User talk:Doncram/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

←

NRHPHELP Tools

Thanks for your comments and especially your mention of the Elkman NRHP infobox generator (I learned something new). My work, meager as it is, will benefit greatly from your suggestions.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Good, glad my comment to your Talk page and my recent addition of some tips about working with multiple windows to the wp:NRHPHELP page have seemed helpful. I am really glad you've been contributing photos and developing articles on NRHPs in Idaho! --Doncram (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Notable subjects

Is there a list of redlinked notable buildings and architect article subjects somewhere? I don't see much point in adding a bunch more drafts but if there is a list somewhere I'd be happy to add to it with a brief explanation of significance. Thanks FloridaArmy (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

User:FloridaArmy, I'm not sure where you are coming from on that. I mostly spend my Wikipedia time developing articles on NRHP-listed places, which are all indexed from List of RHPs (a shortcut to nation-wide list) which links to List of RHPs in KY etc. (state-level lists) which go to county or lower levels. There are editors who keep these lists updated. Per wp:NRHPPROGRESS (a Wikiproject tracking list, which also indexes them all), there are 92,000 or so NRHPs, of which 66,000 have articles, the rest are redlinks in this system. I/we generally presume that NRHP-listed means notable, because we know the standards of documentation and review for NRHP listing are higher than Wikipedia's standards for an article.

I see you recently worked on an article, which "what links here" shows is indexed on List of historic landmarks in Albuquerque, New Mexico. That is some other list, not part of NRHP list-system. I don't know if those should automatically be assumed notable. I have also myself developed a bunch of non-NRHP list-articles, or ones that have both NRHP and non-NRHP places, e.g. List of Presbyterian churches, where the notability of non-NRHP ones hopefully is established by references included into the list-article.

It can be a good contribution to add an item, with your sources, to a list-article, instead of, or in addition to, creating an article about the individual item. (Working with lists is good, IMO, should almost be required, i.e. we shouldn't be creating isolated/orphan-type articles out of context without working from a list, IMO.) Is that what you mean? You probably don't know about any NRHPs which are not yet included in the NRHP list-article system, because it is really pretty comprehensive and well-maintained (tho not perfect), but you probably can add to lots of others lists.

Does this respond to what you mean? --Doncram (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Some good ideas. I know dosambig pages don't allow cites but your mention that a list page does is helpful. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, good. By the way there are some editors in Wisconsin who choose to develop short descriptions with cites in the Wisconsin NRHP county list-articles without starting the articles, i.e. leaving them as redlinks. I like that, their developing the list-articles and providing some coverage about all items, rather than the more common practice of editors starting the articles but not putting any description back in the list-article. My own practice is somewhere inbetween; i develop items within list-articles sometimes. --Doncram (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Pantiago Windmill

Hey, I've been adding to the monuments on commons and found that many NRHP sites are not listed. The East Hampton village green, which includes James lane, has the Mulford Homestead museum and the home sweet home museum, Ref 74001309. Its been a slog sorting out the windmills so I went there and tried to photograph as many as I could. Some are behind fences with dogs. Anyhoo, the Pantigo was for 72 years at Pantigo rd (montauk Hwy) and Egypt lane, before it was moved in 1917 to the backyard of the Homesweethome museum, a landmarked site on the NRHP. Googlemaps has it at the bottom of windmill lane, but thats the Hayground.Watch the articles, the lists need updating, the Huntting, pantigo, Mulford farm windmills are all the same smock mill, just the dates of the moves indicates who owned it....CaptJayRuffins (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

This is about new article Pantigo windmill (Easthampton, New York), which appears to be a contributing structure, probably, in East Hampton Village District. I posted at User talk:CaptJayRuffins#Pantigo Windmill which I will watch, and where I would be happy for this whole discussion to continue. I'd generally rather not split the discussion. Either way, I am glad you are contributing and I do think there is much to improve in that area. --Doncram (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, don't know if you were still watching, I could use some help cleaning up Quogue Historic District... CaptJayRuffins (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Clay Faulkner House

A minor point, but the question and your response are at the Help desk not the teahouse.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, and i just followed up there. This is about Wikipedia:Help_desk#Clay_Faulkner_House and about stuff going on at Clay Faulkner House, and hopefully its Talk page Talk:Clay Faulkner House. Thank you for your kind remarks there. :) --Doncram (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

List of fire stations of historical significance in the United States

You have blanked our page without explanantion. Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Michigan fire station articles

No prob; I do want to finish Genesee County first (got six or so articles left, so I don't want to delay the satisfaction of checking it off). I'll jump on the Kzoo fire stations right after. Week or two, maybe? Andrew Jameson (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Alamogordo Woman's Club

Would you be so kind as to cast your eye on Alamogordo Woman's Club and make any edits you see fit? Thanks! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome!

Hi Doncram, thank you for your warm welcome and for your many positive contributions to the encyclopedia! Free culture is a wonderful thing and I love Wikipedia's coverage of historic sites. Thanks for your many many contributions.

Thanks for your offer to help. As a new editor, right now I'm working on the Draft:Robert S. Munger page, but longer term, I see myself making edits relating to financial crises, financial regulation, and finance in general. The coverage in these areas can be good but is not always so great. Public information about the institutional details of finance in general can be spotty, though.

I've never worked on getting a new page added before, so any help you could offer on the Munger page would be greatly appreciated!

Currently I'm just adding more sources and information to the Munger page. For example, Munger was recently added to the Alabama Men's Hall of Fame, so I added that in the "Other" section you created. I'm also hoping to add a "See Also" section to link to the other Wikipedia pages that mention him. --Eisbetterthanpi (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice job on NRHP too

Thank you for the message and thank you too for all your work on the NRHP articles for expanding, creating, and defending many great articles. Swampyank (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Doncram. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Dawson Woman's Club

Did you ever find out about the movements and address changes of Dawson Woman's Club? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Bubba73, I didn't hear back. I only tried calling the one time i mentioned at Talk:Dawson Woman's Club#moved, twice?, when I was on top of all the info available, but now it is all fading for me. Feel free to call yourself, and/or to email to the address you had found and mentioned at User talk:Bubba73#Dawson Woman's Clubhouse. --Doncram (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Ada County, Idaho

Hi Doncram, A new page, Boise Capitol Area District, (meager as it is) at National Register of Historic Places listings in Ada County, Idaho redirects from there to Idaho State Capitol. Can you remove the redirect or advise on how to request it? Good fortunes, Tamanoeconomico (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, done just now by this edit. When there is parenthetical disambiguation the "name" vs. "article" distinction is helpful, e.g. "|article=" row could point to where an article is (e.g. "|article=George Smith House (Tuscaloosa, Louisiana)"), and the "|name=" row could give the name of the NRHP listing to display in the table (e.g. "|name=George Smith House"). I don't think the article field should have been used before to link to the state capitol building, it should have been showing a redlink for "Boise Capitol Area District" instead, in my opinion. Thank you for starting the article, User:Tamanoeconomico! --Doncram (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, makes perfect sense now that you have explained it.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Courthouse titles

Let me be clear: your insistence on an unusual idea does not make a controversy, and when you start insisting that everyone follow your own idea ("no moves"), you've crossed into WP:OWN territory. The discussion has already begun at WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for your clarification at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Staub Library. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

William H. Taft Mansion

Greetings! I made a start on William H. Taft Mansion, was wondering if it is of any importance to NHRP? Hope all is well with you. Markvs88 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Markvs88, nice to hear from you. Interesting new article! I think a NRHP infobox could/should be added identifying it as a contributing building in the Orange Street Historic District. I worked on NRHP articles in New Haven a long time ago. 111 Whitney, which your article says is the Taft mansion, would be located in a big (>500 contributing buildings) historic district named for Orange Street, which you will know is a parallel street. Specifically, 93 through 135 Whitney Avenue, on the east side of the street only, are included in the district. The NRHP document, Dorothea Penar; J. Paul Loether; John Herzan (February 27, 1985). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: Orange Street Historic District". National Park Service. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help), provides an inventory of buildings in the district which I think is supposed to be complete, but it doesn't specifically mention 111 Whitney. On its page 68 in the PDF document it covers 107 Whitney, a non-contributing building, then covers 113 Whitney presumably next door, so I wonder if 113 is the William H. Taft Mansion. 113 is described as "Built: ca. 1870. 2-story Second Empire-style masonry house with mansard roof, bracketed main cornice, central facade pavilion." I browsed the Accompanying 34 photos, from 1984 and 1985 but it does not cover any houses on Whitney. Hmm, Google street view shows the house is signed as the "William H. Taft Mansion", and I can see that the house indeed is Second Empire architecture in style and otherwise meets that description in all respects. So I am satisfied it is the house covered in the NRHP document as 113. The Google streetview also shows the house has "Ivy Labs Education" signage, and then I find per this webpage on the New Haven office that the house does seem to be numbered 111 now. If you want, please add about this to the article, and/or I will sometime later. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

That's great stuff Doncram, and you should get credit for your research. Please update the article at your leisure, I'm sure you'd handle the material better than I am I'm happy for the collaboration! Also, if you're able/interested, there's a new photo contest at the WikiProject Connecticut. Markvs88 (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Friedrich Ferdinand Schnitzer

Greetings. I am having a tough time finding much coverage of this fellow. His dad and son have the same name but don't seem to have been especially notable. Any ideas? FloridaArmy (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:FloridaArmy, i don't now remember if i tried to look into this when i got your message 11 months ago(!). Apparently i did not make any edits in that article. I see it did get promoted to mainspace Friedrich Ferdinand Schnitzer. And I just now created a Talk page for it with 3 wikiproject banners. About finding more info about an architect like this, I would usually proceed by creating/developing linked articles about the NRHP-listed places they designed. Then often one or more of the NRHP nomination documents will provide biographical info about the architect, which I can bring back to the article. Unfortunately for Ohio, the NRHP docs are generally not available online. There is often brief coverage in the "Ohio Places Dictionary", which could be checked (instructions about using that are written into wp:NRHPhelpOH). But, hmm, my quick search there for "Schnitzer" finds nothing. Anyhow, thanks for developing the article as far as you could get it, and sorry i can't seem to help on this one.

BTW, I did link to you at recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haymarket District (Lincoln, Nebraska), which was closed "Speedy Keep" because your judgment about notability there was obviously correct, even if you hadn't found the NRHP stuff about it. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Doncram,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of WikiProject Western Australia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WikiProject Western Australia 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/WikiProject Western Australia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Whooves (talk • contribs) 17:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

NRHP architect

Hello. You may be interested in another NRHP architect, H. Clinton Parrent Jr.. By the way, I pinged you about Aspen Grove, not sure if you saw it...Zigzig20s (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Article merge

The consensus at Bank of American Fork (financial institution) is merge if you would like to complete this. Otr500 (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for helping to keep Zu den heiligen Engeln! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings and Salutations

To Doncram:

Hello!

Congratulations!

You have been included in my first, and possibly only, Very Early Christmas List!

As an earnest fellow believer in Santa Claus, and possibly in Our Redeemer Liveth as well, you may wonder how you got on this list.

I have no idea!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Unless I tracked down the connection in our user talk archives, in which case you know who you are!

Or not.

All the best for you and yours this Christmas 2018 and New Year 2019!

– Athaenara jingles all the way 02:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 13

Newsletter • December 2018

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
- If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please consider removing (that means deleting, not striking) your personal attack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludington House immediately. Station1 (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assertion that my comment, including informal question "what are you smoking" to you which I think almost every reader would understand is meant in a friendly way, was a personal attack. Whatever, though, i deleted a sentence or two at the AFD, still ongoing. Do you mind if I say here, User:Station1, that I do mean it in a friendly way, that I don't understand why you, whom i respect as an experienced Wikipedia editor familiar with disambiguation policy and practices, that I really really do not understand you voting Delete in that AFD. It is just a disambiguation meant to help readers find there way, amongst 4 or more legitimate possibilities that they might be looking for. Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Aspen Grove

I pinged you on a talkpage about Aspen Grove, but I can no longer find it. Do you know where it is please? It's about an article you created about a house in Williamson County, TN. We may have the picture but we need to make sure it is the same house.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DYKissues

Template:DYKissues has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SD0001 (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Doncram, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Atlantic306 (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Leland College

@Doncram: noticing you started the article, I was wondering if an image like this would be suitable to give an idea of how it looked, Maybe you find there are images that are more suitable. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes for a happy 2019

Invitation to join WikiProject Brands


	Hello, Doncram. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Off-wiki

Could this be the off-wiki version of our NRHP-related work?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Two monuments

The Sons of San Patricio Monument and the San Patricio de Hibernia Monument were both built in 1937. Are you sure they are two separate monuments?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Forget it, they look similar but if you look more closely, they are different. We are lucky to have pictures now! You created both articles in May and the pictures were uploaded on Commons in August.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Photos replaced

This edit replaced your photo of Mayer Red Brick Schoolhouse with one that is clearly inferior due to poor lighting. It also replaced two photos I took. I don't want to revert because my photos are involved also. But yours should clearly go back. MB 00:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Dubois Historic District

Hi, I've come across the dab page Dubois Historic District. One of the two redlink entries is about an article that has now been created: DuBois Historic District. The other one, however, links to a list article which doesn't seem to mention any places with this name. With apparently only a single article that's known by this term, I thought it would be best to turn the dab page into a redirect to it. But then, there might be something I'm missing. – Uanfala (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for noting the issue. I just tried fixing the situation. There should clearly be a disambiguation page that links to both the existing Pennsylvania article and to the redlink for the Idaho(?) historic district too. Neither of the historic districts is widely known or otherwise deserves "primary" designation. After a few mistakes in moves, i think it is okay now. --Doncram (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the article titles. I'm still a tiny bit concerned that the other entry links to National Register of Historic Places listings in Bingham County, Idaho, which doesn't seem to have any content about a Dubois Historic District in that county. – Uanfala (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Okay quickly looking into it there was a Dubois Historic District proposed or actually formally listed there (Location: Roughly bounded by E. Main, Court, S. Shilling, and Bingham Sts., Blackfoot, Idaho), with NRIS indicating its status change date was October 4, 1982. Reference number is 82005189. However it may not be currently listed, the 2013a NRIS status was code "DR" (and I am not sure what that means). So maybe its listing was not completed or it was later delisted. This requires research, i.e. an email inquiry to the National Park Service to request the documentation for it, to sort out what happened. And/or inquiry to Idaho state historical office. Leading to addition of an entry onto that Bingham County, Idaho page as a formerly listed historic district, perhaps, if it is not a current one. Okay, consider it to be on my to do list. I doubt the National Park Service will answer promptly about it though. --Doncram (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This Idaho state list from 1997 does not mention it. --Doncram (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There is 1983-listed Shilling Avenue Historic District (currently a redlink) which covers "Shilling Ave. between E. Idaho and Bingham Sts. And Bridge and Judicial Sts. To Stout Ave., Blackfoot". Based on looking on Google maps that would include Shilling between Bingham and Court, i.e. part or all of the Dubois HD's area, so that might have subsumed it. --Doncram (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, started the Shilling Ave HD article. Its NRHP document at one point speaks of the Dubois Historic District, as if that is the name of the district. Maybe it was the name planned for it, and the document was not updated completely to take that out. The district does include the Fred T. Dubois House (1891), 320 East Main, home of U.S. Senator Fred T. Dubois ("National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Shilling Avenue Historic District / 0710791653". National Park Service. Retrieved January 29, 2019. With accompanying 20 photos from 1978 and 1983). Maybe this is leading towards Dubois Historic District for Idaho redirecting to this Shilling Ave HD article. There is also a Dubois, Idaho in a different county. --Doncram (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Default setting for marking edits as minor

I recall you raising this at an editor's Talk page (March 2015). I chanced upon this Talk page section from 2011 and thought you may be interested in the content. rgds.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Rocknrollmancer, I do recall that, and I appreciate the info. Hmm, i think i should use that now, meaning I guess take on the issue with that editor about their numerous small edits, but maybe not directly, maybe I could/should find someone else to address it. --Doncram (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

William Redding House

Not sure if you can expand the William Redding House? I tried to find his obituary on Newspapers.com, to no avail. There may be books about New Mexico pioneers on the Internet Archive though!Zigzig20s (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:Zigzig20s, I just added a bit from the NRHP nomination. Glad to see you developing NM NRHP articles. We are very extremely close to rolling NM's percentage articled over 40, at wp:NRHPPROGRESS (which I will update soon). Also many NM counties will change colors when the maps get updated next (which I probably won't do now). --Doncram (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if this can be done, but it would be very useful to see the names of the counties on the map. And ideally for NRHP maps, to be able to click and be taken directly to the list for each county.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

And the Mauricio Portillo House. A settler from Mexico, very interesting.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep, with your additions NM is now barely over 40 percent! Adding a little to the Mauricio Portillo House article now, too. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I am struggling a bit to flesh out the Antonio Torres House as well...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to finish National Register of Historic Places listings in Grant County, New Mexico. Feel free to chip in.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, happy to do so. Any particular reason for interest there, by the way? I dunno, I could possibly get to that area sometime to take pics, although it is more likely i would get bogged down further north in NM and UT on that future trip. It seems the coordinates of places are not very good (there is big difference between "NRIS" coordinates vs. any verified ones), so it might be hard to figure which buildings are which. Certainly it helps to develop the articles. Anyhow, have done a bit more. The May 1988 ones are all part of one Multiple Property Submission. And, by the way, there's now a connected path of counties through NM to AZ and UT to CA which are 50 percent or more articled. --Doncram (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel we should try to cover all the counties on the border, as they are (and will continue to be) in the news so much. We can bring more historical depth (albeit local history) to our readers. I am also interested in creating more articles about the (mostly forgotten) heroes of the Mexican-American War!Zigzig20s (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Do we not have a list of all the counties on the border?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, to me it sounds relevant for Wikipedia to have an article/list-article about the U.S.-Mexico border, mentioning all towns/cities/unincorporated areas and/or counties along it. Covering what kind of border security is where, like whether there is a wall or not. Cover news reports about tunnels being discovered, etc. Perhaps could have a route map for the closest road to the border, like is done for U.S. Route 66 or other road routes. Not sure if this exists yet. Not sure if counties should be covered saliently in it, because many of the counties extend quite far away, but I am not sure how far back from the border there are border-type issues, so maybe Grant County, New Mexico which doesn't touch the border would be relevant, or maybe not. Also it could be organized east to west or west to east by state, within that by county. Is that what you are driving at?

Hmm, there is Mexico–United States border, whose "Border States" section mentions "Along the border are 23 U.S. counties and 39 Mexican municipalities" but it does not list them. Perhaps that could be expanded, and/or split out. I do kind of like the dual perspective of what's on the Mexican side, too, not just what is on the U.S. side of the border, though any wall would take private property by eminent domain only on the U.S. side.

About the facts of which are the U.S. border counties, I could/would just visit the List of counties in California, List of counties in Arizona, List of counties in New Mexico, List of counties in Texas to figure them out. In NM, west to east, the three counties literally on the border are Hidalgo County, New Mexico, Luna County, New Mexico, Doña Ana County, New Mexico. The other southern NM counties border on Texas (Otero County, New Mexico, Eddy County, New Mexico and Lea County, New Mexico). --Doncram (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It sounds very interesting.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Wurdemann House

Hi Doncram, thank you for noticing the new article - it was my first article from scratch, so your "thanks" for creating it is really made me feel good. Schazjmd (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

E-mail

I've e-mailed you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Barela-Reynolds House

Talk:Barela-Reynolds House.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, Zigzig20s, i added a bit about this somewhat complex property from the NRHP document, and eventually removed the "under construction" tag. The NRHP doc is confusing because the two-part property is confusing. I used the zaguan term in the article but not latilla (lath) and vigas (beams) and other terms found in the NRHP doc. Hopefully it is better. Please feel free to develop further of course. --Doncram (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Very confusing indeed.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Also it seems to me that "El Platero" silversmith store moved from one part to the other part, based on 2009 photo which does not agree with the 1977 NRHP doc. So I just revised it further. --Doncram (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure. I wonder what they were doing during the (almost forgotten) Mexican-American War.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in El Paso County, Texas

The Elkman tool is not giving me the right PDFs, just blank ones. Where did you find the one for the bank please?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Zigzig20s, right, the Texas ones are not available from the NPS. Follow instructions at wp:NRHPHELPTX to get PDFs from Texas Historical Commission instead. I never remember the instructions myself, i just go back to the notes there. Including I copy-paste the somewhat different reference draft from there, into any TX article, then I copy-paste the URL from the document itself, maybe this requires having a few windows open. Do ask if instructions not clear. --Doncram (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

OMG.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind terribly if I asked you to retrieve them for me please? For example for U.S. Post Office (El Paso). I am trying to finish National Register of Historic Places listings in El Paso County, Texas.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, sorry maybe there is too much info there at that NRHPHELPTX link. More briefly, all you need to do is:

1. look up your NRHP doc at Texas Historic Sites Atlas (search on the NRHP listing name, or drill down within the county of interest)

2. copy-paste the following draft reference into your article:

<ref name=nrhpdoc>{{cite web|url= |title=National Register of Historic Places Registration: |publisher=Texas Historical Commission |author= |date= |accessdate=November 11, 2024}}</ref>

3. copy-paste the URL of the NRHP doc from the URL bar of your browser into your reference, and otherwise customize the reference. You still have to look up the authors and date of prep in section 11 of the NRHP doc.

