User talk:Doncram/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doncram. 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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

California Chess Congress

Hi Don, I just wanted to let you know that I sent you an email with a copy of that article. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help you! All the best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Opa-Locka Thematic Resource Area

I responded at Talk:Opa-locka, Florida regarding the merger proposal. I really think it would be a bad idea to start merging lengthy content about a city's historic districts/buildings into a generic article about the city. You mentioned that you didn't think Opa-Locka Thematic Resource Area was the right name, but you didn't suggest an alternate. What did you have in mind? BTW, I've nominated the above (and several others) for DYK. You've been taking on some interesting subjects lately. Cbl62 (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the new discussion at the Opa-Locka article instead of at Talk:Opa-Locka Thematic Resource Area . I had already suggested a name, "Arabian Nights theme architecture of Opa-Locka, Florida" and just now suggested it at the new discussion.

I'm really glad you appreciate the topics I've opened recently, and have chosen to develop them further. That seems to include DYKs in process for Opa-Locka Thematic Resource Area, for Punta Gorda Fish Co., and for Louden Machinery Company. Thanks! --do ncr am

There are a total of seven articles on which you have been co-nominated for DYK: Louden Machinery Co., Thompson-Starrett, Opa-Locka TRA, Punta Gorda Fish Co., Champion Bridge Co., Joseph C. Wells, and Henry W. Cleaveland. All very solid topics IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Remind others to seek colleagues

Although the 2,000 wp:WikiProjects have been shrinking in active members, the basic concept, to seek like-minded Wikipedians, is still working to provide networks of improved editing. Always remind educated people to seek colleagues in their field of study. Years ago, I fell under the illusion that "intellectuals" had all left WP, but then I noticed the thousands of medical articles were still being improved, rather than just marred as "my sister takes those pills, izz good dope". For example, consider the work involved to write the following medical article:

Article: "Serotonin–norepinephrine–dopamine reuptake inhibitor"

Among the 9,500 active registered editors, who update more than 25 articles each month, there are thousands of normal, educated people, not "control freaks" trying to prove their power. Plus, many academics can edit Wikipedia, "undetected", by using the rotating-IP addresses, and hence few at their universities know who they are. In general, just remind other editors to seek support from their colleagues. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Anna Frodesiak#For a great Userpage's talk page. 04:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Email

I got your note about having sent an email. I haven't used my old aol account in months. When I tried to access it just now, I learned it has been deactivated, so I'm not able to read your note. Cbl62 (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Got your response. My only other email is a work email which I prefer not to use. I will see if I can get the aol account reactivated. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

National Bank of Commerce

Thanks. I'm not really sure what happened there. I see I did all the significant editing and I don't know how those buildings got left on the first page.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted page

No, I will not. You included an excessive quote of nonfree copyrighted material, and I will not commit copyright infringement by copying it. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrators are under no obligation to provide copies of deleted content. When the content has been deleted because of a copyvio, it would at the minimum be contributory copyright infringement, so I will not break the law by restoring your copyright infringement. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't respond to your entire message. It is not a abuse of administrative tools to delete pages containing copyright infringement; otherwise every G12 speedy deletion would be an abuse of administrative tools. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If you wish for me to give you a full response, you'll need to write substantially less; I don't have time to read pages of talk-page comments, and that's why I couldn't leave you a courtesy note a few hours ago when I saw your statement. It would be appreciated if you were to spend less time on your talk page messages and more time on developing information for mainspace edits. Nyttend (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me there. I've never seen that before, and I would strongly suggest that you continue using that book and that method of citation. My only objection is the non-fair use of copyrighted text, as quotations of the sort that you have used are easily replaceable with your own words. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating North Inlet Trail, Doncram!

Wikipedia editor Nkansahrexford just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

To reply, leave a comment on Nkansahrexford's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

San Fran buried ship

I reverted your removal of my photo of the San Fran buried ship Apollo from the SF NRHP list. See here for part of the story, but it works out like this. Ships including the Apollo were deserted by their crews during the gold rush in SF harbor, and left to rot. The shallow harbor was filled in and became valuable land. Squatters would claim "water lots" by moving a deserted hulk on top of the soon to be valuable real estate. The might use them for storage, but mainly they were just parked there. The land was filled in around them. Buildings were built on top of them. They'd be rediscovered later (and then another building might be built on top)!

The Apollo is 30 feet under that building and will never see the light of day again and is totally inaccessible. The pic of the building is the best we'll ever get. Hope this makes sense. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you would contribute at new article Apollo (storeship) rather than explaining facts of the site here. But no, it doesn't make sense to show a photo of not-the-thing. Like it doesn't make sense to show the photo of a new building, that replaced the old building, in many other cases. Wait for an old photo. There are artifacts of the ship which could be shown, i would expect. Hold out for something of the actual topic, at the list-article, and in the infobox of the article.... I did use the pic in the article, just not in the infobox. I don't object really, but I dunno why you are noticing that change and writing here, rather than at the Talk page of the list-article. --do ncr am 01:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Doncram ... Thanks for your invitation on my talk page, but starting new articles from scratch is not my favorite activity out here. I don't particularly enjoy writing and I already devote as much time as I have to this particular hobby. Regards, --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A thought

Regarding your edit summary here, there is indeed more content in your recreation. I deleted the earlier version as it consisted solely of an image - there was no content. I believe the original creator had additional images of buildings available, perhaps you reach out to them? --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

...and same with this one. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

First Presbyterian Church of Roseburg

Hello Doncram, thanks for the info, and yes feel free to move and develop the article. I will get back down there one of these days and do some research and photographs if that would be helpful.Visitor7 (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Butts Bridge

I see you added an infobox with coordinates, but there were coords in the title. I eliminated the duplication, but the ones you added differ from the ones added by Primehunter. Do you know which ones are correct?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is about Butts Bridge. I see you put the coordinates that Primehunter had added into the NRHP infobox, and clicking to look at them in a map confirms those are spot on correct, for the bridge bringing that street across the Quinebaug River. Thanks for noticing the duplication and resolving it correctly! :) --do ncr am 00:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wilson Bros. & Company

I wanted to let you know that I nominated this article for deletion. It duplicates the article Wilson Brothers & Company. But I did merge all of your list of works into the list on the other page.

Thanks for your kind words on DeArmond, Ashmead & Bickley, and good luck on your Gibraltar article. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for noticing the duplication and for implementing the appropriate merger of material. I further edited a bit at the new article (for example showing redlinks for the NRHP items not yet having articles, but which are wikipedia-notable topics. Red links help the wikipedia grow.... And, the PROD for deletion was removed by another editor in favor of making it a redirect, which seems best. Thanks. --do ncr am 12:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hobart steel houses

I would strongly suggest that you refrain from creating implausible redirects such as from the steel houses to the Hobart steel house company; anyone who wants to look up one of these houses will not be looking to read an article about the company, and it's no more sensible to redirect them to the company than it would be to redirect C&O 1308 to Baldwin Locomotive Works if Jameslwoodward hadn't created it. Whether or not the article contains a list, it is not a likely target, and lists of products are not appropriate for manufacturer articles. Additionally, will you please refrain from the vague, unencyclopedic content as seen here? You have previously been warned against things such as "seem similar", and it's simply a hindrance to others to place categories on articles that shouldn't have them, such as putting an architectural style category or a houses-built-in-year category on this article. If you wish for these articles to be bluelinks, you need to create articles yourself with information about where the properties are located, their histories, and why these properties are notable — not simply creating one-sentence stubs. Nyttend (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Lehi Main Street Historic District, Doncram!

Wikipedia editor Polarscribe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

To reply, leave a comment on Polarscribe's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating David Morgan House, Doncram!

Wikipedia editor Titodutta just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

To reply, leave a comment on Titodutta's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for creating David Morgan House. Best, Tito Dutta (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

.jpg images

Please tell me how to edit the title of an image that has a typo. Highland Shool should be SChool. The image is used in more than one article, so would fixing a typo in the TITLE of an article "mess up" all the other articles? Especially if the image is used in other language versions? Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tiyang, good question. The "Highland Shool Boulder Colorado USA.jpg" image is actually located over at commons.wikimedia.org, and is not in wikipedia proper. I think the file over there in commons needs to be moved/renamed, and I don't know how to do that. Can you ask over there? Do you have a Talk page over there, perhaps you could call for help somehow, over there. --do ncr am 00:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Or ask at wt:NRHP here in wikipedia, where many editors who also do commons work also would know, i bet. Good point that the impact on other wikipedias of a filename needs to be considered. Honestly i don't know. One option is to just leave it misspelled in the photo title, which doesn't show any public way, but I agree there oughta be a way. --do ncr am 00:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Leaving the word school misspelled is not an option. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's only in the title and doesn't show, why not? Britmax (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I just put in a move request over at Commons. As a logged-in user over there, at the photo's page, I found there is a menu option to "Move" (meaning rename), which turns out to lead to a move request form, which I filled out by selecting reason number 5 out of a list.

