PDF with historical enrollment figures for all schools in Arizona from 1912 to 2005. It's very complete, and it's also the basis for most of my closed schools list.
By the way, Phoenix Indian School was written with solely the nomination form and the AIA enrollment numbers as sources. It's one of my longest articles to date.
The one I did not receive is the Buckeye Union A-wing, which I found too late. I do plan on adding an NRHP infobox etc. there. Raymie ( t • c) 23:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering if you've ever run into the O of I A. An internet search didn't get much - a picture of a cemetery flag-holder with masonic symbols and speculations about "Order of Independent Americans" and a sub group of the Association of Junior Mechanics (or some such). In any case File:Building of the Order of Independent Americans, Pottstown, Pennsylvania.jpg is one of the most impressive buildings in the Old Pottstown, PA Historic District (Montgomery County), but the nomination form says little about it (they use the 309 address). Any clue? Smallbones ( talk) 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I had already used it in describing the building, but yeah, I had meant to use it at that time as well but couldn't remember the exact words. So I just added it.
God ... that was a task. Didn't expect it to be so long (the nom document is rather fragmented, making the article more difficult than it should have been). But, once I get more photos, there's definitely something there for some recognition (that's a big "once", however ... with current fuel prices, I am not just casually driving out to Waterbury).
Now I can do another Aspen building, then I will probably be disappearing from NRHP for a week or so to write another long Supreme Court decision article. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
West Main Street Historic District needs a cleanup. Plus West Main Street District should redirect to the one in Ohio with a hatnote on it unless you plan to create the others in the next few days. Thanks. Station1 ( talk) 21:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
So another editor and I have recently started Pioneer Woman which just so happens to be NRHP listed, which made me think of you. Any chance you could look over the parts where NRHP is actually involved and let me know if the categories/tags/reference#/whatever are correct or need fixing? VernoWhitney ( talk) 22:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I see you've been stalking my contribution page. If you're going to turn The Dilemma (film) into a dab page, you should really at least fix all the incoming wikilinks so they point to the right article. Station1 ( talk) 07:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Please stop reverting the redirect The Dilemma (film). The dab page is wrong for the follwing reasons:
In short, there's only one film anywhere on WP called The Dilemma, so the page The Dilemma (film) need not exist, but since it does as a former title with incoming links, it needs to redirect to the obvious article. Please fix it. Station1 ( talk) 20:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to take up more space at Talk:The Dilemma#Requested move 3 needed? because I don't think what I say will necessarily benefit anyone else, but I did want to respond, so I hope you don't mind my doing so here. I assume your comments there are in good faith and this is not intended to be hostile, but it appears you don't understand what I'm trying to say or do, which might be my fault for not being clear, so I want to try one more time by showing specifically where we differ or misunderstand each other. Italics are your comments there:
In short, the reasons I reverted the dab page conversion was not because of any minor technical violation of some "rule", but because the conversion was fundamentally unsound and reversion was the best solution. I don't want to get into this kind of detailed explanation every time I do something, but I really hope this helps you see that there are reasons other editors do the things they do. If in the future you want to revert something I did, please feel free to ask me why I did it. Station1 ( talk) 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Glad to be of help adding photos. I hope to get all of them in the near future for that page. Also I am starting/adding or updating any pages that already exist on those buildings from local historic research materials and other sources. They are also in categories on WikiMedia Commons. We have several fraternal organization buildings up here that are not on the Historic register, a few IooF halls, Masonic Halls and so on. Is there a need or desire for photographs of them as well? With best wishes, Ellin Beltz ( talk) 23:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the kind tip about the NRIS citations. I had no idea I was removing something important; I just thought the articles were using the only source of available information known to the author. I'll try to get everything straightened out. I must say, that's one of the most tactful corrections I've ever received. Thanks for assuming good faith. Ntsimp ( talk) 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, can you add the NRHP info for this one? Cheers! bd2412 T 15:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grand Lodge of Iowa building is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Iowa building until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..