Here is a reference for that post office:

<ref name=nrhpdoc>{{cite web|url=https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/NR/pdfs/84001662/84001662.pdf |title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: United States Post Office / Downtown Station, Old Main Post Office |publisher=Texas Historical Commission |author=Peter Flagg Maxson |date=January 15, 1984 |accessdate=November 11, 2024}}</ref>

Hope this gets you started. I'm not too motivated to do a lot in Texas, after getting shot down about organizing List of RHPs in TX more sensibly. :( --Doncram (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

In 3, where is "the URL of the NRHP doc from the URL bar of your browser into your reference" please?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I just mean the URL of the document, which you can see. When you have a window open on the NRHP document, you can see the URL of the window, of the document. I am using Chrome browser. At the top is the URL of the page that I am on (actually it is "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doncram&action=edit&section=42" right now, while editing this comment). When i have open the NRHP document of the post office, the URL showing at the top of my browser window is https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/NR/pdfs/84001662/84001662.pdf. I think that top area of my browser is called the "URL bar" but maybe I am wrong. It is where i type in a URL to go to a specific page, like "news.google.com". Or I can put in a Google search there "Google news". --Doncram (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know what a URL is. I asked where. See this edit. When I am on this website, I can find Old Fort Bliss but no URL comes with it. So where is the URL to copy and paste please? If it's the same as the one from the Elkman tool, what is the point in looking up the building on this website?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see, I had to click on "Files" a few tabs away.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, I knew we were just getting tripped up in words. Here is what i was writing out, maybe will put some of it at NRHPHELPTX.

You have to drill all the way in until you see the NRHP document, you just keep going until you are reading it. At "this website", you enter "Old Fort Bliss" and hit return to search on it. Its response is:

Your search returned 2 results. 
Old Fort Bliss — El Paso County
National Register Listing — 2072001357
Historical Marker — 5141003730

Click on the "National Register Listing — 2072001357", then it brings up:

Details for Old Fort Bliss (Atlas Number 2072001357)
National Register Listing — Atlas Number 2072001357

and various tabs. Click on the "Files" tab, which offers up:

National Register Nomination File

Click on that, and the NRHP document will open. For this one, it opens slowly. But you can see the URL of the document is https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/NR/pdfs/72001357/72001357.pdf . Which is NOT the URL suggested by the Elkman tool, which doesn't work. You have the NRHP document open, that is what you need. Knock on wood. --Doncram (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I found it, see Old Fort Bliss.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I've done most of them.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for all your NRHP-related work!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Yuma County, Arizona

I am trying to do National Register of Historic Places listings in Yuma County, Arizona, as it is on the border. I am a bit disappointed in Ruth Ewing House, however. It is quite short, and I can't find her obituary on Newspapers.com.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

MacMillan Chapel

Hi Doncram, the MacMillan Chapel was moved from Ada County to Canyon County in Idaho after its listing on the NRHP (#84000989), but the listing remains on the Ada County page. Can the listing be cut and pasted from Ada to Canyon County's page? Tamanoeconomico (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, Tamanoeconomico, interesting, I certainly know of historic structures that have been moved and stayed listed on the National Register, including some covered bridges, but I don't recall buildings moving from one list-article to another. However, ships have moved many times. So, yes, we want the county-area list-articles to be accurate, and there is much precedent from NRHP-listed ships being moved from one "permanent" mooring to a different one. You could/should copy it to National Register of Historic Places listings in Canyon County, Idaho. But like we have done for ships, please also add it to National Register of Historic Places listings in Ada County, Idaho#Former listings with appropriate explanation in the description/notes column. You go ahead, and I can check on it if you like, and/or you let me know what you want me to do. --Doncram (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Doncram. Here are the two pages with my edits: Ada County, position 4 under Former listings, and Canyon County, position 19 under Current listings. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Prow House

Hi Doncram. I have, indeed, made many changes to this article. Reason being that an article on a regional Ozark Mountains building type (which is absolutely legit) has been expanded into a fantasy of an international "prow house" giving examples of Frank Lloyd Wright and a German housing scheme. From that, a "prow window" has been made up which simply does not exist. The "prow gable" is legit but has nothing to do with the "prow house" - that's why I separated the two things. I don't want to claim any credit for anything and I mentioned in the history page that I moved the "Winged gable" to a new article. But I take your point and include links between the two articles.

Singleton House in Georgia

I recently came across two articles about what appears to be the same historic house: the correctly named but very short Singleton House (Eatonton, Georgia), and the incorrectly named but more detailed Singleton House (Eatonville, Georgia). Since you were the creator of both articles (in 2009 and 2018, respectively), I thought you would be the best qualified to decide whether and how the material from the incorrectly named article should be merged into the earlier article. Or if you don't feel like dealing with it, just let me know, and I'll do my best with it. Cheers! --ShelfSkewed Talk 02:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:ShelfSkewed, wow, thanks! I certainly was not aware of the duplication. I have just merged the two articles, leaving a redirect behind at the one with incorrect disambiguation. How did you find the duplication, I wonder? The newer, incorrect version was the only one linked from the NRHP list-article for its county. Thank you for your attention. Please feel free to amend the modified remaining article further. Again, thanks so much! --Doncram (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I'm working through a (very long) list of articles that should appear on disambiguation pages but don't, and the newer article was one of those, missing from the dab page Singleton House, where I found the older article listed. --ShelfSkewed Talk 02:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Non-existent categories, again again

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Nando Felty Saloon, please make sure that the category page actually exists. In some cases, it may be appropriate to create a new category in accordance with Wikipedia's categorization guidelines, but it is usually better to use the most specific available existing category. It is never appropriate to leave a page categorised in a non-existent category, i.e. one whose link displays in red. You may find it helpful to use the gadget HotCat, which tests whether a category exists before saving a change. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of how collaboration in Wikipedia works. Which involves allowing different people to do what they want. In general it is not valid to criticize Wikipedia developers for not doing something you happen to focus upon. It just isn't valid. One could as well criticize other article creators for not attempting to add relevant categories, i.e. for leaving new articles relatively isolated/unpopulated with categories. Or one could just as well criticize other editors for not creating articles, or not enough articles. Or to criticize you personally for not having created, before I did, whichever needed article that i did create. How dare you not create the article and put it into all sorts of wonderful categories, beforehand?

You seem to me to be asserting that the number one issue in Wikipedia is that redlink categories should not exist, over all other priorities. Completely disregarding the value of creating new categories or category redirects. Completely disregarding the value of getting categorizing done, in a cooperative way with other editors. Some/many editors do specialize in knowing about and adding categories. Based on my experience with you, I personally think that you should stay away from the area completely. Let others operate as they have done for years, without requiring your management. I am not going to learn to use HotCat, whatever that is; others do that well, and many tens or hundreds of thousands of articles get their categories refined without your involvement.

And, based on your multiple interactions with me over the last month or two, you seem to me to be engaging in bullying, wp:bullying, and generally seeming to undermine community-building and seeming to seek to criminalize normal good editing behaviors. I suggest you drop your quest. --Doncram (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, further BrownHairedGirl has accused me of "high-frequency basic incompetence" in this edit at their Talk page. Chiding me unfairly, IMHO, apparently, after some temporary confusion was already completely resolved. Yep, this seems pretty much like non-willingness to actually communicate, and consistent with my growing apprehension of their engaging in bullying / wp:bullying whatever. Fine. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE, BHG's deletion nomination. --Doncram (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC) 01:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

And, BHG in this edit at AFD on Nikola Tesla Memorial Center is attacking me personally (" the essay WP:ITSAMUSEUM is circular-logic childish drivel which should be deleted. (I just went to see who wrote that nonsense, and no surprise, it's a Doncram creation)." ) As if my username is synonymous with drivel, and communicating personal disrespect.

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE i pointed out that BHG has not responded in discussion here at my talk page, meaning this section. --Doncram (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doncram:, that's ridiculous. You chose not to ping me, so I didn't see your reply ... and then you not only complain here that I didn't reply but go making an issue of it elsewhere, also without notifying me.

If you do not want to be accused of "high-frequency basic incompetence", then please don't display high-frequency basic incompetence.

I didn't invent WP:REDNOT. Its there for a reason. If you disagree with it, then start an RFC to change it ... but so long as it stands, it's a very easy thing to follow. Simply look at the bottom of a page when you save, and if you see a redlinked category, fix it.

And no, I am definitely not asserting that the number one issue in Wikipedia is that redlink categories should not exist, over all other priorities. Please don't put words in my mouth.

What I am asserting is that you repeatedly make this same very simple error, requiring other editors to clean up after you. It's easily detected and easily fixed.

And no, Wikipedia is not based on allowing different people to do what they want. It is based on people working on whatever they choose to work on, but within consensus guidelines.

All I am asking of you is that you spend a few seconds so that you don't repeatedly leave others to clean up after you. What's so hard about that? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Bust

Hello. I e-mailed you about a historic bust a few days ago. Are you interested in working on it at all please?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not replying promptly. I quickly looked for sources but did not find anything much. I think it is not part of any NRHP listing, is that right? I could try to look more, but perhaps someone skilled in getting old newspapers and other sources via non-public literature searching would be a better collaborator. There are a few such who I notice participating in AFDs from time to time. --Doncram (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find it on Newspapers.com. We are missing articles about busts and monuments built by Cuban refugees in the US--this is one of them.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Doncram,

News

The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
{{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE

Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Yep I have replied there already. Your MFD seems like nonsense and b.s. to me, frankly, and as an addition to what appears to me as a pattern of bullying (my opinion, perhaps to be the subject of future dispute resolution). --Doncram (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla Memorial Center

Hi, Doncram. I thought about writing an article about Tesla Museum in Italy, but couldn't find anything on the web. There are sites mostly about Tesla car or so, but not about museum in Italy. Do you know more about it? Any link? Regards, --Silverije 18:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:Silverije, the place I remembered was in fact a small museum in Como, Italy (which is on Lago di Como) devoted to Volta, not Tesla. It is the Tempio Voltiano (as covered at AtlasObscura). Ah, i see there is an article already: Tempio Voltiano. Thank you for following up, and sorry it was my mistake in member to confuse the two. --Doncram (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Done.

Done.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Non-existent categories, again again again

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Sierra County Sheriff's Gallows, please make sure that the category page actually exists. In some cases, it may be appropriate to create a new category in accordance with Wikipedia's categorization guidelines, but it is usually better to use the most specific available existing category. It is never appropriate to leave a page categorised in a non-existent category, i.e. one whose link displays in red. You may find it helpful to use the gadget HotCat, which tests whether a category exists before saving a change. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

To User:BrownHairedGirl, I disagree with your point of view. I replied to you above and you did not respond. Could you please respond there. --Doncram (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't what POV issue there is here.

I didn't see the reply because you didn't ping me. Just found it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Non-existent categories, again again again again

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Hanson Historic District, please make sure that the category page actually exists. In some cases, it may be appropriate to create a new category in accordance with Wikipedia's categorization guidelines, but it is usually better to use the most specific available existing category. It is never appropriate to leave a page categorised in a non-existent category, i.e. one whose link displays in red. You may find it helpful to use the gadget HotCat, which tests whether a category exists before saving a change. Thank you. .

Please stop this disruption. You know what the problem is, and it is very easily avoided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl, I completely disagree with your perspective on content and on how Wikipedia works at, I suppose, a pretty basic level. I also perceive your repeated postings here to be unpleasant and unproductive. If you are intending to be sarcastic or humorous, it is not working for me. Please do not post here at my talk page any further, at least not on the same lines as your several recent comments. --Doncram (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Doncram:, I find your repeated refusal to avoid making the same easily-spotted error to be to be unpleasant and unproductive. It requires other editors to clean up after you, as i have done many hundreds of time in the last few years.

I don't know whether your persistent unwillingness to simply look at a page when you save it and fix any redlinked categories is a product of WP:CIR issues. If you are intending to be sarcastic or humorous, it is not working for me.

If you don't want me to post these messages, the solution is very simple and it is entirely in your control: do not categorise articles in non-existent categories.

But so long as I keep finding then in cleanup lists, I will continue to post the reminders. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I will discuss for a bit here if you will. However do not open any new sections on my Talk page similar to those you have done. Do you capeche?

What about the fact that you are simply wrong, when you assert that "It is never appropriate to leave a page categorised in a [[WP:REDNOT|non-existent category". There is no such policy or guideline, and I don't even know of any essays or any such perspective being held by any editor other than you. I have looked at wp:REDNOT and it does not provide justification for your interactions with me. If you think it does justify, I suppose you should please try to explain that to me.

Just like for redlinks to topics, calling for articles ("redlinks help wikipedia grow" and all that), red category links also help. I noticed that you yourself have created some categories and/or category redirects, from temporarily red categories in some articles that I created. Because they were needed or helpful. Obviously multiple links to red categories, coming from multiple authors or not, is an indication that a new category is needed. That is how a zillion categories have in fact been created over time. And there remain many needed categories; the work is not "done" in any sense. Today i created Category:Blacksmith shops and populated it with more than 100 existing articles.

Your tone and language in these interactions seems abusive, rude, verging upon bullying. Again as if what you are declaring (falsely) to be bad practice is in fact one of the most heinous crimes in Wikipedia. While in my perspective you are simply wrong. Ignorant or malicious or what, I don't know how to interpret your behavior. Perhaps you could suggest to me what is your motivation, because I am not understanding your motivation and style at all. If you behave like this with new editors especially, then I will tend to think that you are seriously hurting Wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Doncram:, I help new editors where I can.

When I encounter an experienced editor who repeatedly engages in the passive-aggressive bullying technique of repetaedly leaving the same glaringly simple error for others to clean up, then when I have to clean it up I remind them. In two years of cleaning up Special:WantedCategories, there have only ever been three editors who repeatedly do this ... and the only one who has ever objected to being reminded not to do so is you. What is your problem?

You say that WP:REDNOT does not provide justification for your interactions with me.

But REDNOT says "A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category. Either the category should be created, or else the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists". (I have bolded and italicised it for you). [And I de-bolded it --Doncram] Which part of those two sentences is unclear to you? To use your own words, is your repeated flouting of that very very simple principle ignorant or malicious or what? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, it is not pleasant for me to talk to you at all. I don't like your abusive tone from before, or now. I asked whether you are ignorant or malicious, so on a rough level I guess you can ask that back of me. But I assure you I am not malicious in my editing of wikipedia content....how could you think so? I am obviously just developing articles, and you are following me and posting at my Talk page. While I perceive you to be malicious, behaviorily, in your denigrating me.

About that quote, I guess your interpretation is extreme. It is simply not the case that red category links are never allowed, not even temporarily, in wikipedia practice. The whole spirit about red-links is that the Wikipedia was built out of redlinks, and redlinks help grow, now, too. The summary nutshell of the guideline is "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." I was not, and you should not be certain that Category:Gallows and various other redlink categories should not exist. Obviously, obviously, obviously, thousands of wikipedia editors have created redlink categories, and then eventually the situations have been resolved, either by categories being created, or category redirects being created, or by the categories being dropped. You are perhaps being too literal and/or extrapolating from what the guideline does say. It does NOT say that "never not for one second" can a redlink category exist. And it certainly does not say that it is a crime if some editor does create a red category, or that there is anything negative about that editor, or that there is anything negative that you are entitled to impose as punishment or whatever you are trying to do. I think it is obvious that the continual creation of redlink categories by article content editors (me included, what I mostly do) provides obvious communication/guidance to category-focused editors about what category structures are needed. If technology has changed so that you can instantly see when a red category has been created, or if you and anyone else has evolved a practice of immediate suppression, I suppose you can try to stamp out immediately each independent new communication, preventing discernment of patterns. That is not how wikipedia has worked, and that sounds bad to me. I think you are over-interpreting what you want "never" to mean. I personally would take that word out of that guideline, because you are interpreting it that way. It would be reasonable to say that categories are for guiding readers, and red categories should not be left in place too long (leaving "too long" undefined, but in my view maybe a scale of years is appropriate). Sure, it is good for the collective process of Wikipedia development for categories to be established eventually. However ridiculously strict rules, and/or criminalizing of simple processes, is sure to suppress better longterm development.

Also, I suppose it is possible that exactly what the guideline states has changed over the years....perhaps you yourself changed the wording there, I suppose it could cost time now to try to determine that....however if you did change it or otherwise know how that word "never" got in there, I would appreciate your telling me to save time. But even if that "never" has been longstanding, it does not justify your treating me or anyone else abusively. --Doncram (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Attucks High School

Hi there. Regarding Attucks High School, I thought you might like to know that there is also a relatively famous Crispus Attucks High School in Indianapolis. Both schools seem to have been named after Crispus Attucks, so we may want to think about a disambiguation page. Zagalejo^^^ 01:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Or a List of schools named after Crispus Attucks (currently a redlink)? There is Attucks School and more. Certainly a disambiguation page is justified. Hmm, I thought there were stronger list-articles about Lincoln schools and Jefferson schools, but did those get consolidated into List of educational institutions named after presidents of the United States? I am not impressed with that. --Doncram (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There's Lincoln School, Lincoln High School, etc. It's been a while since I got involved with any school disambiguation discussions on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how to handle the Attucks articles. Zagalejo^^^ 02:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I left a message at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Schools_named_"Attucks". Zagalejo^^^ 22:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:List of postal codes of Canada

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:List of postal codes of Canada requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Hose tower

Hello, Doncram. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hose tower".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hose tower

The article Hose tower has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable, should be on Wiktionary

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. JMHamo (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Drafts

Do you think Rose Hill Burial Park (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) is notable? Is having notable burials enough? Also, any help on Draft:John T. Waller would be appreciated. I didn't come across the nomination form, for example, for his building on the NRHP list. And I suspect there must be some strong sources out there somewhere. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:FloridaArmy, sure, I will help on Waller article for sure. A doc on the Walker-designed Alhambra theatre plus courthouse annex is available, from Kentucky Historic Resources, within the NRHP documentation for the Hopkinsville Commercial Historic District (article which I will expand). Tonight or within a few days. Will look at cemetery too. —Doncram (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the cemetery is notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Wool Bay, South Australia

Hi Doncram,

I noticed that your recent edit of the above article was reverted with the advice that an article about the Wool Bay lime kiln would be better than having Category:Lime kilns in Australia appended to the article. I am writing to advise that I started an article about the lime kiln earlier in 2019 because there is sufficient published material to support a 'start' class including Australian government material available under 'Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY 3.0 AU)' and which therefore can be prepared in a short period of time. I can complete what I started in a couple of days. Please reply here if you wish to reply.

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Cowdy001, yes, I had added the Category:Lime kilns in Australia to the article Wool Bay, South Australia, and I had added it to List of lime kilns#Australia. Yes it would be great if you would get that new article you mention into mainspace, and add Category:Lime kilns in Australia to it. I just copied and adapted text from the Wool Bay article, to add to the List of lime kilns#Australia article the following: "There were a number of lime kilns at Wool Bay, South Australia. One kiln remains and was listed along with the jetty under the name of Wool Bay Lime Kiln & Jetty on the South Australian Heritage Register on 28 November 1985." Please do feel free to update the coverage there in that list-article. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Boyden Block moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Boyden Block, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh well, sorry it wasted some of your time. I moved it back. It was clearly marked "under construction", and i was indeed getting back to it. And, frankly, it did indicate notability already, by dint of NRHP listing, along with which come reliable sources. Whatever. It was indeed a crummy start, from me trying to edit from an awkward device yesterday (when i created 5 similar articles, and i since fixed up 3 of them), but still.--Doncram (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

John Boyden House moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, John Boyden House, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Same reply applies. --Doncram (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:State highways in Michigan serving parks has been nominated for discussion

Category:State highways in Michigan serving parks, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Imzadi 1979 → 14:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Lexington Carnegie library

This photo of the library was the first one I uploaded to Commons.

But it might not be useful because of the abundant foliage. And thanks for the insights on process and methods as relating to Monsieur Giron's Confectionery and the NRIS information issues page. The link has been saved for future discoveries. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

your comment about memorials

I saw your comment about memorials, and I agree. One person seems to have taken over the article and is doing as you describe. For instance, everything named after Sidney Lanier is a monument or memorial to the confederates. Lanier was a private in the army who was captured. I like poets who weren't captured. :-)

Ha ha, that made me laugh! This is about my little rant at Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials. I started that list-article originally, by the way. I don't know what I may do going forward, about it, but we agree the situation is bad. :( Thanks for the feedback. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, I feel this is not helpful...Zigzig20s (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Doncram,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Ferdinand C. Fiske (1856-1930)

Ferdinand C. Fiske (1856-1930) was definitely notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, he is redirected to Fiske & Meginnis...Zigzig20s (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your note at Talk:Fiske & Meginnis, I think we should split the article into separate biographical articles for each architect. The information may be redundant on each article, but it would still be more accurate.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Barr Terrace was only designed by Fiske. If the Mueller Tower designed by Fiske & Meginnis, it could appear both in Ferdinand C. Fiske and Harry Meginnis.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I found George Kuska for the Mueller Tower, but this suggests otherwise...Zigzig20s (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your comments. Hmm, the other possible way to go is to combine them all back into one "Ferdinand C. Fiske and associated architects"-type article, with a section for each partnership combo's works, and with a paragraph or section for each bio. Maybe Fiske is the only really notable one; info about the others may only be about how they developed with Fiske and then did a few notable buildings later. E.g. the Nebraska History bio about Meginnis doesn't have anything much independent of Fiske.