About the file name not showing, I meant when used in a wikipedia article, as at Highland School (Boulder, Colorado), the picture displays but the regular wikipedia reader would not see the file name. However, at the Commons page of the photo, and at the wikipedia page of a copy of the photo, it does show misspelled. We'll have to wait and see about the file being moved now --do ncr am 12:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Well it seems to have been moved (renamed)! --do ncr am 21:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

And, i updated the filename in the several places that the old filename appeared in the English wikipedia. It is possible that the old filename appears in the German or other wikipedias, but I can't easily see where it is used. The German wikipedia has extensive coverage of U.S. NRHP-listed places, I know. --do ncr am 21:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Great work! I knew you could do it! Could you look at the Highland School Talk Page and indicate you have made the change? Thank you and thank you. Very Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

HD buildings of a certain year, Barnum/Palliser Historic District example

You might want to spend some time reading about categorization. The problem is that the DISTRICT was not built in that year. It is rather simple. While some buildings in the district may have been built in that year, that is not a valid reason to categorize the district. I know you do not like my edit comment. However if you would not miscategroize articles, I would not be editing those needing an edit comment. Also I'm seeing a new type of miscategorization in some articles. I saw this in a by state category. It was for a bank which was categorized in banks of some state AND commercial buildings of some state. The commercial category needs to be removed from the article, and the category banks should be in the commercial category not all of the articles. Finally someone needs to take a hard look at how NRHP is categorizing articles. I have seen numerous cases where a, lets say, office building is listed. However since it was recently converted to residential use, it is in an NRHP category as residential and not office which is probably the better choice. I would rather move on to other things but the NRHP articles always seem to placed in very imprecise categories requiring someone else to put them in the correct categories. Bottom line, the edits are correct and in the example you provided you can have kept me out of editing the article if correct categories were placed on the article when you created it. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Continuing, as one complete discussion, at User talk:Vegaswikian#HD buildings of a certain year, Barnum/Palliser Historic District example. --do ncr am 21:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of local Methodist churches

The article List of local Methodist churches has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NLIST — practically never-ending list, seems to duplicate purpose of Category:Methodist churches.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Theo polisme 23:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for Speedy Deletion

Speedy deletion nomination of List of local Methodist churches

A tag has been placed on List of local Methodist churches requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Revmqo (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Stick/Eastlake

AWB doesn't offer the ability to check whether another category name exists under a slightly different spelling; it only offers the ability to highlight and/or remove categories that don't exist at the exact spelling that's actually been used. And people quite frequently try to use categories that should never exist, so not every redlinked category is necessarily something that either should be created or just needs a spelling correction — and I'm not necessarily always the person who's correctly qualified to judge that, as even if I had opted to create the redlink instead of deleting it, I wouldn't have known where or how to file it in the category tree anyway.

Ultimately, the onus is on the person who added that category to those four articles in the first place to ensure that they were using the correct spelling and/or fixed it after the fact if they made a mistake. But there's not much point in rapping me on the nose for not having the expertise in architecture to know how to fix their error by myself — redlinked categories aren't supposed to be left on articles at all, which means that even if I don't know how to fix it I still have to remove it one way or another. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

NRHP

Hi Doncram. If you go to nrhp.focus.nps.gov and enter "Hotel Senator" under resource name, hit enter, then select the listed name, you will be brought to a page (Record Number: 380079). How can I link to that page. The URL given is http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregsearchresult.do?fullresult=true&recordid=0 and that doesn't work. - Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, after I "go to nrhp.focus.nps.gov and enter "Hotel Senator" under resource name, hit enter," then wait, then the two results you want eventually appear below:

And per instructions at wp:NRHPhelp (perhaps you are checking there already?) you can cite them in a wikipedia article by adapting <ref name=nrhpdoc>{{cite web|url=http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/.pdf |title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: |author= |date= |publisher=National Park Service}} and [http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/.pdf accompanying photos]</ref>. Does this help? --do ncr am 13:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping to figure out a URL for the page in which the two results appeared, rather than the two .pdf results themselves. It's strange that NRHP does not let you link to that page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Orlo Epps for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Orlo Epps 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/Orlo Epps 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 high-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. C6541 (T↔C) 00:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Stop introducing errors, as you did with this edit to the introduction of National Register of Historic Places listings in Allen County, Indiana. Persistent addition of errors is vandalism and will result in blocking. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is your level 3 warning for introducing errors. Nyttend (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Copying these comments and replying at User talk:Nyttend. Please continue there. --do ncr am 01:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Moved discussion

I have moved our discussion from my talk page to NRHP project talk page. Thundersnow 16:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! I likely over-reacted over at WT:NRHP. Sorry, but I don't want to see you put into difficult positions again. All the best. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks, i appreciate your concern and wishes. --do ncr am 23:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles McMillen (architect)

A tag has been placed on Charles McMillen (architect) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Rushbugled13 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Caste list

I've responded in the caste list thread that you started. I am sorry if it all sounds like I am talking down to you but this thing is just a nightmare and it involves potentially well over 4000 articles and far too few people with experience to deal. I've spent about 20 months on this so far and expect it to take another 5 or 6 years just to get the existing content somewhere close to reality. Any help is, of course, always welcome but caste is such an incredibly complex thing that the learning process is lengthy. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, using the 1950 stuff for List of Scheduled Castes is going to bring you a lot of grief. It is so out of date as to be useless and I would suggest that if you really want to go down that road then you rename it to List of Scheduled Castes in 1950. Please be aware that there are numerous names shared by several different communities, which can make linking to articles a dodgy thing to do. Even more so because some castes have changed their names. Furthermore, the lists are actually created at regional level, not nationally. The 1950 list was really little more than a paradigm. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. About the scheduled castes, could we discuss the sources at Talk:List of Scheduled Castes? Copying your comment to there. --do ncr am 20:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You have TLDR on that talk page and more to come. Thought I'd better just catch your eye, though. You've cited People of India Punjab Volume XXXVII edited by I.J.S Bansal and Swaran Singh pages 20 to 25 Manohar. It is not a reliable source. There are two series of that work: the initial "national" series was published by Oxford University Press and is fine; the second series was the "states", published by various outfits. The second series is mostly a rip-off of the British Raj works, often word-for-word and often without proper attribution. Since the Raj works are unreliable (believe me, they are!), so too is the states series. - Sitush (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Blackton, Arkansas

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Blackton, Arkansas 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 the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Greatuser (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Orlo Epps

On 2 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Orlo Epps, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Greensboro, North Carolina, architect Orlo Epps was also a professor of mathematics and physics and a socialist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Orlo Epps. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/WLM-US 2013 discussion

Would definitely be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Anglican churches

The article List of Anglican churches has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Way too long list. This should either be a list of lists, a pointer to other pages, or not exist at all. Category:Anglican church buildings contains thousands of Anglican churches, e.g. nearly 1,000 in Category:19th-century Anglican church buildings alone. As it is currently set up, this list is not a feasible list topic.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Lists of churches

I haev moved a number of your "list of churches" articles to your userspace. Not only are they, as conceived now, a spectacularly bad idea, they were also completely and utterly useless, and it is better to give the reader nothing than such dreadful things. Instead of trying to create ten such articles at once, why not take them one at a time, see what's feasible, what format works, and get them up to a decent level before bringing them to the mainspace (and certainly before starting another one). There is no rush, no need to create them all at once. E.g. User:Doncram/List of Catholic churches: if you want to create a list of Catholic churches in the US, then do so, instead of creating it in a general, worldwide list of such churches. Of course, we already have List of the Catholic cathedrals of the United States, List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans, ... Do you plan on having a complete list in one page, or do you want to have separate lists per country (or sublevel of country)? The first is not feasible, but is what you started out doing in a rather US- and NRHP-slanted way (many churches are notable for other things than being NRHP-listed, obviously: Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels is probably not yet NRHP listed, but obviously notable.

First, think through what you want to create with these lists, and how they might look when the basic work is finished; then proceed with them, and move them to mainspace in a more or less stable and usable format, even if they aren't complete yet (they will never be complete anyway, but that's less of a problem). Confronting users with malformed 50K empty lists is worse than useless though. Fram (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Fram makes some very good points; I agree. Also, continuing to snipe at Orlady is a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Coding errors?

I've hit an odd MediaWiki error while editing some of your lists of churches. Could you go to the "MWException fatal error" section of WP:VP/T and note whether or not you're getting these errors when you edit these pages? I've not had this problem with other people's creations or other pages that you've created, so I'm wondering if you accidentally made some sort of coding mistake with these pages. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Just stop now, please

Doncram you really do not know wha you are doing here. I've reverted this. You are confusing two synonymous but unrelated communities and it is not the first time that you have done this. Do you really want to kick off a massive caste warring episode on Wikipedia? Right now, that is the bomb that you are priming. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Please address the content question you raise at Talk:Koli people#Other Backward Class question. I note there has never been any discussion at that Talk page; it is high time that something be discussed there. Thanks. --do ncr am 22:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And I've had to alter per this, which would appear to be some poorly-phrased stock sentence you plan to insert willy-nilly. You've been told that these lists change etc. - Sitush (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I will not address your poor contributions on numerous talk pages. You are not playing the divide and rule game with me. You are wrong in fact, you have little clue re: the subject and all I am doing is demonstrating that you need to back off. Keep on with this and you'll find yourself at ANI for disruptive editing. - Sitush (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sorry, but we really need to stop this headlong rush and you are showing no signs either of doing so or of understanding the subject matter. - Sitush (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider this...