I looked for independent sources to substantiate having a stand alone article and could not find any... so I am nominating. If we have an article on the GL Iowa (I don't think we do), I could see merging. Blueboar ( talk) 15:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I added a couple The old lodge built 1793, and the "Bellevue Avenue Colored School" which is now used as a Lodge. Part of an HD and an individual building. Smallbones ( talk) 01:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
As a member of the ARS, I am amazed at the attempt to delete the Iowa Masonic Library and Museum article only 19 minutes after you created it. This circumstance may suggest that creating an article in a sandbox and then going to mainspace is the best approach, but that is hardly required. There is also the under construction template, but that is not really required, either. I have added a comment to the deletion discussion, and I will add a strong keep entry a little later. I will add talk page template ratings, as is my practice with all AfD articles I examine. The AfD may well result in a better article than otherwise, but some of the deletionists carry their efforts too far. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Iowa Masonic Library and Museum. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. N419 BH 17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that DC is analogous to a state in this instance. Washington is the name of the city. Just as Washington, PA is sorted as Pennsylvania in dab lists, I assumed that Washington, DC should be sorted as District of Columbia. Today, I believe that the District and Washington, DC are coterminous. But at one time, DC was a 10 mile square area that included parts of what are now Maryland and Virginia (hence the DC boundary markers listed on the NRHP that lie in Virginia and Maryland) and there were other municipal entities that were part of the District. For example, Georgetown was a separate entity from Washington until 1871. That said, I don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or the other. -- sanfranman59 ( talk) 20:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
We work under the consensus model here at Wikipedia. That means we discuss issues in order to determine how we will display our content. Attempting to enforce your own version of a page in a dispute without discussion is not appropriate. Such behavior is likely to be seen as edit-warring and may lead to a block. Additionally, it is important to focus on the content, not other contributors, in a dispute. Failing to do this can very quickly lead to making statements that are seen as personal attacks. I am going to request that you avoid SarekofVulcan until tempers cool off. Also, please rexamine your editing and make sure you're not accidentally owning articles. Thank you. N419 BH 14:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the Cedar Rapids Scottish Rite Temple... would you object to a title change (move to Scottish Rite Masonic Center (Cedar Rapids)) to reflect the change in the "official" name of the building? We would still note "Scottish Rite Temple" and "Consistory Building No. 2" as alternate names. Blueboar ( talk) 13:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
This isn't how AFD works, and sounds like article ownership. N419 BH 23:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Reply on my talk page. Need info. Blueboar ( talk) 14:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of which, http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/ is up, which has a link to http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/, but that second link is down. Any thoughts on the subject? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Category:Articles sourced by IMDB, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 05:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Category:Articles sourced only by IMDB, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 05:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Back on 5 April, I emailed you the map discussed at Talk:Jonesboro Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee)#name of district. You haven't acknowledged the email. Did you not receive it? -- Orlady ( talk) 13:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
21:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Doncram ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't think it is fair or reasonable to be blocked for noting, at a Talk page, that another specific editor is following my edits and finding fault. That is what I did in the post at Talk:Jonesborough, Tennessee. It seems basically courteous to other editors to let them know what is going on, so that they can judge for themselves if they want to get involved or not. It is factual that Orlady follows my edits and frequently finds fault. She has long done so; she has been warned not to in the past but has gotten back to doing it. In another recent situation, SarekOfVulcan has suggested that a Talk page edit naming another editor is a personal attack. I don't think it amounts to a personal attack to name the other editor. There is not or should not be a bright line rule prohibiting the naming of another editor, or stating the fact of there being a long-running dispute between another editor and myself. --doncram 21:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Further discussion about the block, including my not understanding what standard SarekOfVulcan is applying, follows below and should be considered part of this unblock request. I am really really not understanding justification for this block, and SarekOfVulcan seems not to be explaining. --doncram 21:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The reason given for the block was "continuing attacks on editors you disagree with". One example was given. That example taken in isolation certainly would not have justified a block, but the block was not given for that one example. You have a long history of failing to edit cooperatively, and making accusations of bad faith and other accusations against other editors that you disagree with, and all put together your comments about and to other editors more than justify a 1 week block. You have asked that your comments in the discussion below be considered part of this unblock request. Those comments show you being combative and making accusations against those you disagree with, which certainly tends to confirm the block. Also, since you have stated that those comments should be considered as part of the unblock request, have you read WP:NOTTHEM? Quite simply, the more you give what you think are arguments for unblocking the more confirmation you give that the block was justified. JamesBWatson ( talk) 02:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. I had not in fact read wp:NOTTHEM, am not surprised about this as it is analogous to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments in AFDs. Thanks. -- do ncr am 14:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Orlady has followed my edits and repeatedly made probably dozens of accusations, that I am asserting personality defects in others. That is false, I believe. The accusation seems like many others Orlady has made, which are arguably personal attacks. I don't know what she is referring to, about the personality defects. It adds up to her ascribing a personality defect to me, that I am a person who ascribes defective personalities. Should Orlady be blocked?
What has been under discussion at wt:CONN has been churning of articles, both of vandalism and of reversions by experienced editors (addressing vandalism and also enforcing unfair/unexplained standards for keeping some unsourced info but disallowing new editors' contributions of same). I have at times referred to long patterns of edits, after disagreeing with many specific edits. I do eventually perceive really obvious patterns, like that Orlady is following my edits and finding fault. That is true; Orlady does not deny it. It is nonsensical to prohibit my mentioning that. It is a statement about the edits, plural. In the edit that SarekOfVulcan mentions, I term one specific edit "silly" (in challenging whether an NRHP-listed district is NRHP-listed) but I do not call Orlady that term. Whatever Orlady is asserting I have done, she has done more of towards me.
I don't actually understand the standard SarekOfVulcan is applying with this block. I don't understand a distinction that can be made about my edits, which would not apply more strongly for Orlady for example. I have discussed Orlady's edits and she has discussed mine. SarekOfVulcan seems to be applying some standard about "discuss edits not editors", which is overall probably good guidance for wikipedia. But, when I become aware of an editor repeatedly, i.e. hundreds of times, engaging in a behavior, and i describe that behavior as a pattern of edits, I do not think that is prohibited. It is not helpful to prohibit that.
For example, in the discussion at Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)#Revisiting, Orlady writes "My apologies to anyone who cares about Franklin, as it appears to me that Doncram's changes here have less to do with the substance of the article than with Doncram's habit of personalizing disagreements over editing -- and carrying on long-term wars against individuals who have gained his enmity by disagreeing with him. If he were as high-minded as he lets on, ...." I think that is far more obviously a personal attack, commenting in derogatory style about me, than any comments I have been criticized for making. Look at what I wrote, someone, please.