There are other architect articles like that, where the architects overlapped in partnerships. Charles L. Thompson and associates in Arkansas comes to mind. It is an art not a science about how to divvy or combine architects up. :) Note for William Le Baron Jenney and his later partners, I think there is less overlap, and Jenney on his own is really very notable, so Mundie & Jensen should be separate and the info about them should not clog up the main Jenney article. Although Mundie seems significant too, there is not as much separation from Jensen in age and in works and in their development (they both learned under Jenney) so covering the two of them together seems good. Of course if there gets to be too much about any one person, it can make sense to cover them in summary fashion in the combo article, and split out a separate article for them using a {{main}} link.--Doncram (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I always prefer individual biographies.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay i hear your preference. Do you mean always have separate biographies, and have separate articles about each partnership? Because we don't want to repeat everything about each partnership in each of two or more articles about the individuals, right?

But "always"? What if there is not enough to split out about a partner, i.e. if literally nothing is known about them, besides the fact of their partnering on some buildings in article about the partnership?

By the way, if we can expand both articles, we could nominate a DYK, "...that Barr Terrace and Mueller Tower are located in Lincoln, Nebraska?". Or something even hookier...Zigzig20s (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

But Barr Terrace is a Fiske work and Mueller Tower is not, is completely unrelated AFAICT right now. Did you mean a pair or more of Fiske ones? OIC from your link above that Mueller Tower may be a Meginnis and Schaumberg work, not Kaskas(?). But you wouldn't cover Meginnis and Schaumberg in same article as Fiske, so linking the two buildings in one AFD may not work. Perhaps a different combo of Fiske works, or of Meginnis and Schaumberg ones, or the like? --Doncram (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

DYKs are good, almost always, I could be on board. Right now I have lost sight of the whole picture, being bogged down in several in-progress architect articles and associated building articles that need serious cleanup: Warehouse District (Salt Lake City, Utah), Richard K.A. Kletting, Mundie & Jensen, William Le Baron Jenney, maybe more, besides the Fiske plus associates ones! --Doncram (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems rather incongruous to me that both Barr and Mueller can be found in Lincoln, Nebraska!Zigzig20s (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Not seeing why you find that unusual. Lincoln is a major city, a state capitol, home of a university, etc. National Register of Historic Places listings in Lancaster County, Nebraska has lots of NRHPs. Lincoln is not podunk! --Doncram (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

OH! DUH! I wasn't getting it! Oh, hmm, maybe there could be some very funny DYK! --Doncram (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes... But they would have to be starts, not stubs.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Barr Terrace was created on the 19th. So only a few hours left for a DYK. But are there enough sources to flesh them out?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Barr Terrace, Mueller Tower. The pictures are all over the place though?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone fixed the pictures. I did two reviews. I am not sure if you need to do some as well?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

IIRC, just your doing reviews is enough, Zigzig20s, thanks! What about something like: Did you know that... among Lincoln landmarks, the Mueller carillon tower has no bells, and the Barr terrace has no terraces? The first part is true, don't know about second part but I am guessing that "Terraces" is meant just for the apartment building, that there is no terrace. --Doncram (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the hook I came up with is "hookier". But if the reviewer objects to it, perhaps you could suggest yours.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Dictionary definitions for "terrace" include: "BRITISH / a block of row houses. "an attractive Regency terrace" or a row house. "modern furniture looks out of place in your Victorian terrace".

The "block of row houses" type meaning is the spirit in which this place was named, methinks, and in America the actual application could probably often look quite different than used for traditional row house blocks in England. But maybe the fenced-in area along at least one side here, visible in pics, with gates for each entry, are considered (or could be considered) terraces, in the sense of patios. So I guess the second part of the DYK suggestion here does not work. --Doncram (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find Gustave A. Mueller's house. Perhaps it was demolished.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I did find it but decided to trim it because his widow auctioned the house and what we see on Google Maps may not be the same house and probably belongs to a nobody now.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Warehouse District (Salt Lake City, Utah)

Hi Doncram, the Warehouse District (Salt Lake City, Utah) page may contain some misleading information in the list of buildings included from the Utah State Historical Society Historic Preservation Research Office. Most of the buildings in that list are not in the Warehouse District; they are on Main Street (formerly known as East Temple Street). I noticed you recently have been improving the article, and I would help if needed. My knowledge of that part of town is limited, though. Sunset Magazine's article referenced on the Warehouse District page, Salt Lake City's Arty West Side, indicates the boundaries of the Warehouse District are subject to change, although Main Street would still be one block away from West Temple Street, a boundary given by National Register of Historic Places listings in Salt Lake City. One problem is that the Warehouse District page references the extensive list of buildings included in the Historic Preservation Research Office document, and that list includes buildings on Main Street. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Tamanoeconomico for noticing and starting Lollin Block, too. I am not sure how I got into this; i have several architect articles open and messed up, including the Richard Kletting one but also others.

Yes, it seems very messy to me right now. Note in the Warehouse District article there is now the 2016 NRHP document for the expansion, which was a huge expansion. Which includes clear maps. (The map on page 32 of PDF shows clearly that the original district was small (purple) and the expansion is huge. Includes Pioneer Park (a redlink!) and over to one block of W. Temple, but not as far over as Main St. (the next N-S street after Temple, per my reading of Google maps, okay I will take it from you that used to be called E. Temple, thanks.)) Not sure if this expanded NRHP listing now includes Main St. or not (seems like not), and if it does then perhaps it no longer conforms to what is understood in SLC to be the "Warehouse District"?

The early listing documentation is ambiguous; all I see is a stack of Utah State Historical Society Structure/Site Information forms, with not even a statement that all of those buildings are in the district. The 2016 increase form says the original district had 16 buildings; it would be nice to sort out what those were, perhaps that can be done. You may or may not have encountered this kind of messiness before, where the original documentation was quite vague. It is great that a later better document has come out to help make sense of it.

Right now it is seeming to me that all the separate building articles perhaps should be created, on buildings which will turn out to be inside or outside the district, to make sense from smaller to larger, later. (Seems like the Main St. ones are NOT in this district, right.)

I would be very grateful for your help, any way you see fit. I will pause on the District article now, may create some separate articles later. --Doncram (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Will keep at it until it makes sense, even on the off chance that Main Street is now included in the district. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, [User:Tamanoeconomico|Tamanoeconomico]], no, Main St. is not included. I couldn't stop, did one more biggish edit just now, sort of trying to clarify. Done for now. Please let "Temporary Section" exist, while expecting it to be completely deleted later, so I can spell out what the collection of Utah forms does cover, and then distribute out citations to the appropriate form to all the various articles, like i did for Lollin Block a short while ago. --Doncram (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

These references might be helpful: Warehouse National Historic District Expansion and Boundary Increase Memo, both from Salt Lake City planners. The second document mentions 171 contributing resources and includes maps of the boundary increase but doesn't bother with a detailed list about the properties (there ought to be a law). With the maps I have started to recategorize my photos of the area, what few exist. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Added some details to the Expanded district section. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And I removed the "temporary section" to Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Salt Lake City#Collection of Utah State docs in NPS's Warehouse District doc. There's a 24-item checklist to go through, involving creating new articles for several, and adding the document to all 24. A couple are done. The dates on the documents are unclear, as is extent of overlap between NRHP docs and Utah State docs for each site. At least some have exactly same text, entirely or nearly so. --Doncram (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Matthew Cullen (miner)

Hello, Doncram,

Thanks for creating Matthew Cullen (miner)! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Nine Mile Canyon

Thanks for your thanks. I got a few more OK shots of the Green River and White River area and other stuff on yesterday's flyover. To be uploaded. Some show gas fields clearly, including the Bitter Creek Gas Field, but I don't see any coverage of such places in Wikipedia – I think they try to keep them out of the news. Generally, I just shoot whatever I can see when the clouds don't interfere, then use Google Maps to figure out what I got. Some of the areas I find, esp. in Utah, have a severe lack of named features, as far as I can find. Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Uploaded more. Gotta catch a flight to Portugal now... Dicklyon (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

LDS Tabernacles

Hey there! I replied to your comment over on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rich_jj#LDS_tabernacles_list ——Rich jj (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I have again replied to your last comment. Just FYI. ——Rich jj (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:National Register of Historic Places listings in Mountain Lakes region, West Virginia

Hello, Doncram. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "National Register of Historic Places listings in Mountain Lakes region".

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Not helpful. Deleted before i got the above message. Requested, got it restored. Moved by me to User:Doncram/National Register of Historic Places listings in Mountain Lakes region, West Virginia, and i will seek deletion of redirect. --Doncram (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The McGrath

Hi @Doncram:! Thanks for pulling back a few of your corrections on McGrath Cafe and Hotel. The building itself is on the NRHP, but the historic district designation (to which it contributes) is only county-level. If there's a better way to word it to make that clear, I welcome any improvements. Schazjmd (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

CRP / CREEP

Hello. I saw your good work on the recent South Fork Fishing & Hunting Club TALK page, and wondered if you might have a chance to weigh in on this: Talk:Committee for the Re-Election of the President#CREEP Consensus, since I expect that you have a broader perspective on the issue than I. Thank you, in advance, if you could. Lindenfall (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If you would offer opinion, please. Thank you. Lindenfall (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Not to drag you into politics. I felt that your academic opinion of whether to include would be valuable. Thank you for your sage advise there. Lindenfall (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Well I am flattered that you think so well of me. I do think you are not pre-judging my political orientation, by the way, because I believe I pretty much have been non-political on Wikipedia. I happen to focus mostly on historic sites in the United States that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, originally because I thought this area would not be controversial. There has been contention over the years, in fact, but mostly without with any political alignment. Hmm, I do remember one editor telling me, several years ago when I was developing articles about Civil War era sites in one county, that the area is now heavily Republican, and they suggested I probably did not know that (accurately). I think they advised me that I should not do more there, in order to punish the Republicans I guess somehow, which I thought was nonsense. :( --Doncram (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I must be on that same learning curve :) I had got the impression that you had gained a lot of experience, so would be a better judge of what should and shouldn't generally be included as a matter of history. (That was my sentence you'd used as perhaps a bad example, so I probably won't offer up another, and let others craft it. My intention had been to keep the mention concise and minimal.) Thanks again, for your input. Lindenfall (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

About the example, I want to make it easier for that editor to respond, if they want to take up that angle. And "100 Mistakes that Changed History" sounds a bit popular press-like. I see that Bill Fawcett (writer) states he is a historian, but doesn't show him to be very academic, and the coverage there doesn't go very far about explaining the term. I don't care particularly but it would be okay I think for someone to call for better or more sourcing. Perhaps a different source could provide further info, such as exactly which was the first instance of the "CREEP" usage, or comment more about importance/impact/other effect of the label? --Doncram (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That discussion has got way large to be of any real benefit

I am not one of Fram's fan.

He has a poor habit of railroading incompetent/quasi-competent editors, working in good-faith by focusing on entirely legitimate but often minor issues while continually subjecting him/her to extraordinarily high levels of scrutiny. Add to that, an over-ordinary dosage of sanctions, while he continues to badger the editor with issues about editing (and to be fair, how (s)he can improve them). AFAIS, he is rarely wrong on the technicalities and stays well clear of any bright-line tool-abuse but this behavior does have the potential of being (very easily) perceived as harassment by the subject.

When one makes 5 edits a day and logs in, the very next morning to see 3 messages over your t/p from the same user (who has already posted 15 more, up above) pointing out mistakes in your work, most won't react favorably irrespective of the validity of the raised concerns.

This behavior is not optimal.

But, I understand the place, where he comes from and that he is not a random internet troll who goes on harassing people, for the sadistic pleasure of it. He wholly intends for the betterment of encyclopedia and knows that he can be a jerk, at times.

I edit in one of the most volatile areas of the encyclopedia and there are editors who continually need to be monitored, for a variety of reasons. But, I know that there are other competent guys out there and often refer to them, if the volume of poor edits keeps on increasing. This actually works better, since the user understands that I am not reverting his edits and warning him, (out of a sheer hate of his username) but because there are legitimate concerns, which are voiced by others too. At the same time, I need to maintain a fine-balance to dispel concerns of tag-teaming.

But at the same time, I think many of the users who Fram dealt with (I tried to deal with one, after taking over from him and that did not go well, at all; that she ended up indeffed soon, is another story) were too incompetent to be here, at the first place and I, for one, don't need to normally deal with such editors, due to mainly working under GS/DS regimes. We are now the 5th most visited website in the world and it's expected that we will insist for a minimal quality and a satisfactory d/dt(learning) from new users; you shall not expect to be mollycoddled. I have seen some of the comments by others over Laura's page (where Fram displayed roughly same behavior) and regrettably, they were distinctly one sided, choosing to entirely ignore that Fram was voicing valid concerns. (Ymblanter shall be praised though, for his moderated approach over there.)

Now, from what I've seen, Fram has improved over the last year (sans the outburst at ArbCom, which is not harassment, by any reasonable definition of thh word) but shall there be an ArbCom case against him, I will ask for some tailored sanctions like those applied in the GSMan case, who had his own problems.

Bullying and harassment are real issues but there's no black and white territory in these regions and we need to work for a compromise, encompassing everyone who is here for the betterment of the encyclopedia. That almost none from WMF T&S knows much about our editing cultures (I have talked with some and they are extraordinarily clueless about finer aspects) compounds the probability of their understanding being incorrect, in controversial cases. I agree with much of what DGG/Sandstein has written and that community processes are not optimal. But, despite whatever might be the scenario, WMF's holier than thou approach coupled with callous statements from board-chairs ain't going to resolve these issues, except making it worse. ∯WBG^converse 07:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Side comment

Thank you for your thoughtful insights on the Fram matter. Nicely stated. The problem of bullying people to death over minutae instead of mentoring is a huge problem and the unspoken “elephant in the living room” of this whole shitstorm. Montanabw^(talk) 05:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

New edits

Hello again. Could you please review my new edits at Confederate Private Monument after User:Another Believer's and let me know if you would rephrase them? I want to make sure they are neutral as I don't want to get framed. Some people might think this is a forbidden topic. But if it's fine for the Washington Post to report the vandalism, surely we should be free to do so as well? Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe User:Parkwells has an opinion as well?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Parkwells: Could you please add the other times it was vandalized? The lede is supposed to be a summary of the body of the text.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Either the Post or NY Times article mentioned it had been vandalized before; am not sure if they included dates, so will see what I can find. I think there should be some statement about context for vandalism and growing opposition among some groups to the Confederate monuments - what the current arguments are about.Parkwells (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but I am not sure there has been much intellectual debate about this monument just yet. Not just from groups but also historians. Let us know if you can find anything. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Not ready to draft the larger article, so added material from the Post that just touched on that & mostly related to the monument in Nashville.Parkwells (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 14

Newsletter • June 2019

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:

A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Barr Terrace

On 23 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barr Terrace, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that both Mueller and Barr can be found in Lincoln, Nebraska? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Barr Terrace), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Mueller Tower

On 23 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mueller Tower, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that both Mueller and Barr can be found in Lincoln, Nebraska? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mueller Tower), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Historic building in Haywood County

So I noticed you thanked me for R.A. Clement School. I saw an incorrect article in the Salisbury Post and in the process of investigating to see if was actually "R.A. Clement School" instead of "Cleveland School" that was named to the NRHP, I just went ahead and created the article, figuring it was notable.

I was in Haywood County, North Carolina last week and after walking past Hazelwood School I decided to check to see what needs improving about Folkmoot USA, to which I have added all substantial content, prior to some major edits last year that I didn't know about. The person hasn't edited lately and the article has been tagged (by someone who has not been active lately), but I wanted some advice about what to do about those edits. My opinions are now at Talk:Folkmoot USA. Some are about the building which may or may not be notable. Others are about the organization.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Doncram,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

An invitation to the Ninth Annual Colorado Wiknic

Colorado Wiknic 2019

Who: All Wikipedia users and their families and friends are cordially invited.

What: The Ninth Annual Colorado Wiknic.

When: Sunday afternoon, July 14, 2019, from 12:00 noon to 4:00 pm MDT.

Where: The Wiknic will be held at our home in Arvada. Please contact Buaidh for further information or assistance.

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many folks to expect. You can subscribe to our Wikimedia Colorado e-mail list to receive e-mail notice of future Wikimedia Colorado activities.

Sponsors: The Wikimedians of Colorado and WikiProject Colorado

Your hosts: Buaidh & BikeSally We hope to see you.
(You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the Wikimedia Colorado event invitation list.)
PS: The Colorado portal has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Colorado.

Sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for the warm welcome neighbor and I love what you've been doing! The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Gara Medouar

Doncram, can you help me out? I need an infobox, with coordinates and a map. I'd like to have one of those boxes where you can click to get location on three different maps, or three different scales--can you do that? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, you've been helped there by The Eloquent Peasant, who put in a template:infobox mountain. I am not specifically familiar with that but noodled with it a bit too, and succeeded to get a triangular (mountain-shaped?) symbol to appear in it. Thank you to The Eloquent Peasant!

About the three-way map display, I am not really knowledgeable about that either, but you need to have three different map levels chosen. It comes up in many NRHP-listed places where a city/regional map is available and seems useful, vs. the state-level or nation-level maps. E.g. for one example in Los Angeles area, Adamson House. The line within template:infobox nrhp which gets the three levels to display is "| locmapin = USA Los Angeles Metropolitan Area#California#USA "; I guess the "#" is appending together different options. It may not work exactly the same way with infobox mountain. But still you need to have a different map level chosen that you want to display? Is there a relevant city or region level within Morocco that you want displayed, in addition to the nation level? Sorry I am not more helpful. :) cheers, --Doncram (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making the symbol appear on the map! I couldn't figure it out! I tried and got as far as |map= Morocco, but couldn't figure out the rest so I quit. But at least got it started. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, last night I saw that The Eloquent Peasant had gotten on it, and now, with your help, it's perfect. Thank you both so much! I really appreciate your help, and I hope you don't mind my calling on you two if there's a next time. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Your welcome, anytime! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

MB, I see what you did: thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Mb too then, getting Africa level map as an option too, with

| map= Morocco#Africa and

| map_caption= Location in Morocco##Location in Africa

So we all learn something, it seems. :) --Doncram (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Drmies, anyone: Gara Medouar has to do with The Mummy, apparently? I had this awkward interaction at a party in Los Angeles, actually within Hollywood i guess, nearly just across from where i lived at the time. It was one of those situations where you ask, "oh, what do you do?" and they say, "oh i do some acting". And sorta like the scene in Notting Hill, where Bernie at a small dinner party asks the followup question to Anna Scott, "so, like, can you make a living at that, like, say, how much did you make on your last gig?", and she answers "well, $20,000,000".... This guy was bald, very striking, you definitely would remember him if you ever saw him. But like it was me saying, "funny I don't recognize you, have you appeared in any movies?". He asked, "well did you see The Mummy?" and I had to say that I had not, and I had not seen any sequel, and he suggested maybe i could rent that. This was, I can reconstruct now, Pharoah Seti I. Oh well, Wikipedia informs me he died in 2016, that's too bad, he was very gracious and fun to talk to, when I met him years ago.

I had a couple other faux pas with actors, too. E.g. like apparently happens often for a character actor when some dufus like me is convinced they know him from somewhere else entirely. :( --Doncram (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

That's funny. A man stopped my x-MIL when she was walking down a bustling NYC street one day and needed to know her, give her his card, speak to her about movies. She dismissed him and he anxiously insisted but she told that little bald guy to get away from her. It was Woody Allen and she was the exact fit for his movies- tall, long hair, fair, spunky. To this day, she kicks herself. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

oh well :) --Doncram (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does have to do with the Mummy. I emailed the author of that one big article about the photos, and if my six-year old boy and I could come along next time she goes to Morocco... Drmies (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

:) --Doncram (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, haven't heard back from Dr. Cepal, unfortunately. In the meantime, that fancy stuff you and The Eloquent Peasant did, can you do that for Lauriergracht as well? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: The original map of canals is here.

Would you be able to find out the GPS coordinates for this canal? start? and end? Then we could mark up the map with a blue mark showing the canal, like in these two examples: Juliana Canal and North Sea Canal. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I am glad The Eloquent Peasant is on the case!

Well, that map is from pretty far out, at the level the Netherlands?, and might only be useful to show only a very short line where the thing is located. It may be good to include a Europe level map in which only a dot would show where Amsterdam is. Also needed is a zoomed-in map at the level of Amsterdam as appears in the Grachtengordel article, or perhaps even zoomed in further (tho I am not sure whether an appropriate neighborhood map is available).