Being incorrect with edits is not a bad thing, but your history works against you. Calm down, back away and let time heal some wounds.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Doncram, you recently left a 1,600 word comment on ANI ("Comment by doncram"). Do you understand that comments between 200 and 500 words are considered lengthy for ANI, with 100 word comments approaching the average attention span limit? Please, please, please read Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read and be concise in the future. That is, if you want people to actually read your comments. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

List of OBCs

Why is a list encyclopaedic, I'd like to ask before voting at the AfD? Any article would simply be a reproduction of another list. Perhaps we could have something like Group A is OBC in the Union list but not in State X but is so in State Y, that is all I could think of that a list on Wikipedia could inform and put in one place beyond what is already available. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be busy, I will explain this further, Other Backward Class in the primary source is a list, as you know, since you shared "list of OBCs - Goa" as a source. Secondly there are about thirty states and union territories in India each with a list, the Union government has their own list, each list could have about 100 entries, do you wish you have a page list with thousands of entries? The list is dynamic, groups keep entering or leaving the list, does Wikipeida have the manpower to keep such a list upto date.? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is about List of Other Backward Classes, under AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes. Thank you for inquiring. Yes, i actually think identifying that "Koli" or another group is named as OBC in some states (and list them) and not others would be helpful, and that other commonalities will be noted. This could "add value" and allow for more consolidation in the list (one entry for same name in all of its states) and a shorter list, or more room for extra description of each, than we might expect from your rough estimates. And, value is to be added is by making the list searchable and sortable in various ways (currently I don't know of an Indian government document that allows us to search for all instances of "koli", for example; one big list provides that searchability. We can handle pretty huge lists. But mostly value is created by providing, for each, a link to a corresponding articles (or indicating by a redlink that no corresponding article exists). It would be pretty much impossible for a person to rely upon the category system alone, or any other way, for making sense of India's many OBCs.

And, yes, Wikipedia does have the manpower to keep lists of thousands of items up-to-date where explicit sources are available (and it would not be a tragedy if the article was slightly out of date, sometimes, as long as it was explicit on what date it was updated through). It is rather a lot of what I do, e.g. in maintaining and developing within lists of historic sites (e.g. 85,000+ large List of RHPs and 2,400+ large List of NHLs) and many other lists like List of Masonic buildings that include other things, too. There exist List of bridges and List of ships and many other types of big lists... try Lists of lists? --do ncr am 05:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am convinced by a part of your argument and have voted keep, I hope promises are delivered and we have a useful list. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Universalist Church

Sorry It looks like we're stepping on one another's toes (me on yours more likely!) and I'll stop for now to see what it is you want to accomplish. Respond on my talk if you need me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. Yes we seemed to be tripping over each other. I was changing my mind over things, too, as i went along, so it was pretty confusing. Anyhow, I just opened a Requested Move discussion section at Talk:Universalist Church to sort the main thing out, please do comment there. --do ncr am 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi doncram, you have mentioned ArbCom both here and in the recent ANI thread. The latter was particularly specific, eg: you said " I think it is time to seek an arbcom case ..." Some people have doubts regarding whether ArbCom would take on this messy situation but clearly you favour raising it with them. Why not propose such a case to ArbCom, then? Apparently, there is precedent for a self-referral in the Ottava Rima case and, of course, it would demonstrate your good faith. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning to keep recounting historical issues again and again and again.... as you have been doing with Yogesh Khandke? Please stop nagging him.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Something mentioned by doncram less than 24 hours ago (as linked above) is hardly "historical". Now please stop stalking me. - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In my reading, what Doncram was saying there is different from what you are saying (again, in my reading). Doncram wasn't saying Doncram should be taken to the arb, you are. And the issues you want to be taken to arb are historical. I was only following-up on an issue I am involved with, and wasn't following you. In any case, several people have raised concerns about your behavior. You can expect things you do or say to be under a microscope.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Where above have I said that doncram should be taken to ArbCom? I said that the issues could be self-referred. The problem is not going to go away until something is done and doncram clearly thinks the same. As one of the major participants, doncram could bring this to resolution in a way that I for one cannot. The outcome may favour doncram, who knows?- Sitush (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, there is precedent for a self-referral in the Ottava Rima case and, of course, it would demonstrate your good faith. In that sentence, I do not see the word "issues". You appear to be changing the meaning of what you said. Anyway, I have no intention of continuing endlessly in a game of hair-splitting. Whatever. If Doncram wants to take something to the arbs, better let Doncram decide when and if they want to do it. If Doncram wants it, why should they need to be pushed?OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not pushing. I asked a question. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Koli

You'll have to take Goa out of Koli people. You have no idea if they are the same community, as I've said previously. Reinstating the same stuff is not going to make it right. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this content issue at its article, at Talk:Koli people#Other Backward Class question. --do ncr am 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already explained that is not going to work, in the full glare of ANI. IIRC, people agreed with me. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this content issue at its article, at Talk:Koli people#Other Backward Class question. Thanks. --do ncr am 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Userfy

Please see User_talk:JohnCD#Reconsider_deletion_of_Userfy Mkdw ^talk 23:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sherman House

Hi Doncram, Thanks for adding an article page for Sherman House (Batesville, Indiana). I just learned about this Sherman House which was featured on My Ghost Story. And according to the show, and its owner is quite haunted. I'll try to add more information to the Sherman House page but I have to find some reliable sources.Sue Kastle (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

North Dakota Pix

User:Klotz from Commons has dropped off about 20 pix from ND (long story). Thought you might be interested.

Merry Christmas - I'll be more or less gone for a week.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, i eventually see this regards commons user KLOTZ's contributions and that in this edit you added 14 thumb pix to the List of RHPs in ND page. I am happy to add these to the corresponding individual articles (most or all of which I created), am doing so, then will look for other 6 you suggest must exist. Thanks for the notice.

It would be usual for someone adding a pic to an NRHP list-article to add it also to any pre-existing individual NRHP article, I would think, right? I am happy to help get these pics placed though, when specifically requested. --do ncr am 04:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

To follow up, I placed those 14 (although one was done by Smallbones already), and placed 3 more that were at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Unused images, and further observed that Smallbones had placed two Burleigh county ones and one Sargent County one into their individual articles already. So I think that's it. Smallbones, let me know if I am missing anything, or if I can do anything more. Thanks! --do ncr am 05:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

Vegaswikian (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said, basically. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas 2012! Happy New Year and all the best in 2013! Thanks for all you do here, and best wishes for the year to come.
	Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Delaware NRHP places

Thank you for your response to me on User talk:Smallbones about Chapeltown, Delaware and Dutch Neck Crossroads, Delaware, to which I would add Mastens Corner, Delaware. Your response covers just about what I would expect Peter to say, because he follows up on NRHP concerns very well. I would leave to his, or your best judgement, as to whether articles need to be created, or not, or when, or if photos can be added to the place articles, and there is no need for speed at all. I have assisted him with photographs of NRHP buildings in Philadelphia, where I live, and where I hope to get meetings of Wikipedia editors started sometime in February 2013. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, glad you found my response helpful. I was concerned that you shouldn't think there's anything wrong with redlinks existing. Anyhow I have further gone on just now to start articles for Allee House (Dutch Neck Crossroads, Delaware) and Vogl House, that were the two redlinks in those articles. Oddly, by the way, in the NRHP nom doc for the Allee House, it is described as a Queen Anne architecture house, though the photo and the date of construction both seem to belie that. Cheers, --do ncr am 05:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Allee House

A tag has been placed on Allee House requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Senator2029 “let's talk” 06:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Your interaction with Sitush