Note, Orlady has refused mediation previously and has chosen not to answer repeated questions whether she would engage in mediation now. Above she complains that I did not reply about a private email. It is a worse offense not to reply to on-line request to engage in mediation. I requested her to answer whether she would, three times, within this recent discussion and she has not answered. -- do ncr am 16:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There's no prohibition on linking to redlinked articles in body text, but there is an absolute rule against applying redlinked categories, especially when the redlink is the only category on the page. The problem is that when you're doing a batch run in AWB, it's not really possible to make a complex "do Thing A to some articles, do Thing B to some other articles" rule instead, nor is there any easy way to check every non-existing category to see if it's just misspelled. Really, the only thing one can do, when working with the uncategorized articles list, is to either tag everything or go through the entire list manually — and I'm not about to do the latter on a day when the list has almost 600 articles on it. Bearcat ( talk) 17:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry S. Baird, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Henry S. Baird, the first lawyer in territorial Wisconsin, bought a small Greek Revival former land office building to serve as his law office (pictured) as he felt its style befit his position? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 20:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baird Law Office, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Henry S. Baird, the first lawyer in territorial Wisconsin, bought a small Greek Revival former land office building to serve as his law office (pictured) as he felt its style befit his position? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 20:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This comment, particularly "So whatever he states, with or without supporting proof, should basically be disregarded," is not acceptable. Please re-read WP:No personal attacks, if you've forgotten the substance there. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I came across an article about Hickory Hill in McLean, Virginia. Robert&Ethel Kennedy lived there with their family and before them US Justice Robert Jackson. Apparently, Hickory Hill was nominated for a National Register of Historic Places designation. You might be interested in the article. Thanks- RFD ( talk) 22:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
-- Kumioko ( talk) 04:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be interested in doing some occasional stubbing. Haven't looked at Connecticut recently, but I'll try to look more into it when I have some time. I just saw there was a big debate about using a bot on the NRHP talk page. Of course, I'm fully supportive, and that would allowus all more time to categorize and improve articles if they were all created efficiently. I was thinking about stubbing some churches in the States in the Deep South or Mid West at some point. That's great you can copy and paste basic articles from the talk page there in Connecticut. That should really help with article creation and elimination of redlinks. Swampyank ( talk) 06:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
What does Davenport MRA mean? CTJF83 chat 18:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm starting the split up :) CTJF83 19:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
See my talk page for an update to the discussion on coordinates. Good luck with all your efforts! -- The Anome ( talk) 22:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Question... does the new citation (<ref name="nris">{{NRISref|version=2009a}}</ref>) link to a working on line version of the database, or does it cite the database without a link? Blueboar ( talk) 14:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Something impelled me to split off the City of Milwaukee from the County. So now there are 2 lists. User:Freekee had requested on the talkpage in April that somebody do this. He wasn't around to help, but I think I've got it. Another set of eyes to recheck never hurts though. 165 + 62 = 227 Smallbones ( talk) 05:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I know that you are aware of WP:NPA, but it appears to me that you are stepping over the line in some of your recent comments at User talk:Polaron#unsourced CDP info. Please try to limit your comments to substantive discussion of the issues related to Wikipedia editing, and refrain from personalizing the discussion or making personal accusations. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Kudos for this comment. -- Orlady ( talk) 19:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You've got newer e-mail. Lvklock ( talk) 21:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It's been done. Feast your eyes. :o -- Ebyabe ( talk) 02:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Doris (Sailing yacht) at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
PM800 (
talk)
18:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
That was about Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 50, where i have replied. Trial run looks great there. -- do ncr am 16:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Doncram. I continue to appreciate your enthusiasm for creating articles about National Register properties, but it doesn't justify creating articles about topics for which there is no information. I just stumbled upon Roaring Brook sites, BOC Site, and Selden Island Site (a stub that you didn't create). These are three archeological sites with undisclosed locations, all based on the same study report. There are links to online documents, but all of those links point to placeholders -- none of the documents exist online. Bottom line is that there's nothing of substance in any of those three articles. The articles wasted my time by making me click on links that don't work. IMO, it was premature to create these three articles, as there is nothing in them that cannot be fully documented in the county NRHP lists. What do you say to deleting them? -- Orlady ( talk) 17:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
How about a single article for all 36 or so sites in the thematic resource? These are all archeological sites from the same time period and the same general locale. Having separate articles is indeed an invitation for people to find as much information on them, including their location. -- Polaron | Talk 20:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess this means that you won't consider it rude behavior on my part if I take these articles to AfD. I was trying to be respectful by discussing them here instead of going to that sort of forum. -- Orlady ( talk) 04:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the DYK nom and will comment on what you brought up on the talk page. Candy o32 - Happy New Year :) 19:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to try to fix that one, because looking at the history, I'm not completely sure what happened, so I'll leave it for someone else to get. I'm going to restore my hatnote for Start Me Up, though, because I honestly thought that was the article that belonged here. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 06:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Clinton Historical Society has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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.