Okay if you want to work on Lauriergracht, but maps for Prinsengracht and the other inner canal rings in Amsterdam might be more important. Okay to start anywhere you want though. Or shouldn't these be maps showing all the canals within Amsterdam, with different coloring for the one canal of interest. Is there a map of Amsterdam's canals available to modify? --Doncram (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I found a map, and I bet they exist for all the Amsterdam canals. The Eloquent Peasant, I do not yet have coordinates. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Jordaan - Lauriergracht.svg just looked too big on the page when I tried it. Uncle G (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The future of Portal:Colorado

On June 25, 2019, Portal:Colorado was nominated for deletion. (Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Colorado.) We have upgraded the portal and added several new features including selected Colorado articles, biographies, and images. If you believe the Colorado portal is valuable to Wikipedia, please help us upgrade and maintain the portal. Add your suggestions for improvement to Portal talk:Colorado. You may nominate additions at:

Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 17:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Colorado at 17:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notifications, please remove your username from the mailing list.

Proposed deletion of List of fire lookout towers

The article List of fire lookout towers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject does not seem notable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a repository for all information and this seems technical information that is US biased and not something useful for a general audience

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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.

Robynthehode, I removed the PROD deletion request. Any further deletion attempts will fail, obviously in my opinion. I am happy to discuss here why that is obvious, if you disagree, but then you must disagree because you tried the PROD? Consider 10 wp:CLNT already big-time applies; 2) consider precedent of many similar lists of notable things world-wide (you must be missing something then); 3) see that fire lookout towers are a thing (and have an article) and having a list of them can be included in the article and likewise can sensibly be split out due to length, and 4) wp:GNG can easily be met if you made any effort (so you don't meet wp:BEFORE if you were to try an AFD; and 5) it is a new article by an experienced editor who is working on it and has it tagged "under construction". So no way dude. --Doncram (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Civilty

Under WP:CIVIL, "(e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them". That is what I thought of when you posted that original comment. My issues are WP:N and WP:V. I'm not trying to start another argument, but I am just trying to make it clearer to you. I don't like essays, but I wouldn't have even responded to your keep vote if you didn't make that second comment. SL93 (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

sL93, thank you for bringing this here, rather than continuing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Estacion Theme Park, where the discussion was going offtrack/inappropriate. I do appreciate your trying to follow up in some other way here.

It is hard for me to "hear" you at all, because truly you greatly down my willingness/ability to really listen when you resorted to profanity, and doubled-down with that profanity. But, for the heck of it, what on earth were you talking about when you asserted that I "came in with false accusations blazing"? Honestly I don't know what you are talking about. And here, what quoting are you referring to? I did not explicitly quote you, so you must be objecting to some implied quoting or characterization of your position which you think is unfair, but I don't know what you are referring to. Please do explain in very simple terms for me, if possible. Your position is not clear to me. --Doncram (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You stated, "The nominator is just not happy with the state of current sourcing" - That isn't true. "They essentially wp:IDONTLIKEIT without really questioning its existence and its notability. - Neither of those are true. "Or they want to force cleanup right now" - That isn't true. If I didn't say it, please don't assume it. SL93 (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for following up and explaining your view. However I think you took offense unnecessarily; I don't think others would read that exchange the way you do as if I was actually asserting that I knew what you think. In retrospect I could have prefaced my statement ("The nominator is just not happy with the state of current sourcing; they essentially wp:IDONTLIKEIT without really questioning its existence and its notability. Or they want to force cleanup right now, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP.") by the phrase "In my opinion", i.e. "IMO the nominator is just not happy...". But the "IMO" is implied/understood in context. It is a true fact that in my opinion you seemed to essentially IDONTLIKE it, etc. No one else would believe that I meant to assert it was an absolute fact that was your thinking; it is obvious in context that it is my opinion; it was not a case of me "maligning" you or misrepresenting facts in any way.

On the other hand, in the AFD you state "So you admitted you found no notability either for this article that has been sitting unsourced since 2005." which is a false statement, and you later stated "Why should I when you came in with false accusations blazing?" which is also a false statement. You are falsely accusing me of lying, i.e. in bald terms you are lying yourself in the AFD. I think uninvolved others would judge you wrong, or wronger than me. Although editor Uncle G came in and essentially judged both of us wrong, equally.

Anyhow, SL93, what I think is a lesson here is not to escalate in personal-attack-like way, and to be careful not to mischaracterize or seem to mischaracterize another's position in order to advance an argument. I will try harder in the future to avoid the appearance of mischaracterizing anyone else, because apparently you did perceive that. I hope you will likewise, because I for one perceive that is what you did yourself. --Doncram (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Jefferson County Courthouse

FYI, regarding the development of Linn Park as Birmingham's "municipal plaza", the Municipal Auditorium (now Boutwell) was completed in 1924. The main library was constructed in 1927. The courthouse was finished in 1931. City Hall opened in 1950. The first museum building is from 1959, and the Birmingham Board of Education building was completed in 1965. --Dystopos (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

effort on refnum records vs. developing articles

thanks for your comment. by working on the pictures, I have found and fixed several errors, added pictures to articles and county lists, created categories and added the commonscat to the county lists. creating new articles is too time consuming and I need source material to adequately make something useful. I prefer to just use 30 minutes of my time doing something mindless and relaxing. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

St. Peter Catholic Church (Montgomery, AL)

Doncram, you are an expert in historical buildings, and formatting and infoboxes. Could you have a quick look at this article, to see if there's anything that can do with a quick formatting improvement, to bring it in line with our guidelines for such articles? I'm not asking you to look at writing, for instance, because that is what the student will be graded on, although maybe you have some pointers about layout and sections and things like that. Thank you so much for your help!

Oh, at some point I might ask you to have a look at User:Kt rogers/Grove Court Apartments, and that one is on the national registry--I know you know all the infobox stuff for that--but the student hasn't moved it to mainspace yet. (User:Kt rogers, our clock is ticking...) Do you think it's ready? Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Dr Aaij, my quick reaction is that they look pretty good. In the first one, St. Peter Catholic Church, mostly by User:GAJH123 at least, I see there is an inline citation at end of every sentence or paragraph, which is great. That helps immensely the collaborative project of developing each article. I'll try to come back and comment more.

But briefly, usage of the NRHP infobox is not required for NRHP articles but it is mostly used, and I think it helps, and u asked about infoboxes in particular. Anyhow User:Kt rogers could possibly copy-paste in an NRHP infobox from another article, and fill it out at least partly with NRHP listing name, listing date, reference number, and address, using as source the Weekly list of new listings for that week announced by the National Park Service. I knew to look for that, given the listing date reported National Register of Historic Places listings in Montgomery County, Alabama list-article. That weekly listings report would have in fact been the source used by the editor(s) who added the Grove Court Apartments item to the list-article. And someone further figured out what the coordinates must be, probably from the street address plus browsing in Google satellite view or street view.

User:Dr Aaij, you might be aware of the "NRHP Infobox generator" tool, whose use is described in wp:NRHPHELP. It can provide a good starter infobox, with many fields filled out, to copy-paste into an article, but that works only for places listed before some date in 2013, before the Garden Court Apartments listing. For newer listings, I and others just copy-paste an infobox from another article and adapt it. There are other tips on sources and more at wp:NRHPHELPAL (link to Alabama section within NRHPHELP) and in other sections there. Kt rogers, GAJH123, too, you all are welcome to post further here, or not, either way. I can't promise much, but I will try to respond somehow to any questions or comments here. Hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Dr Aaij, also the Garden Court Apartments article does not yet cite or use the National Register nomination document, which would go into why the property is significant, why it was listed on the National Register. As such it is essential to include, use, in an article about an NRHP-listed place, if it is available. Understandable that the document is not easily found...there is a link supposedly going to such from the reference number in the list-article, but the link is bad, and suggests that the National Register does not have the document online. However it is online, and should be accessible from https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/13000894.htm. But right now the National Park Service website is not working for me; its service is intermittent, but always comes back within a few hours from my experience. --Doncram (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: the "featured" link for info about the Grove Court Apartments does now work for me, and then further links to NRHP document for Grove Court Apartments in PDF format, a 41 page document which includes 24 photos from 2013. --Doncram (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Also Kt rogers seems to have picked the best two available photos and used them well in the article, but there still could be a link to the Commons category at the bottom of the article: {{Commons category|Garden Court Apartments}} to display as follows. --Doncram (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, thank you so much for your extensive answers. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain these things, and I learned from it too. In fact, this will be very helpful next time I teach writing by way of Wikipedia. Thank you for your dedication to this beautiful project and its editors. Dr Aaij (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay, good, Dr Aaij, glad that your contacting me has been helpful. Hey I should have decried your calling me an "expert" above, but maybe flattery does work, and i do have some expertise, sure, especially about National Register-related stuff, and particularly about tracking down and properly citing NRHP documents. I think you may have noticed that recently I have been developing some new articles in Alabama, where pretty much no one else is editing much these days. See above new link about Grove Court Apartments PDF document.

About teaching writing, one great thing about having students contribute in Wikipedia is that, if they do this in mainspace, they get feedback/interaction about their writing, as you know. I think i dimly recall your similar usage of Wikipedia in teaching writing in the past; I don't remember for sure, and I don't remember if you were also in touch with editor Altairisfar. He developed most, by far, of Wikipedia's coverage of NRHP places in Alabama, and was local to the state I believe, and ranged about getting photos. He hasn't been active for quite some time now, and I don't know if I could successfully reach him or not using past email correspondence, but if he could be reached by you, he might possibly be a great guest lecturer or something. Or at the time of a future class, I could perhaps be willing to prepare something, perhaps to update/expand the wp:NRHPHELPAL section, or maybe to write up something about Altairisfar's contributions as an example, or something. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Santa Cruz County, Arizona

Getting quite close to finishing National Register of Historic Places listings in Santa Cruz County, Arizona. This is quite interesting.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

That is fascinating. Thanks. Dr Aaij (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I looked for the article they mention in the video, "Suspect Spies in Mexico", and created Mexicall.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually The New York Times misspelt Mexicali. I thought it might have been a tiny ghost town, because that's how the Times presented it. Thank you for figuring it all out, User:Imzadi1979. Did you merge the content about German spies please?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

real or fake Germans spying in Mexicali

subtitle inserted later by doncram; okay to be changed to anything better. --Doncram (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Video (the "How Walls Ended Up Along the U.S.-Mexico Border" one) is indeed interesting. Yeah, Mexicali is a place, "Mexicall" is just wrong, the NYT piece was from early 1900s i suppose before America knew much, before fact-checking. I don't have access to the NYT article tho. Maybe Imzadi1979 also doesn't have access to it. So it would be hard to merge the material, which was:

Mexicall was a locality in Mexico, located across the Mexico-United States border from Calexico, California. In 1914, it was inhabited by Mexicans, Indians, Japanese, Chinese, and Germans.^[1] Because of World War I, it raised suspicions from the United States authorities, who believed the Germans were using the location to spread their propaganda on the radio.^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b "Suspect Spies In Mexico. Germans Use Wireless Station Just Across the Border". The New York Times. August 7, 1918. Retrieved July 26, 2019.

That last sentence is very awkward. I wouldn't copy it into another article, myself; I would want to see the source and write out something different. Also I am not sure, from afar, if the radio station / spy suspects are much associated with Mexicali and whether the topic should be covered much there; offhand it sounds like it could be American hysteria unrelated to actual facts, so could better be covered in some article about American hysteria, or more largely about the border and its issues, not the Mexicali article which should be about that place in Mexico. And/or it is random that the radio station is located in or near Mexicali (unless there really is a bigger German presence there relative to other border towns). Maybe should be mentioned in Mexicali article, in context of talking about Germans there, but I am not sure. Currently there is no mention of "German" in the Mexicali article at all. --Doncram (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it was a radio station, but supposedly German spies used the 'wireless' to spread their propaganda during WWI. I don't know if you remember, but in the old days we had radio sets and we could move the round thing and catch programs and music, on AM/FM broadcasting. If you were driving around, you could catch different programs depending on the location of your radio set. I think that's what the Times meant. The internet has killed this I think--you can still listen to the radio, but mostly online. Ideally we could create an article about Espionage on the Mexico-United States border, which is probably still relevant (especially to the work that Border Patrol and the DEA are doing). But is there enough info in the public domain? Probably not. It is probably a forbidden topic!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I dunno, was there any spying at all at all? You see I am skeptical from not reading the NYT article myself, and i am suspicious of that as an ancient source...if this was real it would be covered in later reliable sources. Or was there just Anti-German sentiment and hysteria erupted if/when any German language (or Hungarian or Czech or _Spanish_ or anything that might be confused with German because Americans are ignorant) was heard on the radio/wireless? Like Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States. Like driving while Black. There was a sizable German population one or two locales in Texas; I am sure that if those German-Americans spoke on a wireless there would be spying accusations. There is irrational war hysteria, or racism / hyper-nationalism that ought to be covered somewhere, but not in every separate place article where people were racist or whatever, because that would be every place article!

But, there were a few pathetic real instances of German espionage, those few guys who got dropped off a U-boat to New Jersey I think, including one off to scope out Horseshoe Curve (Pennsylvania) as a target. Okay that links to Operation Pastorius, in Category:World War II espionage. Not sure where completely fake news espionage is to be covered, is there some article covering mix of real espionage and fake/hysterical beliefs about espionage. --Doncram (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the topic needs to be established as real espionage, or as a real incident of war hysteria, in some Wikipedia treatment about espionage or hysteria, before it should be mentioned in a place article like the Mexicali one. So that brief mention in the place article brings a reader to a realistic treatment in context, which would be too difficult or undue or whatever in article about the place alone. --Doncram (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

So I watched the New York Times video, found the article, and I thought Mexicall was an old ghost town with German spies during WWI. But I stand corrected. I don't think we need to pursue this further. I do think Espionage on the Mexico-United States border would be fascinating, but probably still a forbidden topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, does sound like a cool topic, and I am all for confronting the forbidden, too. :) Texas German somewhat covers the Germans in Texas' Hill country, by the way. --Doncram (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Before we delve into forbidden topics, we are still missing completely legitimate articles like the Border Patrol Academy.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hovander Homestead Park

Instead of calling someone a ruinator, perhaps a hand in getting this article up to an acceptable state? It's a horrific example of misplaced scope and balance that includes tons of information about the family does not belong on an entry about the historic property. If a reader was that interested in the family, there is a dedicated wiki about state history where that information is more appropriate. Sounder Bruce 00:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:SounderBruce, okay, you got my ping i guess, i have only recently become aware of pings working from edit summaries. Hope you don't mind be called a "ruinator" too much, i think it could be a compliment, actually. :) I was thinking of you as Arnold Schwarzenegger in T2. :) About what I feel was tag-bombing, I already responded at Talk:Hovander Homestead Park, please do comment there. --Doncram (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, August 2019

Bots Newsletter, August 2019

Greetings!

Here is the 7th issue of the Bots Newsletter, a lot happened since last year's newsletter! You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

ARBCOM

Nothing of note happened. Just like we like it.

BAG

Several (1 + 12 = 13) users have been retired/resigned from the BAG due to inactivity, per our new activity requirements (discussion).

BAG members are expected to be active on Wikipedia to have their finger on the pulse of the community. After two years without any bot-related activity (such as posting on bot-related pages, posting on a bot's talk page, or operating a bot), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice. Retired members can re-apply for BAG membership as normal if they wish to rejoin the BAG.

Two BAG members retired
- Madman (talk · contribs) retired.
- BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) vanished and retired.
Three new BAG members have been voted in, welcome to the BAG!
- Primefac (talk · contribs) joined on 2018-12-12 (RfBAG). Primefac operates PrimeBOT (talk · contribs) which does a plethora of tasks.
- TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) joined on 2019-01-21 (RfBAG). TheSandDoctor operates several bots including DeprecatedFixerBot (talk · contribs).
- Enterprisey (talk · contribs) joined on 2019-08-07 (RfBAG). Enterprisey operates EnterpriseyBot (talk · contribs), which does a plethora of tasks, RemindMeBot (talk · contribs) which posts reminders, and codes several scripts.

We thank former members for their service and wish Madman a happy retirement. We note that Madman and BU Rob13 were not inactive and could resume their BAG positions if they so wished, should their retirements happens to be temporary.

BOTDICT

Two new entries feature in the bots dictionary

Editor-hostile wikitext – describes wikitext structuring that is editor hostile, even if it renders correctly
Spectrum of usefulness – describes how tasks are deemed useful or not

BOTPOL

Activity requirements: BAG members now have an activity requirement. The requirements are very light, one only needs to be involved in a bot-related area at some point within the last two years. For purpose of meeting these requirements, discussing a bot-related matter anywhere on Wikipedia counts, as does operating a bot (RFC).
Copyvio flag: Bot accounts may be additionally marked by a bureaucrat upon BAG request as being in the "copyviobot" user group on Wikipedia. This flag allows using the API to add metadata to edits for use in the New pages feed (discussion). There is currently 1 bot using this functionality.
Mass creation: The restriction on mass-creation (semi-automated or automated) was extended from articles, to all content-pages. There are subtleties, but content here broadly means whatever a reader could land on when browsing the mainspace in normal circumstances (e.g. Mainspace, Books, most Categories, Portals, ...). There is also a warning that WP:MEATBOT still applies in other areas (e.g. Redirects, Wikipedia namespace, Help, maintenance categories, ...) not explicitely covered by WP:MASSCREATION.

BOTREQs and BRFAs

As of writing, we have...

20 active BOTREQs, please help if you can!
14 open BRFAs and 1 BRFA in need of BAG attention (see live status).
In 2018, 96 bot task were approved. An AWB search shows approximately 29 were withdrawn/expired, and 6 were denied.
Since the start of 2019, 97 bot task were approved. Logs show 15 were withdrawn/expired, and 15 were denied.
10 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion). 5 other bots have been deflagged per operator requests or similar (see discussion).

New things

All bot-related discussion pages now have a centralized and searchable archive box (see discussion). Discussions are searchable per noticeboard, or globally.
{{Bot}} now supports |status=expired (see discussion). This led to the deletion of Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia bots as useless (see discussion).
WP:BOTREQ now mentions WP:SCRIPTREQ and WP:AWBTASKS as alternatives to bot requests.
The bot creation guide now mentions bot flags, and two new languages Awk and MATLAB. Other minor tweaks have been made.
AAlertBot has received major code updates. In particular, WP:AALERTS will now report splits, mergers, and AFC submissions.
Citation bot has received several updates (User talk:Citation bot/Archive 10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17). In particular, the bot stopped the automated removal of |publisher= from {{cite journal}}, and stopped the automated addition of CiteSeerX links, and now uses OAuth to authenticate those who make requests of the bot.

Other discussions

These are some of the discussions that happened / are still happening since the last Bots Newsletter. Many are stale, but some are still active.

See also the latest discussions at the bot noticeboard.

Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 17:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Church of the Creator article

was titled Tagging Policy...this is about Church of the Creator article, where in the past I helped out some, in making it a separate article no longer conflated with some horrible similarly-named other organization. --Doncram (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, requesting your assistance. I am cautious about making edits within the article, Church Of The Creator, and talk page, but not here. As previously advised my edits are primarily quotations from other sources, with verifiable references and relevant. Intent to better Wikipedia, fact based verifiable information.

I offer an overview for consideration, as a party of interested and involved participant, in what makes this organization “notable” in Wikipedia terms. The principle, standing up for “rights,” through the practice, “action,” using civil law, Trademark Infringement litigation is becoming more notable, more important as an example, than when it was when the Complaint was first filed. Without intent to do so, unlike the IRS looking into Al Capone tax evasion, there was such reaction, threats of death, malintent directed to shut down the litigation, that the truth, true nature of everyone involved was exposed. Today people are in the streets chanting “do something” relative the increasing boldness, acts of violence directed at innocent victims of hate/fear based bigotry, bullies by whatever name they are given. Everyone is being called to find their part, “stand up for their rights” in every arena of life. Find the answer to “what can I do, to make a difference?” The example of the principles, practices, applied in the Trademark Litigation, the outcome, collateral accountability, “ripple effect” are an example that not everyone likes to hear about, let alone find published online, more specifically within Wikipedia. This overview, offered discernment, is my opinion.

As a Wikipedian, while reviewing the Article, Church Of The Creator page for possible addition, edits adding new graphics, I noticed a trend of “tagging” the page, tag removal, and immediate new tags appear. The recent tags seem to relate to personal opinion, “reading like an advertisement” and/or “COI” “advert” “news release” “original research/synthesis of primary sources.”

I am asking for review, as a possible violation of Wikipedia policy, not to offer an opinion, but did do considerable reading before asking you.

On the talk page, “Article issues Per my recent tagging: The ® Trademark litigation and "Ripple Effect" section in particular is largely original research/synthesis of primary sources. The article is written more like an organizational website than a neutral encyclopedia article. Seriously, it goes out of its way to call another organization racist. That's a little much. creffett (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)”

And edit history, “curprev 18:24, 30 January 2019‎ Closeapple talk contribs‎ 20,727 bytes +71‎ Added {{COI}} and {{news release}} tags to article (TW) undo” “curprev 03:03, 24 May 2019‎ Closeapple talk contribs‎ 20,674 bytes +25‎ Added {{advert}} tag to article (TW) undo”

In this edit I revised the above mentions of tags so that they are not labelling this Talk page itself as having COI, reading like a news release, and seeming like an advertisement. Those tags added boxes stating:

"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)", and

"This article reads like a press release or a news article or is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism. Please expand this article with properly sourced content to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, event notability guideline, or encyclopedic content policy.", and

"This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"

--Doncram (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

As I review the Trademark litigation and “Ripple Effect” section, the content is mostly quotes from other sources, organizations, Judges within the US Courts, Judicial Opinion, court orders, after due process. I do not see anyone calling other organizations “racist” only facts that relate directly to the Trademark Litigation, as the source of the ripples.

