Talk:O'Connor House

coverage level: mention of NRHP and see also mentions of related-name places

A non-logged in editor has twice deleted material from this article, including at first deleting even city, state mention, which I considered obviously unhelpful. In 2nd deletion, editor just removed NRHP mentions and all of the See also items about Oconnor-named buildings. Thank you for reducing down the scope of disagreement here.

However, I returned the article just now to the previous state, and ask for discussion. This is subjective, and I suppose the standard is not absolutely clear, about See also mentions and about NRHP-mentions. However, the precedent in many thousands of similar dab pages is that NRHP-mentions, or English listed building mentions, or similar, are standardly included. This provides something good: clarification that the dab page items are notable, that not any place ever having an Oconnor live there should be added. And the use of See also items is helpful and widely used too. I don't think that a change of both of these practices should be implemented on just this one dab page, and I would be open to having a general RFC and general discussion. I would like to ask that you, whoever you are, don't battle on this one dab page and then take it on to another and another and so on, but rather participate in a better process that we should discuss here.

I would appreciate if you would identify yourself, too. If you are editor Nyttend, I think you should admit that. It would be relevant for this discussion, either one-on-one or for a general discussion, for me and others to know about the nature of previous interactions. With editor Nyttend in particular I have tried hard to have decent discussions on several different vaguely similar formatting type topics, only to find the experience frustrating. I will back these remarks up if necessary with diffs. It just could require more effort to document past behavior and tendencies, to inform a current discussion, if that is you Nyttend. --doncram 11:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I was notified of this thread. If you had checked Geolocate, you would have seen that both IPs were from Massachusetts, and you know that I'm not up there; I've never edited this page logged-out. You may remember that you are required to adhere to expected standards of behavior and decorum, which includes not making accusations against other editors without evidence. You may also remember that after being warned, you may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend, thank you for clarifying that the non-logged in editor of March 23 and March 25 was not you. You did edit this article in this diff on March 21, however, as you know, so it is not unreasonable for me to wonder if it was you. If you chose to simply acknowledge that you and I have had discussions about several formatting/technical type issues, also, that would be helpful maybe. But, I take it you are challenging me to provide evidence for what I said about having tried hard to have discussion with you and my finding that frustrating, so I will do so, though not right now, i have to run. I will point to previous discussion about a technical topic, probably that of display formatting within NRHP lists where there are two or more same-named properties in the same NRHP list, where you and I did have disagreement. Hope this suffices for now. --doncram 18:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't try to change the subject. You accused me of being subversive without providing any evidence that I was using the IPs, and you ignored the geolocation that shows it to be someone else who, like me, is editing in good faith. If I find such comments in the future, they will be linked at WP:AE. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to change any subject. Did not accuse you of "being subversive"; those are your words. There is not any requirement that you edit logged in, there is not necessarily anything negative about editing logged-out. Idid not say or mean to imply and I do not believe that such editing is in bad faith. I did challenge the non-logged-in editor to identify themself, because I believe the best way forward to a proper discussion could vary, depending. They can choose to self-identify or not. Now you confuse me, Nyttend, do you want me to back up what I did say about having tried to have discussions with you and finding the experience frustrating, or not. If you don't question that, then maybe it is not worth dragging up diffs of that. You seem to think that would not be relevant. If you just contend that I implied you were subversive, well that has been answered, I did not. --doncram 19:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Doncram. First and foremost, please read WP:OUTING. It's really a very very very bad idea to ask people to identify themselves. If you just wanted to know if I was Nyttend you could just ask that on my or his talk page without assuming first. I neither confirm nor deny that I'm in Massachusetts. Geolocate, to the extent it's accurate, which is less than perfectly, only shows the location of an ISP's server, not necessarily the user.