RoninBK
T
C
11:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doncram, I've added back the Nichols Farms Historic District's Villages in CT cat as it is a CT village and having a seperate article wouldn't make much sense. I was wondering what is the thought process behind these edits? Best, Markvs88 ( talk) 14:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you refactored the requested move discussion at Talk:Blue Hills (Bloomfield), probably due to some frustration that it hasn't closed yet. I sympathize, but I suggest that you un-refactor it. If you look at WP:RM, you will see that there is a huge backlog, which explains why this one hasn't closed. Based on my experience with having closed some contentious RM discussions there, I think that your refactoring is likely to backfire -- it may delay the closing by making things harder for the closing admin. (By rearranging the discussion and adding to its length, you are making it more difficult to review the discussion history.) Moreover, I see no purpose in relisting that one, as it's had plenty of attention relative to the typical RM, and relisting would likely add at least a month to the process. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.-- Kumioko ( talk) 02:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I just wanted to let you know that there is already an existing article for The Katharine Hepburn Cultural Arts Center that may or may not need to be merged with your new Old Saybrook Town Hall and Theater article. In both the articles current forms, a merge seems to make sense but I'll leave the editorial decision to you. They should probably point to each other if they're going to stay separate. -- Polaron | Talk 21:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know who your new friends are. LOL. -- Orlady ( talk) 03:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Jack E. Boucher does fit in pretty well with WP:NHRP. It's not a great article in that there aren't many references, but the tone is straightforward and the article is informative, even authoritative. If you could find references with TEXT to Boucher it would be a great improvement. Also, it appears that User: Jack E. Boucher wrote about half the article [1], but "don't bite the newbies!" Smallbones ( talk) 15:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Woodburn, Midlothian is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodburn, Midlothian until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:NHLsmlegend has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
134.253.26.10 (
talk)
23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 14 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prudence Crandall House, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Prudence Crandall School for Negro Girls operated in a Canterbury, Connecticut, mansion (pictured) until mob violence led to its closure? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edits are all available in the article history at Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee). (See 10 January.) -- Orlady ( talk) 04:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Don, Why did you unilaterally move Carroll County Court House (New Hampshire) to a less concise title [2]. I've started a discussion on this here: Talk:Carroll_County_Court_House_(Ossipee,_New_Hampshire)#Article_moved_unilaterally_without_justification, but, for the record, any move of an article to a less concise title should be considered potentially controversial and therefore should go through WP:RM. Please don't make potentially controversial moves without going through WP:RM again. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Don, this comment is strictly about your behavior which is why I'm making it on your talk page rather than on the guideline talk page from whence it stems. You are again displaying behavior that suggestions violations of WP:OWN when you make statements like, "you want now to begin to butt in on the disambiguation of U.S. historic places, like you have butted in on Connecticut neighborhood names,..." [3]. No editor has more business making these decisions than any other. There is no such thing as "butting in" in Wikipedia. These are not private matters.
Please restrict your comments on guideline pages to the matter at hand. Objections about behavior, like this one, do not belong there. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This is what you meant to do. Right?-- intelati talk 01:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There was almost certainly no great thought behind the redirect from East Kingston to the town in New Hampshire. It was simply a redirect created on March 30, 2004, at a time when both articles were bot-created uncategorized stubs. I'm a little shocked that there's been no move to fix this for nearly 7 years, not even with a hat note. (Only a little shocked because I trip across stuff like this a few times each week.) So I've created the sorely-needed disambiguation page. I have to wonder how many of the cities for which there is a redirect from the city name to the city, state article are improperly disambiguated in this manner. - Dravecky ( talk) 18:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doncram. I noticed on this edit you added a notation that the Main Street Bridge (Daytona Beach, Florida) is on the RHP. Do you have this referenced some place? I live in Daytona Beach and am interested in documenting this furthur, but have been unsuccessful in finding sources so far. Thank you for your help. Gamweb ( talk) 19:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to say that you did some great work on Doris - I hadn't heard of her before, but it was great to see an article, and she sounds like a fine boat.
I've been trying to track down a photo, but I've been unsuccessful so far. I'll keep trying, though - maybe I'll be lucky. - Bilby ( talk)
Hey Doncram, I wanted to get your thoughts on the idea above. The Connecticut wine article is such a tiny stub and it seems like any expansion of the CT wine trail article will naturally include some overlapping content since pretty much every Connecticut winery is featured on the trail. The wine project have merged other wine trail articles into the main region article before since it tends to provide more context for the reader. But since you've expressed an interest in working for the CT article, I wanted to get your thoughts on the idea. Agne Cheese/ Wine 04:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Greystone needs a cleanup. Thanks. Station1 ( talk) 06:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 18 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Doris (Sailing yacht), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Doris, a large racing yacht built in 1905, led the 1932 Bermuda Race until light winds undercut its advantages? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I just finished writing Elm Bluff Plantation and thought that you might be interested in this place with New York connections. Its not on the NRHP or even the Alabama Register and is slowly falling to the ground. I visited it two years ago, had to walk 1/2 a mile through the woods each way, but just got around to writing something here about it. Hope you are well! Altair isfar 23:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the request for a source regarding the demolition of Weizer Building (8935 Buckeye Road, Cleveland, Ohio):
I know that we're not supposed to be doing original research here. Fair enough. My statement that the building was demolished is just that - I've personally observed that the structure isn't there. Can you think of a way that I might cite this?