I am reluctant to make any further edits at this point, graphic additions or otherwise. Best Regards.Michael S. Legions (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, I now have a better understanding of why I was feeling such an urgency to request the above review today. I just logged back into Wikipedia, to see if you had seen this post. Answer not yet. Then I checked back into Church Of The Creator page. Note the time of my post earlier today. Beginning 21:21 16 August 2019, a series of new edits to Church Of The Creator page by Seraphimblade, They speak for themselves. Thank you for review, all of the above and Wikipedia policy. Michael S. Legions (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, okay i am seeing this posting now, will have to look into what's happened there. I recognize Seraphimblade's name, hope they have been helpful, again have not looked into current events. I do hope/believe i was helpful in the past. Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, Thank you for your review, statement on the talk page, Church Of The Creator. I will wait awhile, to see results of "I can try to take a look at the sources that were there, and see if we can't get something put together in regards to that." Recently, we have republished a book, "GRIDS of Consciousness Unification-Compendium of Living Unity Consciousness", through Amazon, first published in 1984, with new content and graphics, third and fourth editions 2019. This is a "Ministers Handbook," containing the principles and practices of the church. At some point, later, some of the graphics, principles, practices, may be of assistance to Wikipedia readers. Your comments make it clear and are available to any user who wants to know what is at issue here. Your comments, stand up for our rights, as an advocate of truth, within the universe of Wikipedia, count and are appreciated. Most consciousness that is beyond the box of the past and present, "...was more or less indecipherable." at the time. That is good company and a clear indicator that change is at hand, for all of us living on planet earth. Thank you for finding your part and acting. Keep up the good/God works!Michael S. Legions (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Follow Up: Doncram - I am requesting assistance in review of the last changes to the Wikipedia Article “Church of the Creator.” I plead guilty to being a periodic editor, however, deleted edits, as you pointed out, are from a perspective of good intent, enhancing the goals of what I understand to be the founding principle of Wikipedia “Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.”

Acting on opinions, negative tags, between August 5 - August 17, 2019, 16073 bytes of 20,732 bytes were deleted from the article, as “word salad,” or “more or less indecipherable” from the perspective of the editor. That is about 76% of what was providing knowledge relative this specific organization, what makes it “notable” different from other organizations that may seem at first glance similar.

Most of what George D. Chryssides found to distinguish this organization from others was deleted beginning line 33. Chryssides is a noted academic, quoting Wikipedia “Chryssides has a particular interest in new religious movements, on which he has published extensively.” What he has to say about “membership,” “Divine Right Order” are specific to this organization, knowledge he felt as an expert, sufficiently different to warrant inclusion in his publication as referenced. The same can be said for the rest of the deletions, in particular the quotations from court opinions. All of which are relevant to humanities current review of what is fake, what is truth, and who is wearing sheep clothing, but not a sheep. Racism, bigotry, propaganda, pretending to be one thing, while actually doing the polar opposite, are front and center, as they were within the Trademark Litigation, the “Ripple effect” now being sorted out most specifically in the United States Of America. The deleted material is relevant, as an example of what can happen when we stand up to bullies, take action, stand up for our rights. Living those principles can have far reaching affects. That knowledge previously provided Wikipedia users is not gone, but buried within the multiple take downs of this article.

I am again posting to your page because I do not want to enter into a personality analysis of editors. It may be relevant to consider “I am an atheist and secular humanist” personal view may find the writings of religious scholars or judges to be a large helping of “word salad.” I understand that. I also find that somewhere in there “Seraphimblade” has chosen a user name of an order of Angelic Being coupled with a sword, or element of a Justice Being. I appreciate the paradox; hot or cold, belief followed by action brings change. I did not know where to engage you and “Seraphimblade” together, so please feel free to share this with him, place on the article talk page, as you choose, or not.

I am asking for follow up editing, as stated, “I can try to take a look at the sources that were there, and see if we can't get something put together in regards to that.” Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Part of what needs to be understood is that the organization TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family Of URI, Inc. and Church Of The Creator® is not a local group of people building another congregation from the ground up. It is an extension on our planet, one of many organizations, part of the ongoing support from unseen authorities that are commissioned within the Programs of the Office Of The Christ, Restoration and Redemptive Programs, restoring our planet and humanity to the Divine Blueprint. We are delivering a message of quantum change forecast by multiple traditions and wisdom teaching that are affecting all of us, individually and collectively. New expressions, like Wikipedia as one example.

The best single reference I can recommend to enhance knowledge of the greater picture and plan is not referenced as notable in Wikipedia, but, I would that someone do so. Here is the link https://keysofenoch.org/teachings/overview/

I look forward to see what revisions can be done to replace the deleted 16073 bytes of knowledge deleted. Thanks for your effort to make Wikipedia what it is intended to be. Michael S. Legions (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay I will take a look, probably within a few days. It is good you are following up; feel free to do so again esp. if I haven't taken action in a few days. --Doncram (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick follow up. I saw the post on the Church of the Creator talk page, appreciate the multiple accounts and editing policy. I have considerable posts on the Church of the Creator article/talk page providing perspective, history relative the organization. I hesitate to get into Wikipedia policy, editor personality or other matters that do no directly provide information on the organization, hence the communication here, and your review is appreciated.Michael S. Legions (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, Today I received a request via my persoal email that speaks for itself, is relevant to your multiple account discernment's, exact quote. "I received an e-mail from Wikipedia saying that Doncram had mentioned me (Green Irish Eyes) as a one-time editor. Could you please let him know that I created a second account because I had trouble getting logged back in using the original Bohemian Gal account? As it is, I’m having trouble getting logged in with the NEW account <*sighs*>, else I’d do it myself. You can also let him know that, for the record, I have no intention of doing any more editing – it’s simply too irksome." That should help clarify any issue with those two accounts. Michael S. Legions (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI, schedule from October 19 until December 7, other commitments, includes travel and limited internet availability prohibiting participation within Wikipedia discussion, communications. Plan is to review and continue participation on completion of commitments made. Best Regards. Michael S. Legions (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Images for Church Of The Creator. Today I uploaded and posted link on TALK:Church of the Creator, 4 Illustrations for the article, link to a image that may support discussion, revisions to Article. Michael S. Legions (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

church of the creator 2020 january

Doncram I hope 2020 finds you doing well. My schedule is still fairly full, and after my review of the current “discussion” relative “Article Issues” Church of The Creator article, it doesn’t see that there is much interest, discussion still limited to those who tagged paged, then cut the content, you and I.

After some further looking around today, I was going to invite User:CJcurrie, but the user talk page is protected so that only administrators can edit it and I am not sure how to invite this administrator to enter the discussion, or if that is appropriate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CJCurrie

I am asking you to review User:CJCurrie, and if you agree that this Administrator might have a perspective worth adding to the discussion, please invite to review, participate in discussion and or edit the article.

I found the User in various edits associated to Human Rights pages. Thank you. Michael S. Legions (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Michael S. Legions, I just revisited the Church of the Creator article (and its Talk page) and I think it could use some editing/improvement, maybe we would be in agreement about that. About User:CJCurrie, I don't recall any past interactions, but I note they are a longstanding editor with apparently a lot of experience, and active recently. If you respect them for edits of theirs in human rights-related articles, that is certainly fine, and it is fine for you to invite them to edit at the Church of the Creator article and its Talk page. By the way I don't see any indication the editor is an administrator. I do see their user page is restricted from editing, which I think is unusual, but we shouldn't want to edit there anyhow. Their user talk page is open though; you or i could open a discussion there. Also their user and user talk pages both do show an "email this user" link (for me it appears over on the left margin of my window) so they can be reached off-line, though of course they might or might not want to interact off-line. \

But hey I am just going ahead and pinging them 9by using their username User:CJCurrie in an edit where i give my own signature), to invite them here. Hey CJCurrie, you have somewhat of an admirer, who I think would welcome your participation in editing at the Church of the Creator and/or its Talk page, where I have helped out in the past. The editor Michael S. Legions has a disclosed relationship with the organization. The organization deserves, IMO, some decent editing of its article (though I think it should not become too long). It had a previous long-running bad experience from Wikipedia, in which a number of editors irrationally enforced a redirect from their name to an article about a hate group which once tried to usurp the name. The real-life name dispute was resolved by court order(s) that the hate group should not use the name any longer. I helped create an article on this church, to replace the redirect. The article could be better. If you'd be willing to help edit it, that would be appreciated. --Doncram (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the above invitation, I appreciate your making the contact. Lets see if there is a response, then I am ready to follow up, answer any questions and participate on the article talk page. The topic of Human Rights, equality, fair and equal treatment under the Constitution of the USA is not going to go away until we, collectively get it right, live the ideals. The root issues addressed at length by the Courts in the Trademark litigation remain front and center in today's news. It is relevant that standing up to bullies and bigots is important, and can be done. Michael S. Legions (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Doncram - I uploaded a graphic image to assist user understanding of the Foundation/Church. A larger scope, broader concept, of the word "church." The image is a message, the scope of the meaning within the words and Trademark Church Of The Creator® A unique message, as addressed, determined, by judicial review within litigation TE-TA-MA v World Church of The Creator. For consideration, adding the graphic within the revised article. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Church_Of_The_Creator_-_Planet_Earth_It%27s_Systems_-_Designated_Affilate_Temple_Of_The_Holy_Trinity.jpg Feedback? I have other graphics that will assist, if you would encourage me to place effort, participation in this arena. This graphic is the "church", as we convey the message, not a specific building, or places where human beings gather to pray together. It is the scope of our commissioned message, the return of our Beloved Brother Christ Jesus with Legions from other Realms, the Father's Many Mansion's is close. The Foundation/Church is conveying a message, everyone counts, everyone's effort makes a difference. User:CJCurrie Michael S. Legions (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for checking. I think the Wikipedia page is not the place for Church of the Creator to get across its message in any way, really. It is not the Church's webpage; as for Wikipedia coverage of any church it cannot contain preaching. I can sort of see that the graphic might be part of the Church's preaching / "propagandizing" (my term, meant not in a bad way), but this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Also by the way your graphic has a typo, it should be "its" not "it's" for possessive form. I do support some editing of the page for brevity and objectivity, not what you are getting at here. As for other articles about churches, objective third-party review-type and news-type coverage is what is appropriate, and I think the article has all that is possible based on reliable sources. --Doncram (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Doncram, thanks for getting back to me. On the typo, we will modify, appreciate the review. I understand what you are saying about the graphic. The thought was the graphic conveys accurate understanding of Church Of The Creator, as the organization uses, defines, itself. As opposed to a picture of a building in Oregon, which understandably was requested, because, most people see a building when they think of "Church - rest of the name" but would be inaccurate. I get it about preaching, propagandizing. Like anything that may be different, the constrictions of current use, make it difficult to find the balance of what something is or is not, I know you are helping do that. Please advise me when "...editing of the page for brevity and objectivity," is available for review.

Different subject, have just set up, edited User:Michael S. Legions. I indicated COI status for church of the creator, and hope what is there is appropriate. If not let me know, and I can revise or place on talk, or delete. All of your time and feedback is appreciated.Michael S. Legions (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you please put your rationale here?

I saw your comment here at deletion page. I think it was in the satire and ambiguous. Can you please expand your comment with rationale or give your opinion for deletion? — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Doncram,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

revisit and fix courthouse disambiguation pages

Revisit courthouse disambiguation pages trashed in early 2019, including some/many within this contributions list of edits by User:Station1. Including Brown County Courthouse, Polk County Courthouse, addressed so far, where valid Wikipedia redlinks were deleted and/or where location information was nonsensically deleted. Station1, what the heck were you thinking? --Doncram (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Doncram: Thank you for your essay about AfDs on your user page. It was very helpful. Normal Op (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks Normal Op, it's nice to be appreciated! But actually which essay are you referring to? wp:TNTTNT,wp:ITSACASTLE, wp:OkayVsNotOkayListsOfPlaces are three deletion-related essays which i created; I'd be happy to understand which one you find helpful. :) --Doncram (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This one → User:Doncram#AFDs. But I'll read the others now, too. :) Normal Op (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clarifying. I guess that passage is a kind of essay, you're right! I just added mention there of the 3 formal essays, too. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Interstate Exposition Building

We don't have an article on this place. It looks like a grand building, but was torn down after only 20 years. Site of several national political conventions, so must be notable. Just mentioning in case you want to start this, or know of someone who might have an interest in non-NRHP Chicago. MB 02:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, neat building, great source. I love that type of building, like the The Crystal Palace (built 1851, was it the first of this type of iron and glass exhibition-type structures? Should there be a category for these?). Certainly Interstate Exposition Building (currently a redlink), existed 1872-1892, should be an article. User:BoringHistoryGuy, User:Carptrash, User:TonyTheTiger (developer of List of Chicago Landmarks), interested? --Doncram (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

One of only two redlinks in Template:Republican National Convention venues. MB 02:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, and i see inbound links to the redlink also includes List of Democratic National Conventions and its corresponding navigation template, for the 1884 Democratic convention there. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Chicago doesn't have much other than this picture. Are any of these WP:RS?

https://drloihjournal.blogspot.com/2016/12/interstate-industrial-exposition.html

https://chicagology.com/rebuilding/rebuilding016/

https://www.chicagoathletichotel.com/michigan-avenue-hotel-blog/the-interstate-exposition-building

Ping me if any of these are good.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This Chicago Tribune article is from before the construction. It's time consuming to find more newspaper articles but I'm sure there are many more. And here is another website. MB 16:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request templates 21-SEP-2019

Hi Doncram! I changed the {{request edit}} template you posted at Template talk:NRISref since that template is used mostly for conflict-of-interest edit requests — the listing page for which is monitored by COI-specialist editors — and thus would not have attracted the type of editors who specialize in template-related edit requests, which I believe your request was asking for. That template would be {{edit template-protected}}. I hope that helps to increase the visibility with the right editors for your request. Warm regards, Spintendo 02:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo, thanks so much! This is about a minor change in date-formatting of {{NRISref}}; also on the Talk page I am trying to make some headway on more substantial improvement there. --Doncram (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

St. Charles Municipal Building

Hello, a week after your last edit and help on the STC Municipal Building page, User Nikkimaria deleted information from the popular culture section again and despite me trying to reason and incorporate their contributions as constructive, they are giving me the feeling they are editing the page in an attack-type fashion trying to win an argument or something. They have flagged the popular culture section again as needing better sources needing to be removed despite our discussion not supporting this. I have never encountered anything like this before on Wikipedia and don't know what to do. Nikkimaria seems to be attempting to push the page into an edit war, and to say the least, it takes away from the enjoyment of working on the subject.VerVynck (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This is about St. Charles Municipal Building, and stuff discussed at its talk page Talk:St. Charles Municipal Building. Overall it seems good to me to mention that the building is featured in online game Bioshock, but there are some issues about that. I have replied by email: hey VerVynck check your mail. --Doncram (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you re-read the v2 proposal at WT:SIA?

Hi, Doncram. You may not have carefully studied the v2 proposal at WT:SIA. I believe that v2 does not allow long indiscriminate made-up lists --- either the topic has to be notable, or each item has to be notable, or the list must be complete and shorter than 32k. All three criteria must be supported by 1 or more RS.

Can you think of an example that would be a valid SIA (list of items of the same type and the same name), that fulfills the v2 criteria, but would be bad? I'm open to feedback and changes, but I'd like to see a concrete example of a failure mode. —hike395 (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

MPS question

I was looking at James Hinton House which is one of 20-30 in the Missouri Lumber and Mining Company Historic Resources MPS. The MPS is linked as a ref in this article. The county list shows each house has its own refnum. My reading of our article on MPS (section of National Register of Historic Places) seems to say each property should have its own nomination form. So should there be a nomination form for this place, or maybe the formal procedure isn't always followed and there is just the MPS? MB 02:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Practices with Multiple Property Submission (MPS)s or Multiple Resource Area (MRA)s vary. Often/usually, there will be a separate nomination document and separate photos document for each separate listing associated with an MPS or MRA. Sometimes the separate document is really just a page or two out of the bigger, complete MPS or MRA document. And the PDF centrally posted for an MPS or MRA document might or might not include copies of those pages that are available in split-out form. There is an MPS about parks in Denver, where I think all the text info is only in one central text document, but there are separate photo-sets for each of the separate listings. About James Hinton House, i don't see any separate document or photo set, at least not at the "expected" locations for such. Argh. Does this help? --Doncram (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are about two sentences on this house in the MPS, which are already paraphrased in the lead. If there probably isn't anything else, then I don't see this article ever getting expanded. MB 03:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

User:MB, I presume Wikipedia articles for many or all of the other associated listings are also very sparse. About the MPS document (by the way, it has 2 more authors and a different final preparation date than showed in the article), I see it mentions accompanying photos, which are not included. So it would be reasonable to request those and to ask about any separate/additional documents about the James Hinton House and all the others. However I suspect there is not more, besides the photos, which might be pretty lame too. So I agree, i don't see much chance for expansion. Perhaps this is an example where "NRHP-listed -> separate article" is not justificed, and this and others should not exist separately, could better be covered in just the county-level NRHP-list article, or merged into one article on them all together. But then someone would have to be interested in trying more for photos and docs, and/or doing the merger or whatever. --Doncram (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree it makes more sense to treat these as a Historic District with one article. I did a little searching and even without any NHRP tie-in, I would say the Missouri Lumber and Mining Company is notable and should have an article. I just noticed Sixth Street Historic District (Grandin, Missouri) which is a subset (the first six houses built) are a HD (but again evidently with no separate nom form). I will start a company article before doing any merging. Got to go do some work now. MB 17:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that seems very reasonable. Apparently the company is/was objectively important, and the set of houses and other resources were surviving artifacts of it, deemed a notable collection by dint of integrity and association with the company. And it was not one coherent big historic district where 85% or whatever is the required percentage of owners went along with the listing, but rather here it is mostly scattered houses. So we see that several owners of scattered ones wanted to opt out that was simply allowed (the MPS document shows several crossed-out passages). An article about the company can properly include a section on the surviving artifacts, especially the NRHP-listed ones where we have a modicum of info. --Doncram (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

John C. Cochrane

Greetings. NRHP credits the Lake County Courthouse in Crown Point, Indiana to a J. C. Cochran. I searched a bunch and I can't tell if this is a misspelling or alternate spelling of John C. Cochrane? A further wrinkle is that I am finding sources that say Cochrame was born in 1833 but his article says 1835. I find sources for an architect names Cochran and for Cochrane. Basically, I am now confused. Are there two different architects with similar names? One architect whose name gets spelled different ways? NRHP tool didn't help me sort it out. Thanks for any clarification and resolution you can provide. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User:FloridaArmy, I assume that it is one person, with name sometimes misspelled. The NRIS database just shows "Multiple" in field for architects/builders. The NRHP document for Lake County Courthouse (Indiana) states that "J.P. Cochran" of Chicago, Illinois was architect of its original, central portion. That appears to be a typo by the NRHP nominator, or he/she just didn't know properly; there is just the one passing mention, no reason to believe the nominatorC was much interested or familiar or sure about that spelling. There are tons of examples of proven misspellings in the wp:NRIS info issues system of pages. Okay, i added mention about this to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues/Indiana#Architects. With that in place, the Lake County Courthouse article should be updated to use "Cochrane", without further footnoting required there IMO, though if someone wants to they could mention the discrepancy in a footnote. And the John C. Cochrane article should be updated to mention this courthouse. About years of birth I am not looking into that, i just assume there are "regular" sources which differ, and the discrepancy should indeed be mentioned in a footnote. Hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

What about the Saline County Courthouse in Missouri? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Same deal, exactly. Its NRHP doc explicitly states the author doesn't know anything much about the architect: "Little is known about the architect J. C. Cochran. His plans for the courthouse were selected over 12 others submitted to the Saline County Court for approval;

the County Court had visited Crown Point, Indiana, to view another courthouse designed by Cochran. (The Lake County Courthouse, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is of the same plan as the Saline County Courthouse.)". Could you please add a note at wp:NRIS info issues MO and, with that, proceed to make appropriate changes in the courthouse article and the architect article? --Doncram (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 15

Newsletter • September 2019

A final update, for now:

The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.