Hi Doncram, your interaction style was brought to my attention (in particular, this discussion). There, Sitush was not uncivil and yet you continued to resort to argumenta ad hominem. You are an established user and I don't want to sound condescending, but you certainly must be aware that discussing the other contributor(s) during a content dispute does nothing to solve it and actually makes it more difficult to come to a consensus. Now, please stop. If you believe Sitush's behaviour has been inappropriate, there are various venues where it is appropriate to discuss the issue; the talk page of an article is not one of them. If you persist, I'll have to brandish WP:Castes and impose a restriction... $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Salvio. I don't recognize your username. Could you explain how your attention was brought to my edits, please? I am curious if you were asked by someone or what. About ad hominem attacks, that was exactly what I was raising with editor Sitush, asking them to stop with that, and I think your view is too short or inadvertently biased or something, if you come to an evaluation of me that way without seeing his edits as more problematic. My exact point was that every edit he has made at that Talk page and/or in other interactions (which you may not have seen, e.g. at Yogeshe's Talk page, e.g. in other new interactions Sitush has made where he asserts others are "POV pushers") has involved an attack against another editor. I'll take a look at wp:Castes but offhand think it would be a mistake for you to step in in too heavy-handed and too one-sided a way. I don't have a side in anything caste-related, anyhow. And, at that Talk section, happily Sitush saw fit to strike their last comment, and to acknowledge in their edit summary that it was "kneejerk", seeming to accept my point. Thanks for your concern, anyhow. No need for anyone else to comment here, thanks. --do ncr am 15:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't read my mind, tell the world and then tell me I cannot reply here. My striking was not an agreement with your comment, nor did the edit summary say that. Yet again, you misrepresent me. It has to stop, Now. I'll say no more on this subject here and I would appreciate it if, in the spirit of good faith and right to reply, you allowed this comment to stand. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec with Sitush editing of own comment) Okay, comment away, Sitush. I will exercise my right to delete others' comments if they choose to butt in. Sitush, you invited this discussion by your request to editor Salvio, showing at User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 58#Overstepping the mark and at [[User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 58#RTV (where you appear to acknowledge fault "I need to back off, I think, and will try my best. My last there was a bit of a kneejerk, although verifiable. Must try to pay more attention to what you, Dennis and others have said, ie: there are many eyes. Mea culpa"). The larger topic could be Sitush's nearly 100% consistent use of disparaging comments about others (me mostly) at Talk:List of Other Backward Classes and at other Talk pages. I have found your way of speaking to appear to me to be kneejerk (your term) in an attacking style. This new edit by Sitush here too is consistent, it is also an attack of sorts, an accusation of me misrepresenting. I am not now going to list and categorize Sitush's comments in interactions with me, but I expect that between 80% and 100% of such involve accusations of misrepresentation, use of vile language, use of clear attacks, comments about other editors being ignorant or worse, or otherwise fault-finding about others. This, my Talk page, is not the forum for a full discussion of Sitush's behavior. I don't care to have any discussion about this at all here, frankly. But Sitush, so you do not feel stifled, fire away. (Or, let this stand, and let's not discuss it further here, per your revised comment.) --do ncr am 21:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doncram. You probably do not recognise my username, because lately I've been much more inactive than I was before, so it's harder to see me around. That said, I consider myself rather experienced when it comes to the topic area, for I have been acting as an admin with regard to it for over a year Salvio. I was also the one who proposed the adoption of discretionary sanctions to deal with the disruption caused by editors warring about castes. As you have already guessed, Sitush asked me on my talk page to review his edits and yours. And so I did. Now, I believe he was firm and probably also frustrated, but, in my opinion, he was not uncivil. I don't want to be disrespectful and I don't really know how to phrase this, but I don't think you know enough about Indian castes to be making edits in what's an extremely sensitive topic area. And, so, while you always intended to improve Wikipedia, your actions inadvertently caused disruption. For that reason, under WP:Castes, you are hereby banned from making any edits relating to Indian castes across all namespace for a year. I'm sorry. You can appeal this restriction to me as imposing administrator, to the community or to ArbCom.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 15:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this issue, I'd welcome your opinion here, if you wish.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 17:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your final warning

This is your final warning for violations of WP:WIAPA at the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29 page. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are considered personal attacks, and "The deleting editor is fully aware of the fact that the deletions performed did not conform to any speedy deletion criteria" is an accusation of intentional bad faith editing, just like you made to Orlady recently at AN. Consequently, any further attacks of this sort or of others (e.g. calling me non-human) will result in a request to extend your block log. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Umm, that is nonsense. I explained to you twice at your Talk page that the R3 criteria "Implausible redirect" did not apply, and I linked to those discussions at the Deletion review page. You are the one making accusations of intentional bad faith editing. This very "warning" seems perhaps to be intentionally in bad faith. I didn't say yours were in bad faith. But, in plain English, can you try to explain any way in which your deletion edits invoking R3 16 times could have been in good faith? --do ncr am 22:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Very easy. Sixteen times you created implausible redirects with no viable targets, and sixteen times I found them, so sixteen times I deleted them. You're accusing me of doing something in violation of policy despite knowing otherwise, and I know very well that they are in line with policy — but you've provided no evidence that I believe them to be policy violations. Only if I agreed that they were policy violations could I be editing in bad faith. Issues such as making inaccurate accusations based on cursory readings (e.g. accusing me of WP:OWN on Ohio articles based on some Indiana bridges and objecting that an existing page was nonexistent) that has driven off people. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the since-concluded deletion review about this led to restoration of all 16 redirects. It was utter nonsense that they were "implausible" or that they met speedy deletion criteria. --do ncr am 22:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Pages for masonic lodges which are about buildings

Doncram, thank you for your note. I will make a note at List of Masonic buildings in the United States. RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 13:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Another AN/I thread

Hi,
There is another AN/I thread concerning your editing. It is here.
Happy new year... bobrayner (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You have mail!

Hello, Doncram. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Regarding a t-shirt nomination :) Jalexander--WMF 02:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with an interaction ban proposal

It has become blatantly obvious that Nyttend has lost his objectivity in events related to you, and I believe Orlady has done the same. Can you assist me with User:Ryan Vesey/Interaction ban by creating a list of administrative errors that have or have not been rectified as of now, by those two editors related to you? It would be great if you list them on the talk page of that proposal so that I don't edit conflict. Ryan Vesey 17:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox generator

You've mentioned several concerns about the infobox generator in a recent edit at Wikipedia:Bot requests. First of all, if you think my infobox generator is deficient or doesn't produce the kind of output you want, feel free to design your own solution, or feel free to not use mine. Frankly, I don't want you using my infobox generator if you're going to keep griping about it. I'm not even sure how the limitations in the infobox generator (which are underlying limitations in the database) relate to your objections about using a start date in a microformat.

About a couple specific points you brought up: I already know about your qualms about the date built versus the beginning of the significant year date range in the database. I've already voiced my opinion that editors should use additional sources, beyond the National Register database, to develop their articles. If a source says that a building like a farmhouse was built in 1758 but didn't become significant until 1776, when some locally famous politician expanded the house and started signing American Revolutionary War documents in there, the database might list 1776 for the significant year. An author using a secondary source besides the infobox generator would know that the farmhouse was built in 1758, and update the infobox accordingly. You, on the other hand, prefer to take the database as the only source, and then inserting these disclaimers saying "was built or has other significance in". In fact, you even accused me once of not knowing the build date of the Floyd B. Olson House, even though I had two other sources saying it was built in 1922.

Also, there are buildings like churches, cathedrals, large commercial buildings, and other major construction projects that span multiple years. Basilica of Saint Mary (Minneapolis) is an example, when the groundbreaking was in 1907, the cornerstone was laid in 1908, the dedication happened in 1913, but they didn't celebrate Mass in there until 1914. And, the interior wasn't even complete until 1926. I would argue that in that case, the dates should be explained in the text (as they are in that article). Having just one field in the infobox isn't always necessary to explain that.

Now, to address some other points that you brought up at WP:BOTREQ that have nothing to do with dates: You allege, "I believe the provider of the NRHP infobox tool is not currently willing to make changes to prevent new bad data from being added." I have been willing to implement requests when they can be implemented correctly and relatively easily, but I know of no method to ensure that information on the database is always accurate. Queen Avenue Bridge is spelled as "Queene" in the database, but I know from experience that the street is spelled "Queen". (It's right after Morgan, Newton, Oliver, and Penn, but before Russell and Sheridan.) You mention, in a different post, "Even very experienced editors WITH access to the NRHP nom document are swayed." Like who? Do you have actual examples, or are you just making an accusation? Like I've said in the past, the infobox generator is there just to retrieve information from the database and to populate the {{Infobox NRHP}} template. It isn't meant to be the only source and the complete output for one article. That requires critical analysis of sources and an ability to determine which sources are more reliable. (I think this made for part of your problem with the Indian caste articles.)

You allege, "It is not a very serious error, but one logical error put in by the NRHP infobox generator is to list architectural styles erroneously as 'Greek Revival, Other, Federal', where 'Other' is logically out of order. The NRHP infobox generator programmer doesn't care to correct that, but rather accepts the random output of an SQL merge of data that happens to put 'Other' in non-logical position." This is the first time I've heard of "Other" being out of position. I would have fixed it if someone had asked me to fix it. If this is your way of asking for an enhancement request or a bug fix, it's a bad way to do so, because I don't usually read all of your contributions or read WP:BOTREQ.

Then you complain, "This kind of judgment is corroborated by there being scads of attacks against me, an experienced editor, for using accurately imprecise language in NRHP articles, e.g. that a person was an architect and/or a builder, or that a given date was a built date or another date of significance, when full NRHP nomination documents are not available but an article exists already or needs to be created for some reason." It's interesting that you get to rule stuff like that as an attack, but it's perfectly OK for you to allege that I just spit out imprecise information and I'm not willing to fix my tools.