Christopher Busta-Peck | Talk 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you see anything wrong with citing Google Maps Streetview? Christopher Busta-Peck | Talk 15:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a note of appreciation... I applaud your recent work on "chartifying" the List of Masonic buildings. I am especially pleased that you are including historical information in the "description" column designed to establish the extent of the Masonic association (as you know, I think that is an important issue). Your edits are moving the article much closer to how I envision it should be. Thanks. Blueboar ( talk) 17:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I saw your AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) and reformatted it as a multi-article nomination, to include all the other similar articles that you listed in it. If you've identified more that should be included, I suggest that you add them, too -- to address the whole collection in a single consolidated discussion. To do that, tag the articles with {{subst:afd1|St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)}} and list them in the AfD using the "la" template (i.e., :{{la|Somebody's Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut)}}).
Seems like a worthwhile AfD nomination. I haven't expressed an opinion in that AfD yet because I haven't looked into the status of special notability guidelines for religion articles, nor have I searched for other sources. Right now, I expect that most or all of the list should be deleted, but SNGs or sources could change my mind... -- Orlady ( talk) 05:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed a change to the mission statement of WikiProject United States at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Mission statement for WikiProject United States and would welcome your views. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 13:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see you leave the project and I hope you decide to return. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help facilitate that! -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I renemed to the previous name, which was changed. I can accept format (City, State) as location description, but not switching Parish <=> Church. Once more. The Parish is the area, and the church is the building. The article is about the parish. -- WlaKom ( talk) 12:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been asked by James Russiello to comment on this mass AfD. I am a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, and have participated in many deletion discussions. Sometimes I have improved articles, sometimes I have limited myself to Keep, or Delete, or Comment entries, and sometimes I have just let events happen without my participation.
I have never participated in a mass AfD before. Please explain to me the process. Suppose, for example, I review some of the church building articles, and find ways to improve them with history, or controversy, or something else. On the other hand, some articles I find not to be particularly notable at all. Should every church in Connecticut be on Wikipedia? I am not so sure of that, and I would not try to make it so.
What I have done is to review the three churches in New York City and add sources, and perhaps make improvements, and reserve judgment on the many Connecticut churches.
What I would like to learn from you is whether the result of a mass AfD can be to Keep in a few instances, Delete in some instances, and perhaps not reach a consensus on others? Is it all or nothing, or by particulars, or what?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 22:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. Your requests for mass deletions don't meet Wikipedia requirement and can be treated as the act of vandalism. Please remove all you requests. Of course, if you repeat such disruptive actions i will seek to have you blocked from editing in Wikipedia. -- WlaKom ( talk) 10:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads ( talk) 00:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Nyttend ( talk) 01:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Please note my request, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)#One list needed and comment or volunteer to make a list. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
| Wag more, bark less, Don't bite. |
Brown House needs cleanup. Station1 ( talk) 18:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Heya. It's been a while since we've talked! I had a (what's hopefully a quick) question: Why would Alhambra Theatre (Sacramento) be listed here and here but not on the official list? I was tipped off by the message that Elkman's generator gave ("Note: This property may not actually be listed on the National Register - listing code is RN"). I'm not quite sure what RN means. Killiondude ( talk) 07:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Please stop claiming that moving unnecessarily disambiguated articles to a name that was previously a red link is move warring and please stop associating renames to the misguided AFD you proposed. Anyone could have undone the moves and created the needed disambiguation pages if there were name conflicts. As I said, if there is an article on a topic with some name, that name has to be one of three things: the article title, a redirect to the article, or a disambiguation page. You cannot leave a name a red link if there is at least one Wikipedia article that exists with that name. There is nothing controversial about this notion. Would it be reasonable for me to assume that you think I'm here only to vandalize Wikipedia? If so, then I will respond to you appropriately. 71.21.81.61 ( talk) 18:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Polaron, I am not going to argue this out here with you, but I will note that Polaron's statement here is misleading. I state clearly my objections to Polaron's adversarial moves of numerous Connecticut church articles in User talk:Polaron#random moves of Connecticut church articles and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive667#Polaron moving articles and creating redirects. Polaron, despite numerous recent requests that he use the Requested Move service rather than make contentious moves, and despite specific request that he cease making moves of those CT church articles, responded to those requests by expanding the set of disputed articles by moving more. Given further request, he expanded the scope further by moving more. It was only with the ANI report that he ceased making moves of those articles. Actually i noticed at least one further move, and maybe there were more that i have not yet noticed. The move warring engaged by Polaron was the moves of multiple articles, all generally of the same type, where the type of move was specifically disputed. It has since been pretty well established by side discussion in the AFD and its Talk page and elsewhere, that all other editors regard all of those moves by Polaron moves as having been unhelpful.
- It complicated the AFD discussion that the articles were moved to bad names, and it complicated it that Polaron's contentious editing style was interferring with the articles. Polaron repeatedly sets a bad example and escalates contention, in this arena where there are new editors watching. It complicates matters because it is hard to be appropriately negative and cut Polaron's shenanigans off quickly, without dismaying the new editors who should not have to be involved.