Regards,

-— Isarra ༆ 19:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Lincoln Middle School

Hi Doncram, I reverted your edit to Lincoln Middle School. Disambiguation pages are supposed to help readers find existing articles, so non-article entries and class times aren't helpful for navigation. Leschnei (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Leschnei, thanks for doing that and notifying me. I copied the expanded version of the list-article/dab/SIA to Talk:Lincoln Middle School/LincolnMiddleSchool-draft-SIA (which is in Talk space and is okay to leave there), and I explained what was going on at Talk:Lincoln Middle School#expanded list version (basically to be referred to from discussion about Set Index Articles at wt:SIA). I had forgotten to remove this one from mainspace as I had already done for a similar example (covered at Talk:Fire Station No. 10); you were right it should not have been left in mainspace as if it was intended to be there permanently. Thanks, --Doncram (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the explanation. Leschnei (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarkston Tithing Granary

I do prefer to be contacted at my user talk page, though I know I don't always respond. While writing a response telling you the Clarkston Tithing Granary is gone, I found it had been moved. The coordinates 41°55′05.5″N 112°02′50″W point (on Google Maps) directly to a bare patch of dirt between two houses on the street that is now known as 100 South (evidently Clarkston uses a local street grid nowadays instead of the county-wide one the property was listed with), but on the Street View (dated July 2013) you can see the roof of the granary above some bushes there. That's where our photo was taken in 2016. The granary's not there anymore; it was moved on September 8, 2018 (according to this news story among others). It's already showing at its new location on Google Maps; the new address is given as 88 W. Center St., and I make the coordinates 41°55′11.75″N 112°03′11″W. Thanks for asking; I love making this kind of discovery. HTH, Ntsimp (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I did some sorting out of information at Talk:Clarkston Tithing Granary, and then revised the article to reflect the move, showing both locations and explaining about street renamings in a note. Whew, that was a bit complicated, hope I have it correct now. By the way, User:Ntsimp, you are now credited as the source for the coordinates in this article (by use of "source:Ntsimp" in the {{coord}} template) and at the county-level list-article (by use of "coordsource=Ntsimp"). Sometime I hope to get bot reports generated reporting on coordinate sources. In this example for a 1985-listed place the NRIS2013a/Elkman-supplied coordinates didn't point to the actual location; coordinates in more recent listings probably are better, but relatively few Utah places have been carefully checked, AFAIK. Editors have fixed coordinates up better in some other states. If/when you do look at any locations, it would be great if you would update coordinates. By the way, when I create a new article using NRIS2013a, I do compare the coordinates to those in the county list-article and use the latter if different, because someone must have gone to the trouble of correcting/refining them. In new Utah articles I only occasionally have been checking coordinates in Google satellite view. Anyhow, great about fixing this one up, and that it was moved/adopted by the community instead of being demolished! --Doncram (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

	US Banknote Contest
November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

US Banknote Contest

November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Arkansas nom forms

After getting a lot of dead links trying to access Arkansas nom forms, I realized today that several years ago, the forms for Arkansas moved

from: url=http://www.arkansaspreservation.com/!userfiles/pdf file name

to: url=http://www.arkansaspreservation.com/National-Register-Listings/PDF/pdf file name

I was able to use AWB to go through about 2850 Arkansas articles and correct the url to the current location. I found about 1100 articles with the old style url, so now we have 1100 more articles with working references to the nom form (in most cases, the only ref in the article except for NRIS. MB 04:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

User:MB, Wow! Great! I assume i must have been one of the main editors creating Arkansas NRHP articles using the old format. Some other editors did a lot more later, more or less completing out the state. I will add a note about this to the Arkansas section of the NRHPhelp page, i.e. to wp:NRHPHELPAR. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the actual file name is NOT the refnum, but appears to be an Arkansas-assigned identifier with two letters for the county followed by a four-digit number. If we could create the filename from the refnum, we could automate more. MB 14:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Musings about Utah

Mormons love ancestry and local history. This is a great state for Wikipedia editing. For example the Moab LDS Church could easily be expanded into a C-class article, if not more. But in a way this makes it less fun than trying to unearth censored history in the South...Zigzig20s (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, yes. The Mormons' development in late 1800s and early 1900s included lots of substantial brick and stone farmhouse/city house/ward church etc. construction, often by original settlers 20 or 30 years after arrival, that fits nicely with U.S. NRHP recognition. While there is always some individual detail, this seems kind of homogeneous, even towards boring sometimes if the individual spark is not found. Less of original log house construction in 1850s or so survives. Also the mining industry-related wood frame houses in Park City and other mining areas, survives less well. Seems Utah's development fits better than other states', say Kentucky or Alabama or Oklahoma where settlers homes survive less. Is it that the Mormons here, despite trauma back in New York and Illinois and Missouri, won out in a straightforward way, here, without much drama/conflict? I get your point that the Utah stuff seems straightforward, say. While in South stuff it seems interesting to be noting that whichever house or covered bridge or whatever was built by slaves. And to sort of nurture the coverage of humble churches and homes and Rosenwald Schools associated with equal rights struggles, sometimes it feels like in Wikipedia writing i can be supporting the underdog in a vaguely heroic way. :) Not so much in Utah. Also not so much in Massachusetts, new england generally, I think, where the settlers' families rose to dominate the land, and not threatened by followers much? --Doncram (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I found editing about Southern Utah more interesting than SLC, but I always prefer editing about small towns in the middle of nowhere.

Mormons celebrate their ancestry, so there is a lot in the public domain about the local history of Utah. They don't try to hide/bury it the way the great-great-grandchildren of slave-owners do, some (or many?) of whom live off trust funds established postbellum and derived from convict-leasing. Ancestry.com is based in Lehi, Utah, and their subsidiaries include Newspapers.com and Find a Grave...Zigzig20s (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I maybe sort of knew that about ancestry.com, but not about Newspapers.com and find-a-grave, neat. :) Also i am more motivated recently to work on Utah because of corresponding with Ntsimp, and knowing they're likely to get to more of Salt Lake County, I think, and Sanpete County next. Like i have been motivated to develop in Georgia to stay ahead of Bubba73's travels. I know that it helps in a photo trip to have at least some articles created in advance, towards sorting out which are the correct buildings and what features are important and so on, and maybe for higher priority-seeming places even towards making calls ahead to get permission to go onto certain properties, so i get to think i am helping more than development randomly elsewhere would accomplish. --Doncram (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I may be able to help with Sanpete County. By the way, I sent you an e-mail a while back but I don't think you saw it, or you chose not to see it...Zigzig20s (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I often am slow to see emails, and sometimes slow to respond when i do, but this time i don't recall it. Email replying now about one candidate email of 12 July you might mean. --Doncram (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

In early October. I replied.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Ntsimp: I've done most of National Register of Historic Places listings in Sanpete County, Utah.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm all about the photos, and if the weather's good on Veteran's Day, I'm hoping to take most of the remaining pictures that day. Ntsimp (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to Zigzig20s for developing articles about many, many Utah listings recently, including in Sanpete County. Oh, hmm, Veteran's Day is November 11 i guess, coming soon; I was still trying to bring all Utah counties to 50 percent coverage (almost there, as can be seen in wp:NRHPPROGRESSUT) and I will turn more to Sanpete now too. To Ntsimp, I am trying in many cases to check coordinates and fix where possible. Ntsimp knows the NRIS-given coordinates are often incorrect and on other trips has had to search around for actual locations of houses, and has encountered the fact that sometimes the houses no longer exist. I have been trying to figure out correct locations in some cases and fix the coordinates. In other cases like Henry M. Hinsdill House in Summit County I cannot figure out the location for sure, so I have left two sets of coordinates in the article, one for the NRIS-suggested location and one for a possible/probable location to be checked. Ntsimp, I hope this helps, and hopefully you will provide updates with better information directly into articles in the future, including corrections to coordinates if possible. I think it is okay/good for us to record notes in the articles about our observations using Google Streetview (my articles provide many examples now) and/or in person (to be footnoted perhaps like "From personal observation by photographer at site, October 28, 2019" or similar). Also the new articles are now sometimes mentioning details that suggest where extra photos, besides general views, would help. For example Tuttle-Folsom House in Manti in Sanpete County has a historic era Saltbox architecture extension to the rear; it would be good to get pics of that and in particular a close-up of the dividing line between original house stonework vs. extension's stonework; that is kind of suggested by coverage in the article. (For that one i did already fix coordinates in the article and in the Sanpete list-article, and I also added a note about construction of a modern addition that is apparent in Google Streetview.) In many more cases our development of the articles is brief, and interesting details may be mentioned in the NRHP or Utah State documents but not yet in the Wikipedia text. Whether or not you can get detail shots, of course any/all contributions of photos are appreciated. :) --Doncram (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The four volumes of Utah Since Statehood: Historical and Biographical may be exactly what we need to expand our articles.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay I just added link for that to resources at wp:NRHPHELPUT. 1919-published by S. J. Clarke Publishing Company. It does seem to be a source for biographies, background about early leaders, businessmen... I am sure it could help with some/many articles about houses, etc. which are NRHP-listed for association with these men. I emailed too. --Doncram (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't immediately see how to search those, though, do you? Like to write about Eccles of David Eccles House.

BTW, I don't mind that it might possibly be a bit backward in order, i.e. we create articles about arguably minor houses, say, then later develop about persons/events whose importance is what later made the houses NRHP-notable. An editor in Alaska was once irate about that process going on (and wanted to stop/delete the NRHP articles i guess), but it led to considerable decent coverage about important stuff getting started, later developed more. Far sooner than those topics would have been brought up otherwise. The NRHP listings are a legit way into lots of important subjects, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I think stubs are always better than nothing. Usually I try to expand them a bit, and then add more overtime. But the whole point of Wikipedia is that anybody can edit/expand/improve articles in future... That's what makes it fun and pressure-free.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"fun and pressure-free" ?!?! Hah! --Doncram (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because we don't write about ourselves, we just summarize what others have written...and anybody can rewrite it after us.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

To answer your question earlier, it says "search inside".Zigzig20s (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Lookout Mountain Hotel

I see this every time I go by on I-75. I went up there in the 1980s and took photos. But those photos are stored somewhere. I'll get there to take photos sometime. The article has five sentences (in four paragraphs), each starting with "it" - this needs to be consolidated. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This is about new article Lookout Mountain Hotel. @Bubba73:, thanks for noticing! Yeah, I'm not the best writer, or this is not my best writing, or something like that. :( I don't think either of the images that i can find are adequate illustrations; I'm glad you can look for photos! :) --Doncram (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It is an eye-catching place. I doubt I'll be able to find my old photos, but I'll get some next time I'm up there. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Good. Luckily i have figured out for you where it is actually located, so you can find it more easily. :) --Doncram (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been there before - in the days before GPS. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I got some photo of this and uploaded them to the Lookout Mountain Hotel category. I selected one as the main photo of the article, but you might want to change it. I had to use a very wide-angle lens to get it all in (for the first few photos), which causes perspective distortions - e.g., it makes the tower look like it is leaning backwards. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks! Photos look fine, i added commons category link. --Doncram (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The color might not be the true color. The Sun was low on the horizon, making it a little reddish. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Instead of edit-warring, please participate in Talk discussions

I've opened a discussion about the location of Covenant College in its Talk page. Please participate in the discussion instead of edit warring. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) ElKevbo, I was not edit-warring, I was emphatically reverting a factually incorrect change which was self-claimed as "reasonable", although it was false! And i put in a reference for you in my edit, which you probably did not see. And while you posted here I opened Talk:Covenant College#Located in Dade County, not in city of Lookout Mountain, not in Walker County. Although there is really nothing to talk about. --Doncram (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

No offense intended, no aspersion about you, but that action seems obtuse, frankly. --Doncram (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Asking others more experienced for help and advice isn't "obtuse." And it's a courtesy to let you know that you were mentioned elsewhere. ElKevbo (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

And it is not helpful to duplicate discussions at three places, and in effect demand multiple editors consider matters, while complaining about duplication. The location of the college should be discussed, if it has to be discussed, at its Talk page. You should not promote it to a higher level without having a proper discussion, first. --Doncram (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Doncram,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 804 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:NRHP in progress

Is this for articles with only the NRIS ref, or all articles missing a ref to the nomination? For example, Burwell School. MB 03:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:MB, maybe we should indicate articles missing an NRHP document ref, to call for that to be addressed. But there are some who say WikiProject-type tags should not be in articles proper, they should be part of the WikiProject banner on the talk pages instead. There was a perfectly good categorization of NRHP architects, NRHP builders, NRHP engineers, in hidden categories on the article pages, but someone had a cow and they all were deleted. :(

A bot adds the {{NRIS-only}} template to articles. Hmm, that is sort of WikiProject-specific, why does it get a free pass?

Anyhow, about this NRHP progress category, it is "hidden" too, but if it gets any much attention it will get killed, too. Or i would at least need to defend it by pointing out it is a small category, and really temporary, just longer than the one-week term that the {{Under construction}} template provides. I have been using it to really mean "under construction", usually where I figure NRHP documents should be available but are only temporarily not available, or when I otherwise am unhappy with the state i to which i was able to bring a new article. It is more permanent than using {{Under construction}}, and it allows navigation by its own category. It looks like a lot of articles are in the category right now, and I will make an effort to bring it down. But honestly there has been a lot of turnover, with me completing and removing articles at roughly the same pace as i have added new ones. You can't see it, but hundreds of articles have gone through it. Some of the ones there are pretty old though. Your help fixing up any articles in it would be very much appreciated by me. :) And i don't own the category, you could use it too if you had articles in progress in a similar way. --Doncram (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I do realize that you have been working on this category, probably more than anyone else. I don't understand how there could be any objection to this category as is not project categorization like NRHP architects. It is a category listing articles that need some some specific work. Just like Category:National Register of Historic Places articles needing infoboxes, (which is populated by the talk page banner), and many others.

Since I believe there is clear consensus that NRHP articles should have a ref to the nomination form (not just the NRIS database), I propose we rename this Category for clarity to "NRHP articles needing reference to nomination form". I will start adding the occasional article I find like Burwell School which has several refs but not one to the form. (Not to say that I am planning to search for the form, just to note it here so someday someone may get to it :) MB 15:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, well could you modify the talk page banner to do that, instead? I just tested applying "needs-infobox=yes" to the Burwell School article, and see that the category is applied to its Talk page. I would support modification of template:WikiProject NRHP that way, please ping me to come to any discussion about it. Perhaps it should allow for calling for improvement of existing references to NRHP documents, too.

Or if you want to approach this by creatig a mainspace category instead, and for it to be a kind of permanent category where you are not actively fixing all instances of it, then that is technically not right according to some, then you would have to take responsibility for it, please. :) There were actually several very unpleasant interactions that I had previously with the category:NRHP architects, etc. stuff, and the deletion of it all in the last year or so seemed to partly be a new instance of unnecessary bullying, somewhat involving new people, and they and this issue also seemed to be connected to previous bullying and general nastiness involving more people. I would rather not get dragged into new contention and nastiness. I am aware of great difficulty in dealing with bullying and nastiness, because if you explicitly call it out then there are accusations that you haven't proved it properly, or deserve it, or whatever, and in general the discussion engenders a lot more bullying and nastiness. So, really, please leave me out of it. I might possibly support you later if you go ahead on your own, and get attacked, but I would not want to be responsible for the initiation of it. You can see my Userpage for some allusion to my experience of other past bullying; there was a whole arbcom case devoted to, well, to attacking me personally, to put it briefly.

And the current population of "NRHP in progress" is not all involving need for NRHP nominations to be added as references, it is more idiosyncratic to me. Like in some cases i did get to add an NRHP reference, but I did not have time to fix up the article properly using it. With that catgory existing in mainspace, I am risking a potential massive attack against me, but well I am risking that on my own. So I should work it down myself, but that would take some time because it has 250 articles in it right now, and I think it should not be renamed or mixed in with something else. And I would appreciate it if you would not call attention to it in whatever new proposal or category creation you make. --Doncram (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I just realized that Category:NRHP in progress is a member of Category:National Register of Historic Places which IS out of place and justifies your concerns. But I don't see why it is here instead of a where maintenance tracking categories belong - in Category:Tracking categories. It has the banner on top saying it is a hidden maintenance category which is why I assumed it was in Category:Tracking categories with about 4500 other maintenance categories. If we put it there, then it is out of the article categorization tree structure and there should be no problems. MB 02:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, i edited the category page to add a long explanation of what it has been used for, as a matter of trying to defend its existence. Actually the description previously there did suggest it was about adding NRHP documents, but it did not explain in detail what was happening for a while in 2016-2018 or so, when I was using AWB to paste in draft references to articles in state-wide batches. Please do read it now; it now explains that it is not now and never was the kind of "needs NRHP document reference" type of tagging that you are imagining/wanting to exist. And I removed it from Category:National Register of Historic Places per your concern that it is not appropriate there (even though it is a hidden category?). I would have left it on its own, with no category attached, but I am afraid it would be found by a bot and then attract immediate attention. I put it into Category:Tracking categories, and am afraid that it will still attract attention there and it and I will be attacked. I hope you are right that there should not be problems there, but I don't really believe that, I think I will in fact get attacked pretty soon. And it will be a lot less convenient for me to continue to address these articles after the category does in fact get deleted. :(

About having a category to do what you want, which indeed is reasonable, how about your going ahead and creating the Talk-space category for that, and perform an edit of the NRHP project banner template, or make a request for an edit at its Talk page? --Doncram (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi MB, i see you changed what's written at the category page. I agree it was probably too long, maybe that could have been mostly moved to the category Talk page. But, you've added now "It can also include articles that have references in addition to the NRIS, but NOT a reference to the NRHP nomination form". Which is not how it has been used. There are lots of articles in the category with an NRHP nomination reference.

I did move everything you wrote to the category talk page, not sure if you realized that or not from the above comment.

I don't think the name of this category is right for what you want a category to be, and what is in this category is not what you want it to be. I have addressed a few articles over the last few days, and will continue to do so. But I don't understand what you are trying to do now. Are you yourself going to go on a campaign to remove the tag from all/most of the articles? Are you trying to force me right now to address the articles as my top priority. It would not be bad to encourage me to clean them up, but I don't think you should be trying to force me (or else what?) to fix all immediately.

Why not proceed with creating a new, Talk page based category, using the NRHP banner? You have not answered that. I have answered why I do not want to immediately change the use of this category, and your trying to usurp it does not help you, so what are you trying to do, and why? --Doncram (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to force you do to anything and don't really understand where you may have gotten that perception. Moving the category from article categorization to tracking categorization was to put it where it really belonged and remove any reason for it to be deleted like the other ones you mentioned (as misuse of article categorization). Now it is just another maintenance category within the purview of the NRHP project. I went a step further and changed the verbiage at the top of the category to make it sound more like a normal project maintenance category and not a personal one for an individual editor - because people could argue that a personal list belongs in that editor's userspace. So before I say more, is this part clear? MB 02:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to argue. You didn't understand what I was trying to communicate, and maybe I didn't understand you either. The gist i understood was you wanted to repurpose the category into something different. If it was labelled/differently then it would look like all or almost all the items didn't belong, as if I had categorized them in error. I don't understand why you would want to use the label, non-descriptive for your purpose. What i ended up using it for was to keep track of articles which I had created, where I was not satisfied yet, but for one reason or another didn't complete out to my satisfaction immediately. It made them nicely accessible, including by organizing them by state by coding "NRHP in progress|NM" for New Mexico vs. "NRHP in progress|VI" for Virgin Islands, etc.

Anyhow, i installed AWB and went through and removed the category everywhere, and i suppose I should go to wp:CFD and request its deletion now. I was willing and able to go back to them all and develop them better, eventually, but now it is gone and I do not expect to go back. I did copy-paste the list of them into a userpage, but that lost the state groupings and simply would not be convenient to use. Oh well.

Hey, I do and don't mind too much. It's a shame, partly, and it seemed to me like you were simply not understanding, and not willing to answer a simple question yourself, and discussing would just be more grief, would only lead to grief, so better to walk away. But I do believe you meant well, somehow, for what that is worth. --Doncram (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't think we were arguing at all, but I did sense we weren't communicating too well on this one. That is why I was trying to go one step at a time. "Talking" this way isn't a good form of communication. I didn't want to repurpose the category, and I thought that the text I added was general and vague enough that all the articles that were there clearly fit. I'm sorry you felt it was better to "walk away".

Did you see the definition of "crow-stepped" over at the RM? MB 06:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hope Lodge

I just loved the elaborate and very sensible comments you made about this matter on my talk page. It is with such reconciliatory and understanding messages that we progress in Wikipedia. After your message, I realized that this subject of ACS support centers needs to be expanded further and I will do the extra effort on my part to expand it in Wikipedia, with of course appreciating any input you may make for improvement of the article as well. I do feel though that the consensus, for now, is to make Hope Lodge a disambiguation. I usually don't argue my points to the end and apply a "laissez faire" attitude about things as I have created so many articles by now that I realize nothing should be set in stone. As long as people can reach the information they need, and the articles are still there, I am all for it. And here videos for inspiration and hope and for us to do more on this page. [1] [2] werldwayd (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

This is about my comment/offer to Werldwayd at their Talk page. Related to Hope Lodge (American Cancer Society) and Hope Lodge (disambiguation) and this requested move i opened. User:Werldwayd, I am glad you accept/appreciate my reaching out to you that way. :) --Doncram (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Priestly's Hydraulic Ram has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Doncram. Priestly's Hydraulic Ram, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 12:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Doncram,

You commented on my deletion nom for Myrtle Beach Convention Center and I just wanted to make it clear that I was acting in good faith on my nom (you weren't suggesting I was, but I just wanted to make it clear). I messed up there (more in comment on nom). Thanks for the constructive feedback, feedback is the best way to learn. Thanks, Hog Farm (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Hog Farm, thank you for your note, and for your accepting my comment at that AFD. I was blowing off a little steam about some AFD processes in general, i think i was making that clear, not about you, but I am glad you could see your way to it being feedback you could learn from, too. Thank you for being gracious there and here. --Doncram (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

	Happy Thanksgiving
	Hope you and yours had a nice one. Be well. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"List of Scheduled Castes" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Scheduled Castes. Since you had some involvement with the List of Scheduled Castes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Craftsman architecture in Georgia (U.S. state)

A tag has been placed on Category:Craftsman architecture in Georgia (U.S. state) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have done that deletion myself if i could have. And i supported this removal by adding a "deletion requested by author" tag. I created the category when thinking it was an omitted state in larger system. But the larger system uses the term _American_ Craftsman instead, and there already was Category:American Craftsman architecture in Georgia (U.S. state). --Doncram (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosenwald High School

Greetings. I noticed you moved the school in Louisiana to a separate page and redirected this page to a list of all Rosenwald schools. Do you think a disambig page at that name listing the schools that actually went by this name and also including a link to the list article might be better? I was interested in the one in Panama City (actually there are two, an original one and an unrelated new one of the same name). I find the individual schools get lost in a redirect to a list of all Rosenwald funded schools that went by various names. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, that is about my edit in 2009, more than 10 years ago (!), to put the Louisiana one at Rosenwald High School (New Roads, Louisiana), and redirect "Rosenwald High School" to the list-article.