I need to cut this short because I have actual work to do this afternoon. And really, I'm not telling you anything new about what I think about the infobox generator or its use in developing NRHP articles, but you refuse to listen to my viewpoints anyway. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have one more thing to say. I'm really rather annoyed that I have to spend this much time talking to you and refuting your claims against me and my work. It takes time from legitimate tasks that I need to do. And, I remember the last time that someone slandered me, and my work, on a different forum. That was a very unpleasant exchange for all involved, especially since a moderator slammed $3,000 in my costuming work as not having "quality and integrity" and work not being found "suitable", and it culminated in me being banned from that forum. So yeah, I take these things pretty seriously. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Creation

As I said earlier, I intend to seek an interaction ban between Orlady and Nyttend and you; however, I think some actions on your part are necessary. I understand that the process is backlogged, but would you be willing to voluntarily submit all of your articles through the Articles for Creation process? This will ensure that editors view your articles before they enter the mainspace, keeping them from being speedy deleted and ensuring that they meet the quality standard expected for Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey 19:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the overture. I don't think that my article creations are any problem. There is no problem with articles that I create, and simply having someone else review my articles would not satisfy the editors following me and contending. I am in fact under some kind of review with every article that I create, since that got slapped onto my account sometime previously. When I noticed the exclamation mark that appears on every new article in my edit history, and asked for that review to be removed, my request was noticed by editor Orlady who disputed it with reference to a hate page that Orlady maintains. Of course almost every article that I create is approved quickly, and the occasional prod or speedy delete request is removed pretty quickly.

I think an Arbcom case is necessary and am preparing a request. I do thank you for your interest in seeing to some less-expensive solution. --do ncr am 00:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey doncram, I realise that you are catching up etc but thought you'd better be made aware of this because I think it may be the alleged "hate page" to which you refer above. The outcome might affect the wording of any ArbCom case. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Old Union School

See User:Doncram/Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio). Please don't include a paraphrase of the phrase you quoted before — you'd quoted from the book's section on the Old Bartlett and Goble Store; the authors of the book only observe that the old school has a Greek Revival appearance. Footnote 3 on the current page isn't accurate, because the school appears at the bottom of page 1076 and continues onto the next page. Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed your request for the talk page. I'm sorry; I left it deleted because I simply didn't think of it. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive behavior at DRV. Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Please don't uncollapse the DRV. Sarek restored the talk page a while ago, and I wouldn't have left the above message without undeleting it if it were a redlink. The additional material was your quote and various other information that's all applicable to the Bartlett store. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs

You were clearly edit warring on the DRV page ( [1] ) and know this is not acceptable behavior. I have blocked for 24 hrs to end that.

Any administrator may unblock at any time with my blessings if there are assurances that the edit warring is over... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hrs for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Remember where the plot is.

This edit at Deletion Review is almost three times the size of the article that you're having such a kerfuffle about, half of which is categories, tags, and an infobox. With the amount of typing that you've done, you could have written it six or seven times over by now.

And irrespective of whether it was a copyright violation, that sentence that you put in from a book was blatantly wrong on its face, let alone from even a cursory reading of the actual book itself. Did it not occur to you that a public school is not a "commercial building"?

Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. You can see stuff that I can't. I received an emailed copy of the version of article deleted, but do not have access to the edit history. Just now I searched on a quoted sentence and find my way to access to a full Google book page that shows the quote referred to a different building, yes. Back in September or October, I may have relied upon a lesser snippet, within search results not allowing access to a full page, and it could have been misleading, or I might have simply erred in my editing. So what. There is no way, then or now, that the ten word quote explaining why a given building was deemed notable, is a copyright violation. That kind of quote is eminently appropriate. I also don't think it fair for an administrator to cover his/her tracks by closing an ANI or AFD or other proceeding in a favorable-to-themselves-way (or at all), where they are the responsible party for bad stuff being publicly identified. What mattered there, I think, was more for fellow editors to state clearly to that administrator, that their behavior was unacceptable.

About whether it makes sense for a school to be termed a commercial building, well I think I have seen writers lumping together commercial and public buildings more than once, in differentiating some of an architect's works vs. residential buildings, and I have also seen writers omitting words and phrases and saying things that don't seem to make sense in some way. When I encounter that, I have sometimes used quotes explicitly to address the apparent contradictions within and/or between sources. I think it is very likely that I did receive a garbled snippet in search results that seemed to indicate the school being called a commercial building, while explaining its notability, and that is why I quoted it exactly.

Thanks again, anyhow. --do ncr am 00:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

--doncram 00:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to RFAR

I wish you would have started your request for arbitration in your own user space, or that you would have posted something fully-formed there, instead of starting a skeleton case with a timestamp and then just walking away. Now I'm sitting at work on a Monday afternoon wondering just who exactly you're intending to file arbitration against. I know you like to start articles with just a skeleton of content, but now that you're intending to file something with consequences against editors, you could at least given us some courtesy and let us know who you're targeting. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that statement amounts to a personal attack, it is meant in an uncivil mean way to denigrate me and to complain. I wish you were not so angry at me. As a matter of fact I was interrupted and was not able to post my statement before the initial entry was deleted, and now I am going to edit it further before posting, maybe tomorrow. As a matter of fact the statement which I drafted did not name you. I expect that you would comment in any arbcom case but I would hope that disagreement between you and me would not be a major focus there.

Elkman, I am sorry that you took offense at me, and that you seem personally grieved. I believe you mainly took offense over my suggesting--in the midst of an ANI in which I was on trial and you had joined effectively as an attacking party--that I believed you had erred in a mainspace article by believing your infobox generator's code about some built date or some architect vs. builder status, when in fact it turned out you had not erred. I believe i acknowledged promptly then that you had not erred in fact. You then and since have repeatedly accused me of accusing you of lying, which is a gross exageration. I believe your repeating that makes you angry and you believe more and more that I have hurt you in some way. I think lying is a serious matter and I don't make any such accusations lightly. However, I think you took offense back then erroneously, and then others tried to make it worse, in fact, then and/or later, by egging you on and by interrupting when I attempted to question the particulars. I believe I pointed out that you did not provide diffs and could not support your view over what had happened, at least one later time, but another highly involved editor butted in to interrupt meaningful communication. I am sorry we did not successfully talk that out better.

Can I ask you, what do you want from me, or what do you want from an arbcom case? I am rather surprised that you are following me so closely and are so wrapped up. I am seriously asking you this here. I am not meaning to taunt you or toy with you. What do you want from me? And, is there any way that you could see us resolving anything, in any mediation or any other forum besides arbcom? What if we were to meet in person? Seriously, that would be a possibility. I don't know what you want. I don't perceive you to be a mean person; I can't imagine you thinking me to be a mean person if we actually met.

I don't welcome anyone else commenting here, and I may remove others comments. --do ncr am 00:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed your request for arbitration due to the fact that it had nothing more than a time stamp for over 2.5 hours. If you require assistance with setting up a RfARB please feel free to ask a clerk. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what i understood at the time, and I made a point to save my draft off-line before trying to post it, after i returned from a long interruption. Perhaps it is just as well, perhaps some other conversation would be useful first. --do ncr am 05:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem: First Parish Unitarian Universalist Church of Scituate

Hello, ...

...(copyright issue template stuff removed by doncram) ...

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, I respond at Talk:First Parish Unitarian Universalist Church of Scituate. Brief version: I did not copypaste anything into wikipedia; i moved/copied text from an existing Wikipedia article that you can get to via redirect List of Universalist churches. Certainly anything that was previously copyvio in wikipedia should be removed from there too.

Binksternet, I don't specifically recall our previous interactions, but you know I am an experienced editor. The newbie-oriented templates weren't exactly appropriate, IMHO. As you might or might not know, I am beleagured by an arbitration case going on now. --do ncr am 02:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I followed the histories of the articles and I can see now that Rwsjr added the copyvio on September 20, 2012, as his first and only only article space contribution. This means that you did not add copyvio material maliciously, but it also shows that you did not bother to check the topic and look for further sources; a problem that continues to dog your footsteps on Wikipedia. Far too many times it seems that you are aiming for volume rather than quality. This is clearly one of those times. Any person who cared about the topic would have quickly seen that the text was copyright violation copied straight from the church's own website. I recommend that you slow your pace and take time to investigate each new article you write. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The "newbie-oriented templates" are exactly what I intended to place on your talk page. Copyright violation is serious, and I wished to get your attention. The templates are for violators, not newbies. You violated Wikipedia's copyright rule; remember that. Just like passing forged currency, it does not matter if you are second in line—you are still responsible for text you put into an article. Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally, what does it matter what previous interactions we had, you and I? You violated a very serious guideline and I warned you about it. That's all there is to it—it's that simple. There is no need for you to ponder what our previous personal interaction history might have entailed, and to weigh your response accordingly. The correct response, which indeed you followed, was to go to the article and pull out all the copyright-violating text, replacing it with summary text. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Henry W. Cleaveland

On 9 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry W. Cleaveland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the works of Henry W. Cleaveland, a founding member of the American Institute of Architects, include the original Palace Hotel, San Francisco? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry W. Cleaveland. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Punta Gorda Fish Co.