- Polaron's assertion here on this Talk page is meant to be misleading, to assert that he was not involved in contentious moves, merely on the technicality that there were not repeated moves back and forth on any one article. The scope of the battleground was being defined by Polaron to include all CT church articles, or some such huge arena. A further waste of our time, to consider the cleverness or not of Polaron's misleading suggestion that he was not engaging in disruption. I probably will not comment further. -- do ncr am 17:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Note the nature of the AfD (expired) and the tag at the top (closing). Could you please try to avoid commenting? It's in the formal close process, and I'm going to have to disregard any comments made after this anyway. The fact that you have asked for more time for discussion does not mean that more discussion will automatically take place, nor does it exempt the AfD from the standard closing procedure. I have left a further comment on my talkpage, but the summary of this all is "wait and see. The closing tag is on. Do not debate the content, do not debate the AfD, do not debate the presence of the closing tag - any comments made after this point will simply not be considered". Thanks, Ironholds ( talk) 02:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you looked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Our_Lady_of_Grace_Church? You have a whale of a lot of work to do to fix all of the incoming links that were broken by your your page move for the New Jersey redirect! (I fear that similar issues exist with some of the other ambiguous church names.) -- Orlady ( talk) 04:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Per your comment on the AFD, I've refined two of the citations for this article. The Stratford Star citation was to show that as of June 2010, the church still hosts the meetings for the Sokol (Group 2). The Falcon citation (and I see where you could have missed this) is on page 5, in the top right corner. Best, Markvs88 ( talk) 17:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a
speedy deletion tag from
List of Michigan State Historic Sites, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{
hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's
talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. -
SDPatrolBot (
talk)
01:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ThreeBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.
Was working on backlog of articles that don't appear to need images--will not be removing tags from lists in future. We hope ( talk) 02:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
So... how many of these would you like me to find for you? Best, Markvs88 ( talk) 00:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Canton Bridge Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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. Best,
Markvs88 (
talk)
00:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I am actually from Seattle and am not too familiar with Missouri. I took all these pictures during a 2008 vacation trip so if any of the buildings I photographed were on the National Register it was just by chance!
As for ways to re-organize the list.. I'm not sure. There is a large # of listings in St. Louis and it would be hard to classify them by neighborhood or street location like New York City. You could start by placing all the listings in the central business district maybe as far west as Union station on a separate page and keep the rest together. First you need to define the parameters of downtown St. Louis and go from there. Let me know if you have any other questions or quandaries. G'day, Publichall ( talk) 04:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I note that you recently added a "See Also" link at the GL Alabama article, pointing to the Alabama section of the List of Masonic buildings. I think this is quite appropriate and have no objection. More to the point, I am wondering if something similar could be a way to resolve our debate at the Grand Lodge of Idaho article.
I would propose the following: add a "see also" link in all of the various GL articles, pointing to the relevant section of the Masonic buildings list... meanwhile, in the text of the GL Articles, we would only mention notable masonic buildings if they have a direct tie to the Grand Lodge itself (for example: if the Grand Lodge meets, or historically met, in a notable building, that fact would appropriate to mention in the text).
Would something like this be acceptable to you? Blueboar ( talk) 16:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to run the NRHP article generator myself. Edith Marion Patch House, NRIS#01001269. Thanks. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Ged UK 07:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! So I would have to send an email request for the nom forms for each of those to get more information, I take it. You've set me up on a path to improve some of those articles. I don't know why Wickenburg has two separate entries...that will have to be dealt with. Raymie ( t • c) 01:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Wales House (Minneapolis, Minnesota) 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 that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Elkman
(Elkspeak)
04:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you take a look at Talk:Lyceum-The Circle Historic District#Image gallery? I was in Oxford this weekend and took some pictures, but I don't really like the way I was forced to add them. Can you comment there?-- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 19:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Once again, I think you are "over the top" in your insistence that a name recorded in the National Register database takes precedence over current reality. I refer to your edit to the lead sentence of Jonesborough Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee). The fact that a variant spelling was recorded in a federal document 42 years ago does not magically make that spelling the "right" spelling forever and ever. -- Orlady ( talk) 20:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I quote The Fort Worth Elks Lodge 124, also known as Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks or YWCA of Fort Worth and _, - I think something should be in place of the underscore. Please fix. Griffinofwales ( talk) Simple English Wikipedia - Come and join! 17:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The article St. James Catholic Church and Cemetery has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk
16:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I opened my inbox this afternoon to see I'd received the remaining NRHP nom forms I'd asked for. Here's the bounty:
Florence is listed as Florence Union, but it is known in its modern form as Florence High School.
I can gladly send these to you via email if you would like, since I don't know if I have the time to write all these articles. There's an additional source I use for my more historical AZ schools, this PDF with historical enrollment figures for all schools in Arizona from 1912 to 2005. It's very complete, and it's also the basis for most of my closed schools list.
By the way, Phoenix Indian School was written with solely the nomination form and the AIA enrollment numbers as sources. It's one of my longest articles to date.