As to the page itself, I did not delete every city and state like you claim. Nyttend did that. It was an improvement on what was there before and a good edit - the summary "Cutting extraneous information; why would someone come here looking for a glass factory or a grocery store?" makes a lot of sense, but I thought your summary about restoring city and state also was a reasonable point, because people might conceivably look for a house based on its location, so I put that back, so we had the best of both your and Nyttend's edits. I also put the O'Connor House first because that what most people hitting this page will be looking for. In your most recent edit summary you say "NRHP mention explains notability" but it doesn't. We don't explain notability on dab pages, we assume if an article exists it's notable. To add "NRHP" after every single entry doesn't help to disambiguate one from the other, which is the only purpose of a dab page. You also say "we don't want every Oconnor House" but we do want every one that has an article, whether NRHP or not. I'm also noticing that your original edit last year turning this into a dab page was not correct. Since there is only one article titled O'Connor House, you shouldn't have moved that article, but created this page at O'Connor House (disambiguation) instead, assuming a dab page is even needed, which is borderline. Someone can move this if they want to. The bottom line is we want dab pages to be short and simple so people can quickly find the article they want, without a lot of clutter or the page itself getting in their way, and for no other purpose. I think what I'm saying is the widely accepted way of doing things, but you can ask elsewhere if you don't believe me. 69.95.203.47 (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't need chiding about outing, which is about providing personally identifying information about who an editor-personna is. I did not OUT anyone; it was Nyttend not me commenting about the non-logged in editor appearing to be from Massachusetts; I agree with the non-logged-in editor that IP address does not identify where the person is. I simply asked the person to identify themself as which editor-personna that I might recognize from previous interactions, which they can choose to do or not.

About referring me to your Talk page, what Talk page do you mean, or where/how am i to have a decent conversation with you. I believe it would be helpful if you would provide a wikipedia username, and to edit logged in. That is generally recommended. It could/would help in carrying a discussion forward. For example perhaps it could be appropriate to go to some form of dispute resolution with you such as Mediation, sooner rather than later. Because you are suggesting some authority on disambiguation policy, and are perhaps discounting my authority, and it could be heading towards impasse or heading towards edit warring across a large number of pages, which i don't want to see. If you don't want even a wikipedia name to be identified, I am not sure how to proceed.

You may or may not understand that I am in a difficult situation myself, and that your taking an interest in dab page practices and carrying that on to many NRHP dab pages that I have developed, can put me into further difficulty, in posing a challenge to me while I am under a lot of scrutiny. You probably do not see all of this, you don't see yourself as a rogue editor causing problems, but to me you seem somewhat like a series of previous editors who have arrived and taken interest in dab pages, who have a local perspective about how one dab page could possibly be done differently/better, but have little appreciation of bigger patterns, reasons why a given practice is implemented in one page. For example, your latest edit makes further change of ordering, from geographic ordering to some other, and I am guessing you are uninformed about a lot of previous discussion about that. These arriving editors usually do have good faith, and usually do respond to sensible discussion.

I am patient and willing to explain policy and practice with newly arriving editors, including you, and to consider new ideas and reconsider old debates, but I don't want to waste time and if you want to have this kind of discussion, I want to do it once with you, efficiently. Rather than detecting over time that the IP editor is arriving at multiple articles and making changes based on their incomplete understanding of bigger picture. If you want to have this discussion, i think it would be best done with you as a logged-in editor. If you are not willing to log in and discuss, then honestly I am not sure how to proceed, whether to raise some Administrative Noticeboard item and call for more scrutiny, or what. That would tend towards identifying you probably.

Anyhow, I have concerns about edits to disambiguation pages and perhaps otherwise in contributions of 3 I.P. addresses that have edited here, [1], [2], [3]. The editor's latest edit here this edit with summary "Explained on talk page" introduces new problems, which are definitely not "explained" yet. Probably all in good faith, but problematic. --doncram 16:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that everyone is trying to provoke you into bad behavior that isn't your fault, maybe you should ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to get the article protected at the correct version. The correct version obviously includes the grocery warehouse, the glassware company, and the office building. I've restored the article to the correct version. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is getting way too weird. I think I understand what you're doing but then again I may not. Either way, I'm not touching this page again. Sorry for causing any problems. Good luck everyone. 69.95.203.248 (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)