I find that searching on "Rosenwald High School" in the list-article only yields the Louisiana one and a Florida one. I think most Rosenwald Schools were elementary schools, or at least started at that level and then might have included fewer students in high school grades too. There are not very many high-school-only ones.

I don't think there's any big problem with the current situation, because it does get the reader to the list-article which does have what they seek. But sure, it would be fine by me if Rosenwald High School was made into a disambiguation for these plus the other one you know of. But then perhaps it should also include any other Rosenwald schools which were high schools? (probably as "See also" items) It certainly should include a "See also" to the List of Rosenwald schools. --Doncram (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Yeah searching on "High" in the list-article only yields about 4 other high school ones, which would be fine as "See also" items. So serving the reader interested about Rosenwald high schools more generally, as if it is a mini-list article of them all, though not duplicating table stuff at the overall list-article. --Doncram (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the linesof Draft:Rosenwald High School. I will see where the extant one in Panama City can be included so there's a link that is policy compliant. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

That list isn't remotely complete, and I have no idea what criteria it assumes for "notability". Just previewing former high schools.in Louisiana I see Rosedale Rosenwald High School, New Roads Rosenwald High School, and Rosenwald Rosenwald-Covington High School. Which is why I don't think a redirect to the list article is adequate. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The list, maybe partly built by me but if I recall correctly more developed by User:Pubdog, was intended to cover at least all the Wikipedia-notable Rosenwald schools, and early on it included all the NRHP-listed ones, which are. It was definitely NOT intended to be NRHP-listed ones only. If you are aware of any other Rosenwald schools having articles, please do add them. And like similar list-articles, it can contain redlink items where someone/we think the item is individually notable and an article is needed, although those rows should include a reference supporting the idea of notability. And it can contain lesser items where no article is expected to be needed, and these should also include a reference. A list-article's standard for list-item notability is up to the editors working on the list, should represent consensus on its Talk page. When you say that you "see" those three, where are you seeing them? Perhaps you have a major source to be added to the list-article? --Doncram (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

They show up in a search for Rosenwald High School a in the preview for List of former high schools in Louisiana. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I also think it's problematic.to redirect Rosenwald High School to a list of Rosenwald schools beacuse so many of the schools were NOT high schools. It doesn't seem useful to me so I'd like to see the draft (which does link to the list) moved over the redirect. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Living Arts and Science Center

Also this NRHP draft was denied approval if you'd be willing to help. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I cleaned it up a bit and made it an article. MB 01:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i see that MB added the NRHP infobox and other stuff, and most importantly added the NRHP nomination document and accompanying photos, and promoted it to mainspace. It surely could be developed more with stuff from the NRHP document, and the referencing of that should include author and prep date, but the article overall looks okay to me now. Thanks User:MB for taking care of it. :) FloridaArmy, i dunno why you would not have put in the NRHP stuff? The NRHP listing is the entire justification for assertion it is notable, right? --Doncram (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I think a historic building that is now a community arts center is notable regardless of NRHP status. I was working on the fellow who lived there who shares the same name as a former secretary.of state from the same city. And I believe I did link the the NRHP document. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I did see u had more about the person, and imagined that was where you were coming from. I don't think every adaptive re-use of a property is worth an article necessarily, though if it is listed on the NRHP it probably is. Hmm, ok now I do see you had a bare-URL link to the NRHP text document. You know about the so-called NRHP infobox generator tool, which gives you a decent reference mostly filled out. In this case when MB copied it in, it provided a link to the 10 accompanying photos from 1980-81 which seriously enrich the reference. I think I was sort of bickering about bare URL references recently, right? Maybe in general, certainly when the available tool yields much better. Thanks for getting the article started, any which way. --Doncram (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my interest arose from the man who was a prominent lawyer and politican. He founded Draft:Kinkeadtown. Trying to sort out one George Blackburn Kinkead from.another actually arose from trying to figure out who the alumni of Draft:Pisgah Academy were. So it was all a bit of a can of worms. And trying to work between drafts instead of articles is quite a bit more difficult because direct links aren't possible. I do the best I can. I am not an expert on every tool. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Certainly the article needs expanding on the architecture and history as well.as.coverage of the arts center. For what it's worth it's not at all clesr to me the home should be named.for Kinkead because he was born in 1849 and I thought.the home was.built.around then. And I really can't tell if there.is a connection between the two Kinkeads. It gets quite confusing and many sources.inckuding the center itself.mix up the two men. That's one of the reasons I think it's helpful.to cover them. Ome was anti-secession, pro-slavery, pro-colonization of freed slaves back to Africa. The younger one helped establish an African American community post Civil War. Oh and the older one was a lawyer for Abraham Lincoln. So there's a lot going on. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

But the elder Kinkead seems like he may have lived in the same area too. Walnut was it? But now MLK? So it's a bit muddled for me. And I can't remember now if the NRHP doc was muddled too. I think it might have been. So I was just trying to establish some basics. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Replying about "Jennifer Hardy CK" article

Hi Doncram, thank you for your reply that you sent to me in September. This is Jennifer Hardy. It's been a few months that I haven't been checking my Wikipedia messages after my article was removed. I'm still a bit new at communicating by using Wikipedia. My stage name "Jennifer Hardy CK" was up on the film "Spice It Up" Wikipedia page playing as the lead, my name was also up on the film "The Intestine" Wikipedia page, and my name was up on "Vancouver Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actress in a Canadian Film" Wikipedia page. I tried making my own article and had a helper to help me out but was hard to understand the rules well so it ended up being removed. I can't seem to find where it is now on Wikipedia but my article some how appeared in other links. If you go on google and type Jennifer Hardy CK Cloudpedia, that link looks just like my deleted article. If my article doesn't have enough sources, then I might have to wait for some years if I end up finding any new sources. --Aalamina (talk) 05:55, 11 Dec 2019 (UTC)

Gazetteer

Re Not so, not about lakes, not about lots of things

Yes so, WP:5P1. SpinningSpark 13:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Elsinore Sugar Factory

Hi! I just came across the above article that appears to be a partial duplication of Elsinore White Rock Schoolhouse?

Thanks :-) Gjs238 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Gjs238, thanks for bringing my attention to that; i have removed the accidental duplication and developed the topic a bit. --Doncram (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Hello Doncram: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Doncram: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

architect list

There was an architect in Washington state, A.H. Albertson or Albert H. Albertson that designed several NRHP building and doesn't have an article. Isn't there a list somewhere to track people we need articles for? I can't find it. MB 04:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:MB, I did have a list of architects/builders/engineers needed, somewhere under wp:NRHP i am forgetting where exactly just now, sorted by number of works, back in 2012 or so iirc. I used it to proceed and start articles for all having 5 or more listings, at least those having 5 or more with same exact spelling of architect name, in the version of NRIS we had back then. Is that what you might be thinking about? About Albertson, this look at hits on "Alberts" in what i call the NRIS2013a version of database shows several but less than 5 with same expansion of first name and all. I continue to create new architect articles including whatever I can get out of the NRIS2013a version, whenever i come across a few works by one architect, and often I end up with more than 5 NRHP works, including post 2013 listings and including alternative spellings, and, importantly, often including multiple works within historic districts. You should just go ahead with creating article and redirects to it, for A.H. Albertson, A. H. Albertson, Abraham H. Albertson, etc. Does this respond fully? --Doncram (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I couldn't find that list but think I recall seeing it in the past couple of years. I was hoping to just find that A.H. Albertson was already listed on a project 'to do' list. Here are six you found in NRIS:

Everett City Hall, 3002 Wetmore Ave. Everett, WA Albertson,A.H.
Stuart House and Gardens, 619 W. Comstock St. Seattle, WA Albertson A. H.
TRADEWINDS KINGFISHER (Cruiser), Depoe Bay Boat Basin Depoe Bay, OR Albertson, Werner
Vancouver Telephone Building, 112 W. Eleventh Vancouver, WA Albertson, Wilson & Richardson
Windham Apartments, 420 Blanchard St. Seattle, WA Albertson Cornell Brothers & Walsh
Women's University Club of Seattle, 1105 6th Ave. Seattle, WA Albertson, Abraham H.

and more I found by searching:

Medical Dental Building (Seattle), 509 Olive Way, Seattle, Washington
Seattle Tower, 1218 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington
Cobb Building (Seattle) (supervised construction)
University Street station (memorialized quotations)

It looks like he is definitely notable. I will try to get to this sometime. Thanks. MB 17:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. I've connected him to 10 NRHP buildings and made all the redirects you suggested. MB 00:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:MB, nice job, it looks great, you do a nice job with biographies! (I just notice there is one stray sentence ending with "in the U.S. Army and New York State National Guard with." which you probably want to fix.) Thanks for letting me know. --Doncram (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I just stumbled onto another one, Morck Hotel, listed 2016. nom form. Not in NRIS, so can't use Elkman tool. I assume that this infobox must be created manually? Go ahead if you want to do it yourself :) MB 16:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Golden Triangle RM

Discussion is at Talk:Golden Triangle, Denver. MB 21:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

^{George Bellows, North River (1908), Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.}		Best wishes for a healthy and prosperous 2020.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays==

Happy New Year!

MMXX Lunar Calendar

Doncram,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year – news article.
– Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Priestly's Hydraulic Ram

On 1 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Priestly's Hydraulic Ram, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Priestly's Hydraulic Ram in Gooding County, Idaho, pumped water uphill with no moving parts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Priestly's Hydraulic Ram. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Priestly's Hydraulic Ram), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst

I am about ready to ask you not to ever post on my Talk page again. Please don't be a pest. However, I will reply to your post here about what I consider to be some non-controversial edits removing promotional link and removing padding/duplication in an article. My response: The right place to discuss content of that article is at its Talk page, Talk:Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota), where i did open a discussion section for you to express your opinion. --Doncram (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. It is WP:CONSENSUS. I am not sure why you think you can unilaterally override the consensus of the community. I will keep my comments there because you have asked that I do. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Shotgun architecture in Tennessee has been nominated for discussion

Category:Shotgun architecture in Tennessee, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Thomas M. Medford

Do you think this arcchitect is notable? FloridaArmy (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirects

You have redirected all of the lakes of Brown county Minn. I have reverted these redirects. We need discussion and or an AfD before these redirects. Esp after your controversial redirect on Bachelor Lake Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Presbyterian churches

Hello! I saw some of the Presby church list work you were doing yesterday and it looks like a big job. You could make this into a series of very big jobs if you wanted to. I'm almost sure all the big denominations have similar lists or at least historical societies or archives. I don't know where the Catholic churches would be hidden, but check out if there are Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, ...., Mennonite, Moravian. Reformed probably has one also. The 2 Presbyterian books are pretty old, say 1960s or 1980s. Each site has a page but it is mostly taken up with a photo. Maybe 1-3 short paragraphs of text. I was looking at the map on the Presby website yesterday. If you hover on the red markers, some text appears - it might just be that text - pretty short. I have both volumes of the Presby histories, but where are they now? Who knows!

The reformed/Presby connection was fairly strong early in their histories as far as I can tell (also Puritan/Congregationalists were related as well) . Basically Reformed were mostly Dutch Calvinists and Presbys were Scottish Calvinists. Reformed has drifted away from that, perhaps a long time ago and are most UEB (United Evangelical Brethren ?) if I remember correctly.

Do check the Presbyterian Church photos I uploaded. They wanted me to be very conservative about copyright and I'm sure that most of the 100 kb pix on that map are mostly out of copyright. All I was allowed to upload was pre-1923 postcards, but many were published without copyrights, or I couldn't get a date, or the photo was definitely pre-1923 by look, but when was it printed? Also almost nobody ever renewed these copyrights, but I'd have to check, so that wasn't allowed.

Good luck.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Assertion that opening multiple AfDs is "disruptive"

It's perfectly acceptable to open multiple AfDs on related articles without waiting for each one to finish. I felt that Congregational Churches in Leicester and List of Baptist churches in Leicester were fairly different enough from Methodist Churches in Leicester and each other (based on having "list" in the article name and number of notable entries) to not bundle them together, which WP:MULTIAFD suggests only for clear-cut cases.

I agree that the copying of comments is disruptive, which is why I objected to the behavior in one of the discussions (but also felt it necessary to refute the duplicated comments in the other discussion). However, your bolded note at the top of each AfD suggests that you find the actual opening of multiple AfDs disruptive – I strongly disagree with that and there is no consensus that having three open AfDs for three articles, regardless of similarity, is disruptive.

I'd also suggest that you remove the bolded diatribe at the end of the notice, since it contains accusations of improper procedures to which one can only respond by doing the very thing you are protesting : pasting the same response to the accusation across all three AfDs. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with you about your opening AFDs covering the same ground. It is better to let one finish. I accept that a single multiple AFD might not have been appropriate; I did not argue for that. If you nonetheless do open multiple ones, you should yourself give notice at all the related AFDs as a courtesy to other editors. I dunno, maybe "disruptive" is not the perfect term, but it seems wasteful as I did state. --Doncram (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that I should have mentioned them in the nomination; it slipped my mind in this case. However, I think that it's totally fine to have multiple open AfDs, particularly since they may have different outcomes due to the differences within the articles. It happens quite often at AfD. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Re this new comment, I object to posting the bolded personal opinion I personally consider this disruptive/wasteful of editor attention, and it is worse because notice was not given. I suppose all comments here should be copied to the others and vice versa? Why not just let one AFD be settled, first. Please do not open any more. at the top of the discussion, not the rest of the notice. Remove it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I repeat I think that is inefficient/wasteful/disrespectful of other editors attention. Yeah, theoretically anything might happen and one could be closed by a different closer, perhaps differently. But there is already cogent argument in the Methodist one that "Merge" is a viable option, and there is no way it should be outright deleted, and same applies to other ones. You do not see that. You could see it if you let the first one close first. Now we have to have 3 parallel AFDs where we all do have to make the same arguments because maybe the closer will be different.

(edit conflict)Re But there is already cogent argument in the Methodist one that "Merge" is a viable option, and there is no way it should be outright deleted, and same applies to other ones. You do not see that.: My very first contribution to any of these discussions and still-standing !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester is merge. My view on the other two articles was deletion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec)IMO your bickering with User:Djflem in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester about "procedural matters" and the copying of comments from one AFD to the other is evidence that having three AFDs running is not efficient. That is off-topic i.e. not about content, it is about process, and basically should not be in the AFD itself, which should be about content. It is inescapable that there will be complaints and off-topic discussion given the multiple AFDs, particularly if relationship between AFDs is not provided clearly. How can you argue that the discussion should happen at just one of the two new AFDs, which you appear to do? I will grant to you that my views about etiquette for overlapping AFD topics are my views, not codified in AFD policy/guidelines. However I do speak from a lot of experience with these. From my experience, if overlap is not disclosed up front, it is always helpful for someone to come in and expose the duplication, so all editors and closers have a bigger perspective. I will grant maybe I should not have done so with a judgmental edge, but I am irked and I think you should be able to take it. I do not feel it is any big deal. Okay to continue this discussion here, which is off-topic to the AFDs themselves, if you like. --Doncram (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re How can you argue that the discussion should happen at just one of the two new AFDs, which you appear to do?: Then you misunderstand what I was saying. My point was that the editor would make comment X on AfD A. I refute (or even point out a mistake that the editor later agrees with) X on AfD A in comment Y. Then the editor copies comment X to AfD B without acknowledging any of the arguments in Y, forcing me to write Y on B again. I wasn't saying that discussion should only happen at only one of the AfDs; rather, to evolve the discussion at both naturally without copying comments over verbatim.— MarkH₂₁^talk 06:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Note you are yourself judgmental about User:Djflem in one or more of the AFDs. I don't think you can remove all that now, there was substantial interaction which should stay in the record. But you are not in position to make demands that others remove some mild judgement about your behavior, which caused all this anyhow, when you have done same. --Doncram (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re Note you are yourself judgmental about User:Djflem in one or more of the AFDs. I don't think you can remove all that now, there was substantial interaction which should stay in the record. I never requested or made any attempt to remove any of the interaction. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re But you are not in position to make demands that others remove some mild judgement about your behavior, which caused all this anyhow, when you have done same. I am not asking that you entirely remove the judgment (in the sense of a personal attack / erasing it from the entire discussion), but to move it (e.g. to the bottom of the AfD). It's improper to place conduct accusations glaringly in bold at the top of each discussion and expect or demand that no response be made in the same public venue. I think it would be better if it was just moved, but otherwise I'll just place a short response underneath the comment. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

But, User:MarkH21, if you really do feel the judgemental part of my comment really should be removed, I wouldn't mind if we got a third opinion or otherwise compromise somehow. Do you want to suggest someone we could agree upon to serve as a judge on this matter? To make a more concrete proposal, I dunno, User:DGG happens to be the deletion nominator in another ongoing AFD that I just commented in, and they would likely be looking at these, and they are a very experienced administrator and have been an arbitrator several times. I have sometimes agreed, sometimes disagreed with them in other AFDs and interactions. If they read the above, and think it would be better to modify that bolded notice in the AFDs ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester), I would be fine with their doing so. DGG, could you consider that? I don't think doing so should prevent DGG from commenting/voting separately. --Doncram (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My responses above came after this comment due to an edit conflict, but if you both:

Do not want to move/remove the comment
Do not think it would appropriate to respond to the comment immediately below it

then I would be fine with DGG offering a third opinion. Since my clarification for my initial proposal to (re)move the comment and secondary proposal for me to respond below it were made after your above comment, I'll wait for your response. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doncram: I'm fine with the hatting solution that you have just implemented. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

there seem to be two questions, which is whether opening multiple afds in succession is disruptive, and whether bundling into a single afd is disruptive. As a quick answer, speaking generally, whether it is disruptive depends on the facts of the matter. The basic idea is that there has to be sufficient opportunity to consider the individual nominations. More detail, and specifics in this particular situation, in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: The "succession" wording in opening multiple afds in succession is disruptive is ambiguous, so perhaps a minor clarification in case there is confusion (and @Doncram: please correct if I'm wrong): Doncram suggested that opening multiple related AfDs so that they are open at the same time is disruptive and to instead open them "in succession" so that at most one is open at any given time. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, you both responded quickly. Thank you both for your consideration. It occurred to me that the judgmental comment could be collapsed, which is often done for off-topic comments in discussions (though sometimes this is objected to by the person whose comment is collapsed), and I went ahead and did that to myself in all three AFDs. It's okay by me if MarkH21 wants to reply within those, say.

About bundling multiple items into a single AFD, I didn't suggest that, but I do think some better guidance about when this is efficient or not should probably be given in AFD guidelines. Offhand I think a deletion nominator does better to "test the waters" lightly, before putting demand on all other AFD editors to consider a whole bunch of items, so bundling just a few or just making one nomination with notice that there are similar articles to be considered later (and list some of them), is probably better. There will almost always be complaints about a multiple-item AFD, because usually there are some differences among articles and what sources can be found for them during the AFD, so maybe they should be avoided.

About overlapping/related AFDs opened separately, as happened here, I happen to think it is imperative to give notice linking from each one to each other one, else editors' time is wasted as the duplication/relatedness is discovered or not by others. I was irked by that not being done, though this practice is not identified as best practice in any guideline (i think it should be).

About running multiple separate related AFDs, it is hard for me to imagine how one deletion nominator can predict how discussion will go, and I doubt they can judge what will be discussed and how the discussion should evolve in multiple channels, much less explain why they should be separate. There will be complaints, there should be complaints. So basically I think it is best to have just one AFD run to conclusion, so the deletion nominator and everyone else can "learn". It is okay/good to point to the other examples, in the one open AFD, though. In this case pointing to the similar other list-articles does give rise to the option of merging the three into one "churches in Leicester" list-article (though I happen to think that is a bad idea; there is nothing special about religion in Leicester; the churches have more commonality with others of same denomination throughout England). In this set of AFDs, I think the right decision will be to Merge, and it would be highly inappropriate to delete outright; that should have been "learned" from one AFD run to conclusion, which would give guidance that other AFDs are not needed (simply BOLD merges or Talk page discussions of Merge proposals would be appropriate).