The one I did not receive is the Buckeye Union A-wing, which I found too late. I do plan on adding an NRHP infobox etc. there. Raymie ( t • c) 23:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering if you've ever run into the O of I A. An internet search didn't get much - a picture of a cemetery flag-holder with masonic symbols and speculations about "Order of Independent Americans" and a sub group of the Association of Junior Mechanics (or some such). In any case File:Building of the Order of Independent Americans, Pottstown, Pennsylvania.jpg is one of the most impressive buildings in the Old Pottstown, PA Historic District (Montgomery County), but the nomination form says little about it (they use the 309 address). Any clue? Smallbones ( talk) 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I had already used it in describing the building, but yeah, I had meant to use it at that time as well but couldn't remember the exact words. So I just added it.
God ... that was a task. Didn't expect it to be so long (the nom document is rather fragmented, making the article more difficult than it should have been). But, once I get more photos, there's definitely something there for some recognition (that's a big "once", however ... with current fuel prices, I am not just casually driving out to Waterbury).
Now I can do another Aspen building, then I will probably be disappearing from NRHP for a week or so to write another long Supreme Court decision article. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
West Main Street Historic District needs a cleanup. Plus West Main Street District should redirect to the one in Ohio with a hatnote on it unless you plan to create the others in the next few days. Thanks. Station1 ( talk) 21:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
So another editor and I have recently started Pioneer Woman which just so happens to be NRHP listed, which made me think of you. Any chance you could look over the parts where NRHP is actually involved and let me know if the categories/tags/reference#/whatever are correct or need fixing? VernoWhitney ( talk) 22:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I see you've been stalking my contribution page. If you're going to turn The Dilemma (film) into a dab page, you should really at least fix all the incoming wikilinks so they point to the right article. Station1 ( talk) 07:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Please stop reverting the redirect The Dilemma (film). The dab page is wrong for the follwing reasons:
In short, there's only one film anywhere on WP called The Dilemma, so the page The Dilemma (film) need not exist, but since it does as a former title with incoming links, it needs to redirect to the obvious article. Please fix it. Station1 ( talk) 20:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to take up more space at Talk:The Dilemma#Requested move 3 needed? because I don't think what I say will necessarily benefit anyone else, but I did want to respond, so I hope you don't mind my doing so here. I assume your comments there are in good faith and this is not intended to be hostile, but it appears you don't understand what I'm trying to say or do, which might be my fault for not being clear, so I want to try one more time by showing specifically where we differ or misunderstand each other. Italics are your comments there:
In short, the reasons I reverted the dab page conversion was not because of any minor technical violation of some "rule", but because the conversion was fundamentally unsound and reversion was the best solution. I don't want to get into this kind of detailed explanation every time I do something, but I really hope this helps you see that there are reasons other editors do the things they do. If in the future you want to revert something I did, please feel free to ask me why I did it. Station1 ( talk) 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Glad to be of help adding photos. I hope to get all of them in the near future for that page. Also I am starting/adding or updating any pages that already exist on those buildings from local historic research materials and other sources. They are also in categories on WikiMedia Commons. We have several fraternal organization buildings up here that are not on the Historic register, a few IooF halls, Masonic Halls and so on. Is there a need or desire for photographs of them as well? With best wishes, Ellin Beltz ( talk) 23:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the kind tip about the NRIS citations. I had no idea I was removing something important; I just thought the articles were using the only source of available information known to the author. I'll try to get everything straightened out. I must say, that's one of the most tactful corrections I've ever received. Thanks for assuming good faith. Ntsimp ( talk) 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, can you add the NRHP info for this one? Cheers! bd2412 T 15:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grand Lodge of Iowa building is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Iowa building until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..
I looked for independent sources to substantiate having a stand alone article and could not find any... so I am nominating. If we have an article on the GL Iowa (I don't think we do), I could see merging. Blueboar ( talk) 15:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I added a couple The old lodge built 1793, and the "Bellevue Avenue Colored School" which is now used as a Lodge. Part of an HD and an individual building. Smallbones ( talk) 01:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
As a member of the ARS, I am amazed at the attempt to delete the Iowa Masonic Library and Museum article only 19 minutes after you created it. This circumstance may suggest that creating an article in a sandbox and then going to mainspace is the best approach, but that is hardly required. There is also the under construction template, but that is not really required, either. I have added a comment to the deletion discussion, and I will add a strong keep entry a little later. I will add talk page template ratings, as is my practice with all AfD articles I examine. The AfD may well result in a better article than otherwise, but some of the deletionists carry their efforts too far. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Iowa Masonic Library and Museum. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. N419 BH 17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that DC is analogous to a state in this instance. Washington is the name of the city. Just as Washington, PA is sorted as Pennsylvania in dab lists, I assumed that Washington, DC should be sorted as District of Columbia. Today, I believe that the District and Washington, DC are coterminous. But at one time, DC was a 10 mile square area that included parts of what are now Maryland and Virginia (hence the DC boundary markers listed on the NRHP that lie in Virginia and Maryland) and there were other municipal entities that were part of the District. For example, Georgetown was a separate entity from Washington until 1871. That said, I don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or the other. -- sanfranman59 ( talk) 20:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