On 10 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Punta Gorda Fish Co., which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that ten Florida fish cabins and icehouses built by the Punta Gorda Fish Co. have been listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Punta Gorda Fish Co.. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Thompson-Starrett Co.

On 11 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thompson-Starrett Co., which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Thompson-Starrett Co. built six National Historic Landmarks in the U.S., including the Rockefeller Estate and the tallest skyscraper in the world from 1913 to 1930 (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thompson-Starrett Co.. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Louden Machinery Company

On 11 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Louden Machinery Company, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Louden Machinery Co. designed more than 25,000 barns (catalog pictured) as well as monorail devices used in manufacturing the first atomic bomb and at a B-29 bomber plant? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Louden Machinery Company. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph C. Wells

On 12 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph C. Wells, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the works of Joseph C. Wells, a founding member of the American Institute of Architects, include "Old First" in Greenwich Village? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph C. Wells. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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) 16:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Champion Bridge Co.

On 13 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Champion Bridge Co., which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Champion Bridge Co. was charged with criminal antitrust violations in 1906 as part of the Ohio Attorney General's "war on the bridge trust"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Champion Bridge Co.. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits! 100000 edits are so many that if you told people that you have one hundred thousands edits on Wikipedia, no one would believe you :) Keep up the good work within WikiProject National Register of Historic Places and other areas! jonkerz ♠talk 16:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I found this number through Special:NewPagesFeed, but X!'s Edit Counter gives 105,794 live edits and 107,423 total edits. [User:Jonkerz|jonkerz]] ♠talk 16:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! Yep, it has been a lot of contributing, mostly on historic sites articles. --do ncr am 23:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow - that is quite an achievement. Congratulations! I really like some of the work you've been doing with the architects and especially the work that has been earning DYK's. Informative, non-contentiious, good solid work. dm (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to think that all the work I have ever done over has been basically non-contentious, but that hasn't stopped contention from happening; I bear some responsibility for failing to stop what grew to become long-term bullying and nastiness that has been unpleasant for me and for others, but other NRHP editors and other Wikipedia editors have responsibility too. And I tend to think that, out of all the architect/builder/engineer articles I have created working off a list of 907 needed ones, that many of the less-well-developed ones are more important in some ways (supporting/linking individual NRHP site articles; establishing something valid where sources are less available/accessible to anyone but the local info is important). But point taken, that the better developed ones are indeed more satisfying reads. And I am happy to have readers and to have your appreciation in particular. Thanks! --do ncr am 14:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Opa-Locka Thematic Resource Area

On 24 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Opa-Locka Thematic Resource Area, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Opa-Locka Thematic Resource Area includes 20 buildings developed by aviation pioneer Glenn Curtiss using an "Arabian Nights" theme? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Opa-Locka Thematic Resource Area. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Granville Fuller House published

Thanks for assisting the originator! MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Official Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 13:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, that's a lot of edits :) --SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, etc

Hi Doncram, I just noticed that you and I are working on drafts of the same topic - User:Doncram/Gibraltar (Wilmington, Delaware). I've already done a lot on it. Would you mind if I merged the non-overlapping bits of my version into yours? I'm planning to nominate it for Did You Know? with one of the following hooks:

... that the buildings and gardens of Gibraltar are listed on the United States National Register of Historic Places?

... that Gibraltar's gardens were laid out by one of America's first female landscape architects?

Let me know what you think! Prioryman (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be very glad to collaborate in that. :) Sorry if I jumped in after you, if I did; if yours was started first would be happy for your draft to absorb mine, instead. I had in mind a DYK possibly like:

... that Gibraltar was landscaped by a woman who was discriminated against in her MIT architectural training? who had struggled in a male-dominated field in the United States? or i don't know what. But those are not yet supported in the draft, and your suggestions are probably simply and better. By the way, did you know that there is actually a U.S. NRHP-listed site in Morrocco, for real, the American Legation, Tangier?

As you see i have been drafting the User:Doncram/Marian Cruger Coffin article which could be part of a double DYK, but actually i think a single DYK might work best. I have recently found and added the Gestram source but have not at all developed what is possible from that great source.

Look forward to editing together in this, thanks for inviting me. --do ncr am 19:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your help! Prioryman (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's now probably about ready to go. Could you take a look at it and let me know what you think? Prioryman (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been nominated

See WP:Merchandise giveaways. Thank you again. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Dear Doncram, I award you this barnstar for your wonderful efforts in the expansion of List of local Methodist churches! I hope this brightens your day! I hope to see more great contributions to WikiProject Christianity related articles from you! Anupam^Talk 03:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case and naming

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:Doncram and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@Doncram: You noted your concern about the naming of the case. You are correct in being concerned about the naming of the case. It is not a trivial matter, and it does poison the pond, as it were. I took a look at ArbCom cases from 2010 to 2012, noting 16 cases where editors were named in the title of the case. Two of those cases had two editors named, for a total of 18 editors named in the title of cases over the last three years. Here's the summary (note: this does not add up to 18 because some editors had multiple sanctions):

Banned: 9
Lost adminship: 4
Topic banned: 4
Edit restriction: 2
No sanctions: 1 (Jayen466; just an interaction restriction)

In short, your doomed to some sort of sanction, with a 50/50 chance of being banned from the project. You should also be aware that because there is no statute of limitations on evidence, those opposing you in the arb case can drag up evidence from as far back as they'd like. They've already reached back nearly two years to April of 2011. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a very poor summary, Hammersoft. The idea that he has a 50/50 chance of being banned from the project is blatantly false. Actions will not be taken at ArbCom by the flip of the coin. Everything will be based on the evidence produced. Ryan Vesey 17:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

...evidence which is a function of who chooses to show up and provide evidence, which is partly a function of how a case is framed and named. I commented further in the ARBCOM request. Thank you Ryan Vesey and Hammersoft both for your comments. I am really concerned. But here, I don't want to host a general discussion about the general truth of naming having an effect on outcomes. Could that be opened as an RFC somewhere, at a suitable ARBCOM page or at an administrative noticeboard, or somewhere else, please.

Please don't comment further on this point here, at least for now. I may remove further comments. --do ncr am 17:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to delete this comment. I am not sure to which point you are referring, but suspect it's the possibility of sanctions. I just wanted to amplify the situation about the ability for opposers to go as far back in the past as they'd like. Since your one and only rfc is mentioned, it now goes back to February of 2010. We're at three years back now for evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

First, based on Doncrams comments, I think the case has some merit both in Doncrams conduct and the conduct of others in the case so let me get that out first. With that said Ryan he stands much less than a 50/50 chance in this case. Its more like 95/5. Historically Arbcom won't accept a case unless they think the user in question is guilty so once the case is accepted, its pretty much the end. Additionally, they just can't seem to create a proper and fair case. Every single one seems to have problems that they do not care too or want too address. For example in this case I note the following problems:

The evidence is 2+years old with nothing being done by the community to attempt to correct this problem in more than a year. That to me does not show that the community has tried to resolve the problem
They are providing a 2 year old deleted RFC as evidence and are refusing to allow it to be seen or remove it as evidence. As I stated there, I understand the user is aware of the RFC and the general contents but the accused has a right to see the evidence presented against them. I also think that the other non admin folks like myself who are taking the time to comment should be able to see it.
Sarek is obviously involved and is the one that created the case. He even removed a comment I made noting that the deleted RFC was deleted as having no merit. I think and I hope that Arbcom looks closely at Sareks interactions in all this and acts appropriately there. But I'm not holding out hope. I have seen and know too much about the process to assume that the case will be done fairly or evenly. Since we do have some new blood in Arbcom I am hopeful but since they all had prior experience in Arbcom as clerks or a previous arbitration seat, I am not so sure.
The Arbcom rule that the comments must be restricted to 500 words but you can have an infinate number of commenters so the accused gets 500 words to respond to what in this case amounts to about 5000 so far and counting. The process is designed to unfairly favor the accusers and put the accused in a place of imbalance. Especially since they are normally non admins and cannot see the evidence presented (such as in this case) and in some cases cannot have an equal ability to do the things to defend themselves as the Admins and arbs do. The entire arb process is a shameful mess.