We work under the consensus model here at Wikipedia. That means we discuss issues in order to determine how we will display our content. Attempting to enforce your own version of a page in a dispute without discussion is not appropriate. Such behavior is likely to be seen as edit-warring and may lead to a block. Additionally, it is important to focus on the content, not other contributors, in a dispute. Failing to do this can very quickly lead to making statements that are seen as personal attacks. I am going to request that you avoid SarekofVulcan until tempers cool off. Also, please rexamine your editing and make sure you're not accidentally owning articles. Thank you. N419 BH 14:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the Cedar Rapids Scottish Rite Temple... would you object to a title change (move to Scottish Rite Masonic Center (Cedar Rapids)) to reflect the change in the "official" name of the building? We would still note "Scottish Rite Temple" and "Consistory Building No. 2" as alternate names. Blueboar ( talk) 13:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
This isn't how AFD works, and sounds like article ownership. N419 BH 23:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Reply on my talk page. Need info. Blueboar ( talk) 14:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of which, http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/ is up, which has a link to http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/, but that second link is down. Any thoughts on the subject? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Category:Articles sourced by IMDB, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 05:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Category:Articles sourced only by IMDB, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 05:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Back on 5 April, I emailed you the map discussed at Talk:Jonesboro Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee)#name of district. You haven't acknowledged the email. Did you not receive it? -- Orlady ( talk) 13:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
21:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Doncram ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't think it is fair or reasonable to be blocked for noting, at a Talk page, that another specific editor is following my edits and finding fault. That is what I did in the post at Talk:Jonesborough, Tennessee. It seems basically courteous to other editors to let them know what is going on, so that they can judge for themselves if they want to get involved or not. It is factual that Orlady follows my edits and frequently finds fault. She has long done so; she has been warned not to in the past but has gotten back to doing it. In another recent situation, SarekOfVulcan has suggested that a Talk page edit naming another editor is a personal attack. I don't think it amounts to a personal attack to name the other editor. There is not or should not be a bright line rule prohibiting the naming of another editor, or stating the fact of there being a long-running dispute between another editor and myself. --doncram 21:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Further discussion about the block, including my not understanding what standard SarekOfVulcan is applying, follows below and should be considered part of this unblock request. I am really really not understanding justification for this block, and SarekOfVulcan seems not to be explaining. --doncram 21:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The reason given for the block was "continuing attacks on editors you disagree with". One example was given. That example taken in isolation certainly would not have justified a block, but the block was not given for that one example. You have a long history of failing to edit cooperatively, and making accusations of bad faith and other accusations against other editors that you disagree with, and all put together your comments about and to other editors more than justify a 1 week block. You have asked that your comments in the discussion below be considered part of this unblock request. Those comments show you being combative and making accusations against those you disagree with, which certainly tends to confirm the block. Also, since you have stated that those comments should be considered as part of the unblock request, have you read WP:NOTTHEM? Quite simply, the more you give what you think are arguments for unblocking the more confirmation you give that the block was justified. JamesBWatson ( talk) 02:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. I had not in fact read wp:NOTTHEM, am not surprised about this as it is analogous to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments in AFDs. Thanks. -- do ncr am 14:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Orlady has followed my edits and repeatedly made probably dozens of accusations, that I am asserting personality defects in others. That is false, I believe. The accusation seems like many others Orlady has made, which are arguably personal attacks. I don't know what she is referring to, about the personality defects. It adds up to her ascribing a personality defect to me, that I am a person who ascribes defective personalities. Should Orlady be blocked?
What has been under discussion at wt:CONN has been churning of articles, both of vandalism and of reversions by experienced editors (addressing vandalism and also enforcing unfair/unexplained standards for keeping some unsourced info but disallowing new editors' contributions of same). I have at times referred to long patterns of edits, after disagreeing with many specific edits. I do eventually perceive really obvious patterns, like that Orlady is following my edits and finding fault. That is true; Orlady does not deny it. It is nonsensical to prohibit my mentioning that. It is a statement about the edits, plural. In the edit that SarekOfVulcan mentions, I term one specific edit "silly" (in challenging whether an NRHP-listed district is NRHP-listed) but I do not call Orlady that term. Whatever Orlady is asserting I have done, she has done more of towards me.
I don't actually understand the standard SarekOfVulcan is applying with this block. I don't understand a distinction that can be made about my edits, which would not apply more strongly for Orlady for example. I have discussed Orlady's edits and she has discussed mine. SarekOfVulcan seems to be applying some standard about "discuss edits not editors", which is overall probably good guidance for wikipedia. But, when I become aware of an editor repeatedly, i.e. hundreds of times, engaging in a behavior, and i describe that behavior as a pattern of edits, I do not think that is prohibited. It is not helpful to prohibit that.
For example, in the discussion at Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)#Revisiting, Orlady writes "My apologies to anyone who cares about Franklin, as it appears to me that Doncram's changes here have less to do with the substance of the article than with Doncram's habit of personalizing disagreements over editing -- and carrying on long-term wars against individuals who have gained his enmity by disagreeing with him. If he were as high-minded as he lets on, ...." I think that is far more obviously a personal attack, commenting in derogatory style about me, than any comments I have been criticized for making. Look at what I wrote, someone, please.
Note, Orlady has refused mediation previously and has chosen not to answer repeated questions whether she would engage in mediation now. Above she complains that I did not reply about a private email. It is a worse offense not to reply to on-line request to engage in mediation. I requested her to answer whether she would, three times, within this recent discussion and she has not answered. -- do ncr am 16:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)