Personally I think this could have been handled by the community but because there are so many admins associated to the project acting like children, stomping their feet and pouting about it, they had to give it to Arbcom to decide. I anticipate it will result in blocks, potentially desysopping and at least some admonishments for some of the associated parties. Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's a fait accompli. Despite reasonable, supported assertions that case naming can and will affect the outcome of the case (see Doncram's comments about anchoring), despite a fair bit of evidence that behavior of other involved parties has been very much less than satisfactory, ArbCom has gone ahead and named the case "Doncram". Since, as I've asserted and you assert above, it is effectively impossible for Doncram to have a fair hearing on these matters, Doncram is likely doomed to some heavy sanctions. --Hammersoft (talk)
- I agree. I am still holding out hope that the Arbs will dig their heals in and go out and research the interactions of all parties before they make their decisions and not base it solely on the criticisms being left on the case. There are several sides to this story and the picture being painted at the moment is a jaded one. Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Recusal for Coren

Given that Coren closed this thread from March of 2009 and in so doing refused to take action with respect to interactions between you and Orlady, it would be very appropriate for Coren to recuse from this case. Coren was sitting on ArbCom at the time, and is once again now sitting on ArbCom. Coren has prior involvement in this case, and may in fact be partly responsible for its continuance due to inaction on his part in the past. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think its necessary for Coren to recuse. I read this and checked his contribs about that time and it doesn't seem like they had any dog in this fight. He just closed the discussion. Besides there are several other arbs who will be voting and its unlikely that one vote will make a significant difference. Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For reference: Recuse#Applicable_to_most_countries bullet #4. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you want to suggest that Coren recuse himself from this case, I suggest you post on one of the arbitration pages or on User talk:Coren, as I'm sure you realize he is likely not reading here.

If my personal opinion is wanted on this recusal question, which it probably isn't, I think the thread you linked creates neither the actuality nor the appearance that Coren would be biased for or against any party to this case. The issue in the thread was different from the ones in the current case, the thread is four years old, and in any event, Coren didn't comment on the merits of the discussion. Skimming the archive you linked, it looks like Coren closed a couple of different threads that day in which he didn't otherwise comment. That means he read through the thread and, in this case, determined that the consensus was not to take any action, which can hardly be disputed. I suspect Coren will have completely forgot that he closed that thread unless and until someone brings it to his attention. It's Coren's decision whether or not to recuse on this basis, but if I were the arbitrator in question, I wouldn't. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm simply noting it as a possibility, and given Recuse#Applicable_to_most_countries bullet #4 it's hardly "unconstructive" (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop#Hammersoft) for me to note it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying I disagree with the suggestion; I'm not calling it any names. For what it's worth, I'm one of the main contributors to the recusal article, or at least its USA section, though that was some time ago and by today's content standards I should go back and reference most of it when I have the time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Another view on this; same article sub section, bullet #6: Coren handled a case between two named parties in this case at a lower level. Now Coren is being asked to handle a case in the same dispute at a higher level. I'm not saying there's absolute grounds, but there is perhaps reason for Doncram to feel Coren should recuse. That was my sole point. As to the age of that thread, ArbCom has repeatedly refused to limit presentation of evidence, even from a very distant past. We're already at three years going in the past for evidence in this case. Four years is hardly a stretch. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Hammersoft and Newyorkbrad, both, seriously, for your consideration here. I am concerned more about other problems in this arbitration than that, namely that I need more time than suggested deadlines are going to allow, and that I need more space/length than 500 or 1,000 words for all evidence in a dispute that has run for many years and with 4 other named parties all "against" me having equal word counts allowed. And the naming-of-case issue is serious. It is absurd to suggest that naming does not matter. Naming pretty clearly attracted one editor to comment with complaint about me, about their perception of my perhaps-too-strong comments to them about their removal of pics from NRHP articles (separate matter, not a matter of "bullying" but rather strong opinions about a content matter that is important, considered properly at wt:NRHP, not worth arbcom attention). IMO it is okay for that editor with a recent disagreement to bring it up, even without having long-informed perspective, but it is damaging in its appearance and IMO it would absolutely not have come up if the title was "Orlady-Nyttend-Doncram" or "DENOS" or some other name. And, it tended to add to a circus atmosphere, an appearance of "everyone" has a critical view regarding me. I believe that it did have some effect, while if "Orlady" was the title then it is quite possible a comparable other editor with recent gripe against that editor would have spoken instead. Naming as advertising which brings different comments forward is an obvious, undeniable cause for a case to sway differently. Even besides the advertising effect changing the comments given, there are thousands of academic articles in marketing and psychology documenting anchoring and other biases, and it is also absurd to suggest that the naming does not matter.

About Coren, I do not think that the closure of that Jvolblum proposal by Coren long ago should require Coren's recusal. It was a longshot proposal I knew when I wrote it. (Although I think it had merit and actually coulda worked, and it is evidence of me trying to do something constructive in a bad situation. The Jvolkblum case instead has spiralled on for 4 more years of Orlady combatting sockpuppets of that editor, who kinda was rightly aggrieved about bad treatment Orlady personally back then, and a change of admin/supervisor could have made all the difference. Anyhow, I don't recall thinking anything seriously amiss by the closure. I do recall that Coren commented pretty critically about me some other later time, but without my specifically finding that, and probably even if I did find that, I don't think a recusal is necessary. I would rather that Coren see the evidence in a fuller picture and come to a different judgment. Seriously, thank you both for your concern. --do ncr am 22:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Doncram. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee,--Guerillero | My Talk 21:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Time for serious self reflection

Greetings Doncram and sorry to hear about the Arb filing. I hope it turns out well and you are allowed to keep editing. I think you do a lot of positive contributions and I hope you can continue to participate in the project. There are a lot of folks like me who have basically given up on contributing to articles so the place needs folks to keep editing. With that said I think you need to do some serious self reflection. I agree that several of the editors you have been dealing with have acted innappropriately but I think you also need to accept some responsibility for your actions as well. I agree with you that creating stubs isn't a bad thing but I also agree with them that when creating those you need to make sure that the informaiton is accurate and the article is littered with broken templates and categories. If that means taking a little longer to create it then thats ok. I also wanted to tell you that I think you are getting the short end of the stick and I have commented to Arb about some of the things that are occurring (like the age of the evidence and the unviewable red link). These are just some of the things I see Arbcom and company do repeatedly in cases that unfairly favors the accusers and hinders the accused, particularly if they are non admins. Anyway. Good luck and I hope this turns out ok. Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko's remark that we ("Arbcom and company") routinely, deliberately put certain editors at a disadvantage, by using red-linked discussion pages and other trickery (or by any other method), is disingenuous and utterly noxious. Such a malicious falsehood strikes me as indicative of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia's community today, and I counsel anyone reading this page to disregard it entirely. AGK [•] 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? So then:

You allow non admins the ability to view red linked information when it is used against them as evidence?
Frequently include those comments from the accusers who are "involved" and are doing the accusing and then disregard the comments of those who are not accusing and are sometimes defending by placing their comments out of sight, out of mind on the talk page?
You do not usually allow multiple editors to comment, while limiting the rebuttal from the accused to be the necessary length to respond, frequently cutting it off at 500 words?
Take into evidence discussions at ANI and others, that took place, while the accused was blocked and did not have the ability to comment on them?
Allow a case to be built using information that is 2 years or more old without requiring something be done in the last 12 months?

So please, lets be honest here, although I may have been a little too harsh, the whole Arbcom process is a one sided, unfair and political tool and although I think very highly of you and several of the other Arbs, the process itself, is a complete joke and a mess. It provides almost no hope of a fair trial (historically) and the end result is nearly always Wikideath. You can be angry at my comments and not agree, but I am hardly a liar. If you don't like the comments, then fix some of these problems instead of continuing to perpetuate it! Kumioko (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Did I say I was angry, or display any anger whatsoever? I did not. Your rebuttal here is worse than wrong, so forgive my not responding. AGK [•] 16:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk) · @805 · 18:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your close request at NRHP

Your close request at the NRHP talk page is wrong:

I am not frustrated by either the RFC/U or the NRHP project, and have never said anything like it. My comments were directed at AN/I, as it says in the ArbCom post ("there" immediately following my finding the AN/I post).
You never actually apologized to me so there is no "again". The only apology from you was to the project as a whole for the disagreement with Orlady ("I am sorry to have baggage...").

I have left by choice and can choose to return; by misquoting me in a forum I frequented it can damage my reputation and alter how others perceive my editing in the future. Please refactor your post to remove the erroneous interpretations and add neutrality. I suggest "Thundersnow has posted here that they are no longer editing Wikipedia. Perhaps this RFC/U should be closed in light of that." Thundersnow 02:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I've tried now to respond to your comment here, by this followup at wt:NRHP. I hope this helps. Sincerely, --do ncr am 03:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence deadline approaching

This is a reminder that the deadline for evidence submission on the Doncram arbitration case is nearing. The deadline for submission is the 17th of January, one day from now. If you need more time for evidence submission, please ask the drafters of the case (NuclearWarfare and AGK) for an extension. (X! · talk) · @863 · 19:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration

Doncram -- I have been traveling for the past 10 days and see that an arbitration proceeding has been opened during that time. Unfortunately, the discussion period has ended. If you learn in the course of the proceeding that input from third parties is welcome, I will make time to add my thoughts. Those thoughts would include the following:

During the period when I agreed to follow/review your changes last summer/fall, there was a marked improvement in the areas that had been raised as concerns in prior discussions. The new articles you were creating were not sub-stubs during that time. Further, during the period of the voluntary separation from Orlady and Sarek, your interactions with other users was, to the best of my recollection, civil and appropriate.

I continue to think you are a valuable and hard-working contributor to Wikipedia and hope that a resolution can be reached that allows you to continue your participation.

I did not follow the flare-up about the caste system and don't know about the substance of that dispute. Without reading the whole history, I can't draw any conclusions, but I did find it somewhat surprising that an ANI discussion which began with Sitush reporting his own transgressions resulted in your being entirely blocked from editing in that area.

You and I have not always agreed on substantive matters (Architects of the NPS is an example), but when we disagree, it has been without rancor. This tells me that you do not automatically react with fire and venom whenever someone disagrees with you.

While a number of your articles have been nominated at AfD, my recollection is that most (all?) have been resolved in your favor. You may want to look into the statistics a bit. Of course, even when you are right, some may still take issue with the tone of your comments.

By far, the biggest issue that is likely to cause you problems in the arbitration is the level of rhetoric and rancor found in your comments and edit summaries when disputes have arisen with Orlady and Sarek. Calling Orlady "evil" serves no purposes. Even if you believe it, such comments are over the top, accomplish nothing, and end up backfiring by reflecting poorly on you. I do not think a ban on interaction between you and Orlady is likely to be ordered by the panel -- particularly since you are both very active in the NRHP area. In order for the arbitration to result in an outcome that is palatable, I think you need to accept responsibility for past transgressions, admit your mistakes, and commit yourself (sincerely) to interacting with Orlady, Sarek, and others in a civil manner, without unduly personalizing disputes, and without name-calling. Cbl62 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Workshop headings

I tweaked your "Template" entries with hopefully-neutral titles so that edits to the sections would come back to the right place, instead of the first "Template" on the page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence deadline approaching... again

Hello, Doncram. This is to remind you that the extended deadline for evidence submission to this case (January 24th) is approaching. It does not appear as though you've added any evidence since the 18th, and still have a large number of unsubstantiated allegations in the section headings. Please note that if these sections remain empty when the evidence phase closes, the clerks have been instructed to remove them. It would also be helpful to provide your evidence as soon as possible to allow other parties adequate time to respond to any allegations you make against them. Thank you. If you have any questions, please contact me, another arbitrator or clerk, or ask on one of the case talk pages. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you asked for another extension. Why not just make life simple and go to the workshop page, and request that I be banned entirely? I'm sure you'd like this solution, since you've already demonstrated that I don't give a flying flip about the accuracy of build dates, the difference between architects and builders, or anything else that's important. Besides, I got banned from a different forum amid allegations that I didn't represent the community with good quality and integrity, and an allegation that my work wasn't found suitable. Now, I don't know what you plan to propose against Orlady and Sarek, and I don't particularly care, but you've already had me waiting on tenterhooks trying to figure out how I'm going to be punished in this particular case. So why not just get it over with, and then someone else can fill in some of these articles about Catholic churches in central Minnesota. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, please desist from refactoring this Talk page

SarekOfVulcan, I notice that you removed the following Speedy deletion nomination notices here at my Talk page. I appreciate that you recognized they were not valid and removed the speedy noms. It would have been nice to receive simply a notice that that was done. However, you must not refactor my Talk page. This is too much like your refactoring and editing in the Arbitration proceeding you opened against me, and in many ANIs, and so on. Please stop. I have not so far deleted your postings at my Talk page, but I consider this a breach of etiquette, and I ask you never to make such a major refactoring again. I, or others not involved in long-running contention, can easily make such decisions. Again, thank you for deleting the speedy noms themselves, which indeed were incorrect. --do ncr am 23:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chickamauga Lodge No. 221, Free and Accepted Masons, Prince Hall Affiliate

A tag has been placed on Chickamauga Lodge No. 221, Free and Accepted Masons, Prince Hall Affiliate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Jhfireboy Talk 04:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Columbian Lodge No. 7 Free and Accepted Masons

A tag has been placed on Columbian Lodge No. 7 Free and Accepted Masons requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Jhfireboy Talk 04:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Highlands Masonic Lodge

A tag has been placed on Highlands Masonic Lodge requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Jhfireboy Talk 04:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"uber alles"

Please explain the use of the phrase "uber alles" in this edit. All I know about it is what I have read in our Wikipedia article, but that doesn't particularly seem like an acceptable reference. NW (Talk) 16:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a German language phrase, it means "above all". Using it perhaps also connotes something stronger, from context of how German anthem uses it, in context of Germany above all other nations. In that way it has a bit of a wikipedia-type battleground sense, i think, which is what i believe I meant to convey. As in no compromises, only this consideration matters, no other priorities/goals/considerations have any bearing, uncompromising. Anyhow, I take it this is not understood or seems foreign or something, so I just changed my usage from "uber alles" to "above all other considerations". --do ncr am 19:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I and apparently someone else who emailed me took it as a reference to the Third Reich! Thanks for the clarification and the change. NW (Talk) 21:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Congregational churches, which involves two articles you created. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Doncram. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Doncram Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 3146 words and 21 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 02:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Your latest comments at ArbCom

Regarding this claim: Why don't you just come out and say what you truly mean? Why don't you just come right out and say that I'm a lying sack of shit who has absolutely no business being on Wikipedia or on any other Web site where competence is required? Why don't you just come out and tell me that I'm too stupid to know the difference between an architect and a builder, or that I'm too stupid to figure out when a building is built? You told me once that my claim about the Floyd B. Olson House having been built in 1922 was completely wrong, based on "your informed understanding of how the NRIS database works". I guess that means that Larry Millett was also wrong about it being built in 1922, and that the Hennepin County land records are also wrong about it being built in 1922. But no, that doesn't matter to you. You have an "informed understanding".

Given that you have an "informed understanding", and I'm just a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who doesn't know how to use a database or any other sources, I'm surprised you haven't suggested a remedy saying that I'm permanently banned from Wikipedia and from any other Web sites where I'm supposed to act with quality and integrity. I'd comment more, but I need to get to work. Oh, and you might as well tell me I'm not doing a good job at my employer right now, because you have an "informed understanding" of how the transportation industry and the Java language work, and you can use "intelligence and care" that I'm just too stupid to figure out. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve Our Lady Star of the Sea, Seaforth

Hi, I'm Abhishek191288. Doncram, thanks for creating Our Lady Star of the Sea, Seaforth!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hi. Thanks for the article. Would be glad if you could expand it in a few days. Cheers

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Hi, thanks. Please see User talk:Allan James McDonald. I started the article as a stub to be supportive of this new user's first edits in Wikipedia, where the user added the item to a disambiguation page. Technically it is not right to have a non-wikilinked item in a dab page, so a dab-focused editor would likely remove it. In this case I judge it worthwhile to help the item along by starting a stub. Thanks for caring. --do ncr am 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Our Lady Star of the Sea, Seaforth

A tag has been placed on Our Lady Star of the Sea, Seaforth requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. 69.95.203.72 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag was appropriately removed by another editor, with note anticipating that the building is a listed building, which i had already suggested to the new editor who seems to be interested in the topic.

To the non-logged in editor: You appear to be an experienced Wikipedia editor. Would you please identify yourself to me (by email if you wish, and I would keep your identity private. I am concerned that I don't want to deal with various parties who are involved in long-running contention against me, including in current arbitration case. I don't care to chat idly in a friendly way with someone who is busy seeking to impose nasty consequences like getting me blocked from Wikipedia in another forum. Identify yourself in some way to differentiate yourself from those parties, or shut up, please... meaning please don't post further, and/or I will delete any further posts you make here. If you are not such a person great, just help with the new editor who is interested in the Lady of the Sea church topic. --do ncr am 22:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Curry House (Fort Adams, Mississippi)

The article Curry House (Fort Adams, Mississippi) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This house's supposed notability is entirely due to the fact that someone took a picture of it, unless we consider any structure photographed as part of the Historic American Buildings Survey to be automatically notable. Filtering out Wikipedia and Library of Congress mirrors, it has negligible coverage.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BDD (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Curry House (Fort Adams, Mississippi) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Curry House (Fort Adams, Mississippi) 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/Curry House (Fort Adams, Mississippi) 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 high-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. BDD (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

State designations

Hi Doncram,

I wanted to create designations for some of the U.S. sates, but I wanted to get your opinion on them first and see if you thought they were appropriate. Examples and a list of links to the state list pages can be found here (I already created the city ones). Let me know if you think there are any I shouldn't create. Cacw (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Result change?

I may be miscounting, but I think 2.3 just passed, which would mean 1 is not currently passing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of National Register Information System for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article National Register Information System 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/National Register Information System 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In light of the arbitration decision, I've procedurally closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register Information System — we can't have an AFD in which the page's creator may not respond because of who the nominator is. This way, if someone else renominate it, you'll be able to continue replying. My opinions of what should be done with the article didn't play into this decision. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone pointed out to me that it's unfair to the AFD participants to force them to start all over again, so I've opened a second nomination (note that I'm neutral) without your comments and Sarek's. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram closed

An arbitration case regarding Doncram has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk) · @277 · 05:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this