This is a lot of stuff written already, sorry. But again I don't think i caused this. --Doncram (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doncram: I agree with your points about bundling (although I think the requirement that it be clear-cut is a decent restriction).

I also agree about mentioning related AfDs in the nomination if possible; I forgot in this case and I agree that doing so would have been courteous.

On the difficulty of how one deletion nominator can predict how discussion will go and multiple concurrent AfDs: I understand your reasoning but I disagree that it should be necessary or even customary. Editors should only nominate articles for deletion if they firmly believe that it should actually be deleted. Having similar AfDs open at the same time is also more efficient in that there is consistency from a similar body of editors looking at the AfDs in the same time frame if they are not drawn out over several weeks and editors do not have to re-analyze similar articles after leaving the frame of thinking / forgetting about the old AfDs. The concept of "learning" from each in a sequence of related AfDs isn't really present if there are different editors looking at them, if precedence doesn't matter, and if there is already a wealth of past articles that cover the whole gamut of nominated article types.

Looking at these articles as they were when I nominated them (Congregational churches in Leicester, List of Baptist churches in Leicester), I found no referenced material worth merging (and I still think that is true of the current state) and a clear violation of WP:NOTDIR#6. The only case for making a merge is if someone adds enough merge-able content during the actual timeline of the AfD, which is independent of the concurrency of the related AfDs. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Likely the two should have been bundled, but in good faith, did not make a point of it. Also did not make a point of:

Are you going to continue copying every comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester to here even after I respond to them over there?.

which I found ather snarky from person who had made the nominations and created the confusion in the first place. What did s/he expect? The colorful edit gobbling up space (to make a point) and then seeking to use graphic techniques to shorten the discussion which also serves to remove from crucial points that have been made and are made to seem less important) and is not really constructive either.. Djflem (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:MULTIAFD says to bundle only for clear-cut cases and to default to individual AfDs; there's no point to be made.

The {{diff2|935512189|"edit-gobbling" edit was to quote policy, as you asked before, and it's not like you didn't paste the same exact entire policy twice on the same page.

The edit was to make an argumentative point using relevant policies; there's nothing to even suggest it was made for the purpose of taking up space.

The sectioning was purely for visual navigation and not hiding comments, as explicitly described to you here and fixed in the non-autocollapsed boxes.

I will not respond to you further unless you make additional unfounded accusations of misconduct. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Related to the same three AfDs, not involving you directly

@Doncram and DGG: While the above discussion is now largely focused on just the general question about sequential AfDs since the hatting solved the main original issue, I'd like to ask for some assistance regarding the three AfDs. Particularly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester), I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here (it looks like Reywas92 does too). Particularly with the accusations here, I feel like I'm talking to an endless WP:IDHT wall that's directly contradicting policy... in the name of policy.

Distancing yourself from your actual views on the AfD decision, do either of you have advice here? Discussing with the editor on the AfD has clearly stopped being productive a long time ago. I suppose I should just stop engaging the editor to avoid further escalation; otherwise I'll keep taking the bait and the outcome of further discussion isn't going to help anyone. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Dismissing guidelines by saying they are not policy, as you have, does not promote productive discussion, particularly when they are as relevant to AfDs and lists as they are.Djflem (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:MarkH21, you are the problem, AFAICT, and you should back off, let the AFD proceed. You are too involved and you should not be making major edits to the discussion, such as collapsing passages of discussion that User:Djflem appropriately objects to. In my example, I collapsed only my own comment; you have now collapsed a lot that includes decent points made by Djflem presumably because you judge they are invalid. You should not be the one making that judgment. Perhaps/sometimes/rarely an uninvolved (or mostly uninvolved) admin might step in to collapse off-topic stuff; that stuff is very on-topic.

User:MarkH21, you are simply wrong on a big level. About your comment just above (Looking at these articles as they were when I nominated them (Congregational churches in Leicester, List of Baptist churches in Leicester), I found no referenced material worth merging (and I still think that is true of the current state) and a clear violation of WP:NOTDIR#6. The only case for making a merge is if someone adds enough merge-able content during the actual timeline of the AfD, which is independent of the concurrency of the related AfDs.) you are simply wrong. That is NOT how AFDs work. You appear not to have performed wp:BEFORE, yourself, and you are arguing that only the current condition of the article is what matters. That is NOT so. If others establish solidly or if a majority judgment is that sources are likely to exist, then the article should be kept. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Your arguments are clearly "AFDISFORCLEANUP", which is WRONG. You have gotten a lot of attention here, and received the pretty unusual/huge benefit of having someone (me) back down and be really nice offering to allow myself to be overruled, and collapsing my own comment. That is highly unusual. With respect to Djflem and otherwise, you are pushing it and are, i think, hypocritical. Back off, I advise. At this point, a lot of leeway ought to be given to Djflem, instead, and not yourself. --Doncram (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

At this point, if Djflem wants to uncollapse any/all of those passages, I think they should, and MarkH21 should not intefere. Similar to what Djflem says above, you have stepped in as judge and jury on your own AFD, indeed dismissing guidelines. In one of the AFDs, MarkH21 dismisses thusly: Then draftify it and work on it. You’re applying essays on wiki philosophies, whereas notability guidelines and WP:NOT policies suggest that the list article shouldn’t exist. That is judgmental and wrong, IMHO; guidelines and policies go the other way, in my own pretty strong opinion. Let others speak. --Doncram (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You didn't answering my prompt and responded about the actual AfD reasons. This isn't about the merge-able info, but about (for instance) Djflem repeatedly quoting ~~WP:NLIST~~ wp:LISTN as an argument that NOTDIR#6 somehow doesn't apply when literally half of the first sentence of ~~NLIST~~ LISTN refers to use NOTDIR#6. My arguments have nothing to do with AFDISFORCLEANUP which I agree would be wrong. You seem to have misunderstood my point. Of course, a BEFORE search and referenced material not in the article is the basis of "keep" vs "not keep". My point was that if a topic is already deemed "not keep" then the debate between "delete" and "merge" is about whether there is referenced merge-able material in the existing article. In these particular cases, I do not agree that "Congregational churches in Leicester" is ~~not~~ a notable subject – that's why I then focused on merge-able content in the article.

Your and Djflem's accusation that you have now collapsed a lot that includes decent points made by Djflem presumably because you judge they are invalid, i.e. that it is now collapsed for the purpose of hiding the comments, is absolutely incorrect as I explicitly said here on the AfD talk page before (with the boxes now not autocollapsed with which Djflem seems to not have had a problem). It's amazing that you don't find any issue with the conduct of Djflem here.

Regardless, the conduct, discussion, and policy arguments have been made repeatedly on the AfDs and nothing productive will come out of any more discussion that any of the three of us have with each other so you are correct that I should stop commenting. I have neutrally posted links to the three AfDs on the WikiProjects added by Djflem and I will stop discussing with Djflem and you about these AfDs (except in response to any additional allegations of misconduct). — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC) (Minor corrections 22:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC))

(EC) (corrected links to NLIST where LISTN was meant).

Actually User:MarkH21 I do appreciate your conversing here, and your question was fair/good. Maybe we can each learn some things out of this. Right, I misunderstood and thought incorrectly that the collapsed sections were hidden; your having "unhid" them makes that better, and I gather it is okay by User:Djfelm. I am taking another look.

I dunno if it helps for me to say: I do not see the applicability or usefulness of discussing NOTDIR#6 at all, or trying to make distinction between " encyclopedic cross-categorization" vs. "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization". There are two parent type articles for each of these: e.g. List of Congregational churches and Leicester. There cannot be any argument against the validity of "List of Congregational churches", right ("Congregational churches" is certainly a topic which is mentioned, meets LISTN)? If there was a movement to create multiple lists of form "Congregational churches in CITY" (or "all churches in CITY"), i suppose that could be understood as a cross-categorization of "List of Congregational churches" (or "List of all churches") vs. "List of places", but we are only talking about one proposal. Aren't both of you talking about cross-categorizations? I think just talking about notability of items for inclusion in "List of Congregational churches" is what matters. Or about notability of items for mention in "Leicester". Shouldn't we all agree that not all churches that exist should be mentioned in either? Because of NOTDIR. And shouldn't we agree that the list as it is has items that should not be mentioned; it is too short, not a valid topic on its own (IMO); there is not general coverage about "Congregational churches in Leicester alone. However, some will be list-item-notable, and therefore it makes sense to merge/redirect the topic to either "List of Congregational churches" or to "Leicester". MarkH21 pointed out I should not answer in terms of content, but sorry i am stuck on that level. Sure maybe further discussion here is not helpful; in AFDs we have to just put out our views and then let a decision be taken. --Doncram (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I made some suggestions, copied to each of the 3 afds. There is no clear way of settling this question, for our rules are as often the case vague enough that I could equally well argue in either direction, but there usually are compromise solutions available. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Redacted personal information (and nobody can post on your talk on mobile?)

(i removed some stuff that was here --doncram)

User:MarkH21, I have no idea what this is about. I sent email, please explain offline. --Doncram (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Responded! — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Augustus C. Pope

Hi Doncram:

I was on a long and unplanned hiatus from Wikipedia. Unfortunately I am now longer able to roam around and take photos of NRHP sites as I had planned for 2019. At some point I will look at my photo roll and see if there are any images worth uploading to the commons. I imagine at some point I will create some more articles from the downtown Houston NRHP list. I had created one for the Stowers Building before I left. I had a very nice breakfast one day at the same building while canvassing downtown Houston for photos.

If you are still interested in developing Albert A. Pope and Pope Manufacturing Company to their potential, I would like to take a crack at that sometime this year. I am very knowledgeable about his activities related to the bicycle, but I am lagging in knowledge about his work with the automobile. Of tangential interest, years before I had ever read about Pope, I had taken a random route through the Connecticut River Valley which took me through Ansonia, CT, where Pierre Lallement had tinkered with and tested his prototype for what is arguably the first bicycle. The factory where he had worked still stands. I have seen that factory building, though I did not understand its significance at the time. Now I can look at the Google street views of the area and imagine Lallement struggling to ride his boneshaker along the bluffs of the Connecticut River, while recalling that this machine had no brakes! Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe I brain farted Pope's name. No excuse. Anyway, I found a few photos of NRHP sites. Do you want me to post them? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

image you might like to see

Gooday Doncram - belated Happy New Year. I've been looking at some Commons uploads and thought you'd like to see File:Bray Hill (1904).jpg where the thatched cottage #105 at Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man is well visible (Gaggle Streetview). To the right the slightly sunken house with the chimneys marked the area of race machine assembly area for the early TTs. To left of the road, on the crest (before the drop down to Quarter Bridge) the tall building is Woodlands Lodge, which demarked the end of the relatively flat area used for the race-start sequence (you have the main house at #190).

Looking at the licensing it's strange, and my favourite WP/Commons admin has been inactive for around nine months, but I'd guess it's not possible to crop a piece out as a separate file showing the thatched cottage. I'll save it to my old computer where I have most of the archived stuff. b rgds,--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much! This is about Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man. I do like to see thatched roofs, and would love to see a cropped image created out of that neat historic photo. It would be great to get current pics of all the places, too, of course. It is neat you can recognize all that you mention out of the photo. O i c, the thatched cottage is the building right at the center, to the left of the road, with end chimneys and with rounded roof over two dormer windows. :) And the "sunken" one is on the right side of the road? The assembly area was in the field there around/beyond that house? Neat. --Doncram (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm used to looking at fuzzy photos! The pic shows the terrain before the side-roads were made. The cottage is now on Brunswick Road. The assembly area was in the next side road to the left going forward, Selborne Drive, and on the flat area of the road itself when ready for the official start.

This pic shows generally the reverse angle from the 'chimneys' with Bray Hill in the distance. And here is a close up. And here is the reverse-angle close up - the house with bay window and quoin stones is on the corner of Selborne Drive. And here is a reverse-angle longer shot.

I've not looked at this museum site for maybe three years as I have the images saved; there's another I can't find online presently, but you'll get the basics. Enjoy!

--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Re. the thatched cottage image (possibly cropping-out a portion) as my usual admin on both en-WP and Commons is still 'not around', I approached one similar who admitted he did not know (no criticisms there) but responsibly referred me to Commons:Village pump/Copyright which I shall do in due course. I have a lot of loose ends to clear up whilst I am still able, before I embark on something I should not mention publicly. I did not know that BHG had been desysopped very recently - I have just given evidence at the desysopping of another and someone mentioned it at Talk. rgds,--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Presbyterian historic sites registry

I have moved American Presbyterian/Reformed Historic Sites Registry to Draft:American Presbyterian/Reformed Historic Sites Registry due to the excessive number of errors on the page, specifically disambiguation links. Please note that excessive disambiguation links in a list tend to indicate that other blue links on the list may be pointing to the wrong targets. Please fix all the disambiguation links and check other links for correctness before restoring to mainspace. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, User:BD2412, it was marked "under construction", and I am waiting to receive some documentation about them, and that is okay in my book, i don't think it needed to be moved to Draft. But I would have already fixed the links to disambiguation pages which bother you (and me too) if I could do so easily; i thought it would be easy to apply Dabsolver to easily fix many of the links to First Presbyterian Church, etc.. However Dabsolver seems not to be available now. Do you know if there is a different tool I could use? --Doncram (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I know of no other tool that does this job. AWB has a disambiguation function, including a list of potential targets to pick from but it doesn't let you see anything about those targets other than their name. Even though the page was marked as under construction, the disambiguation links still show up in WP:DPL reports while the page remains in mainspace, so I think keeping it in draft is best for everyone right now. BD2412 T 23:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Rats about no great tool; maybe I will fire up AWB and try to figure out how to use it for disambiguation that way, which might be some help. Well, as i proceed in fixing it up, I have to add missing items to disambiguation pages which themselves link to the Registry article, like in this edit just now. I have already done that for some of the cases; there are currently about 11 mainspace pages linking to the list-article (some with multiple links), where the links now show as redlinks. Maybe you or some other disambiguation-focused editor is gonna notice that those links, where they are supposed to be supporting bluelinks in disambiguation pages, are not valid, and start complaining or messing up stuff in a different way. If I linked those to the list-article in Draft space a different set of editors would likely get riled up that there are cross-namespace links being created. It is also awkward navigating as I fix things, if it is in Draft space. So no disrespect intended, but I might just move it back when I am actually working on it; there is no satisfying everyone. --Doncram (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI, dabsolver seems to be working fine for me. I'm going to keep going through the generic church name links, see if you can cut the thornier knots of city/state links. BD2412 T 23:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, i thot dabsolver was completely kaput, like it was for a year or two in past due to Toolserver / Wikimedia issues, when I ran into it not working for me yesterday or so. Right, i see wp:DABSOLVER does now seem to work for me too (even tho it says "The WMF Cloud/Tools Lab side is currently experiencing hardware issues").

Hey, my work tops the list of articles with most outgoing links to disambiguation pages report right now, with its 23 links! Yay, I am an editor of distinction, I should get some kind of barnstar! --Doncram (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks User:BD2412 i guess for applying Dabsolver to "fix" all the First Presbyterian Church links, etc. But your process did not add the missing items to the disambiguation page; e.g. I think First Presbyterian Church (York, South Carolina) should have been added to the disambiguation page. (Could Dabsolver have done that?) I guess i can sort the table and check each of the disambiguation pages manually, though; maybe it just means I will be working in a different order than I would have expected / than I would have done if making fixes all manually. --Doncram (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Albert Bond Lambert House

I found some sources. Take a look at the AFD, may now be a keep. MB 00:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I found 5 more sources, although none major. I put them in the AFD and voted keep. I saw you created George W. Hellmuth which reminded me about the NRHP architect page which I finally found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Architects2009a. That is in a strange place - a sub-page of the project talk page. Shouldn't it be moved to a sub-page of the project page? (Although neither Hellmuth or the two I recently created, James Stephen (architect) & Abraham H. Albertson were in there). MB 02:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that list of NRHP architects (or builders or engineers). Sure, I just moved it from "Wikipedia talk" space to "Wikipedia" space. Back then I was perhaps trying to stay parallel to use of Talk subspace of Mainspace, where it is valid to have article drafts or whatever. Or perhaps trying to avoid cleanup/deletion efforts of an editor monitoring wp:NRHP space. I don't know how to look at directory of files/subdirectories of anywhere, much less take issue with stray contents (do you know how to "see" what's in wp:NRHP or wt:NRHP?) The list was announced by me at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 47, which covers fact the list was updated to a 2010 version of NRIS. Also in that Archive 47 is an "Architectural styles" section with tabulation of counts of main (coded) architectural types in NRIS, which I also have sometimes sought. --Doncram (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

wp:NRHP sub pages

wt:NRHP sub pages MB 03:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed, if you click "hide prefix" it's much easier to read. MB 03:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

There are two architects named George W. Hellmuth. The Albert Bond Lambert House was built between 1902 and 1903. Your George Hellmuth wasn't born until 1907. However, his father George W. Hellmuth was born in 1870 and died in 1955. http://dynamic.stlouis-mo.gov/history/peopledetail.cfm?Master_ID=2164 Durindaljb (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Durindaljb, thank you for figuring that out and notifying me! There have been confusing situations with other architect names; glad to see this sorted in terms of having two pages from the same source showing clearly the two are different. Hmm, father and son, then grandson is Bill Hellbuth? --Doncram (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

BHG's extended explanation of this block

@Doncram: this block is for your resumption of your long-standing disruptive conduct of adding articles to nonexistent categories, in particular to categories which have been previosuly deleted and recreated by you and the deleted again.

This has been going on for years. It is usually a matter of you creating an article and leaving it in redlinked categories, although sometimes you do it to existing articles. In either case, the result is that the categorisation error (per WP:REDNOT) is listed in the cleanup list at Special:WantedCategories, and someone else has to clean up after you.

This is very easily avoided, because when an article is categorised in a non-existent category, the category name is displayed in red on the bottom of the page. So no detailed scrutiny is needed; it takes only a few seconds to scroll to the bottom of the page, and the error is identifed for you.

Every editor makes some errors, but not only is your error rate high, you are also impervious to repeated requests to stop. Your talk page history contains many previous warnings from me about this, but yesterday when I returned to Special:WantedCategories (a task which I resumed in the last few days after a long break), I found no less than 4 miscategorisations in articles created by you, each of which I fixed: [3], [4], [5], [6].

In each case, I used the edit summary to ping you about the error. I assumed that you were acting in good faith and would want to know of your errors, but instead you posted[7] a message on my talk saying it isn't necessary to ping me if I have made a typo in my writing or my usage of categories.

Wrong: It wouldn't be necssary to ping you if you stopped leaving miscategorsations for others to clean up. I replied,[8] noting that since this is a long-standing problem which has recurred, you clearly do need to be notified ... and that I view your post a as form of trolling.

Your post on my talk[9] was at 01:29, 20 January 2020.

I later found in Special:WantedCategories that the non-existent Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States was no longer empty, even tho I had earlier emptied it in this edit[10], which was one of those I had notified you about. But at 02:17 and 02:25, you had created in two edits[11] the article Central Platoon School, and added it to the same non-existent Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States. I fixed it in thsi edit.[12]

It was bad enough that you repeated the same error so soon after a warning which you had dismissed as isn't necessary. But when I checked, I found:

that the non-existent Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States has been repeatedly re-created by you after its deletion by consensus at WP:CFD
that I had previously blocked you for trying again to re-populate it: see User talk:Doncram/Archive 29#November_2018
that the block was upheld by the reviewing admin User:JBW.

This category was created by Doncram on 21 December 2010; deleted on 10 August 2011 per WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 3#Category:Late_19th_and_20th_Century_Revivals_architecture, and first re-created by Doncram on 26 November 2011. So the saga has now been going on for over nine years, and it's eight years since Doncram first ignored a consensus decision on this issue.

So this is now a very extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Given the persistence of your disruption, there was good reason to make this block much longer than 72 hours, but I have chosen to give you one last chance. However, please be in no doubt that if after this block expires there is any resumption of your disruptive rejection of repeated consensus on the same point, then I will block you for much longer, possibly indefinitely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Doncram (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I dispute the suggestion that I have done anything besides make useful contributions; I have done nothing to deserve being blocked. BHG accuses me of having persisted in doing something repeatedly against consensus and after having been blocked for it by BHG before, which is not accurate. It is hard for me to assume good faith here, but AGF interpretation is that BHG mis-remembers what happened in the previous block.

I find that right now, being blocked, that I do not even have the ability to cite diffs or past versions of articles, because the blocking prevents me from doing so. I can see diffs and past versions of articles, but I cannot see, much less copy-and-paste, the URL-bar links to them. As an immediate matter, could someone please unblock my account so that I can reply more properly to BHGs charges?

What has happened, in my view, is that User:BrownHairedGirl (BHG), an administrator, has acted wrongly, culminating in this block which is in effect an involved block, and is in fact conduct unbecoming for an administrator.

What happened (without diffs because I am blocked from citing them):

1) BHG zapped me several times in a row yesterday with pings from edit summaries, including from articles Sanitol Building, International Fur Exchange Building, and Waterman Place-Kingsbury Place-Washington Terrace Historic District. That is minor harassment, done by BHG certainly with intent to bother me, to impose some cost upon me in my editing. I thought for a while whether or how I should respond. I know that any editor is allowed to request that another editor not post at their User talkpage, and I believe likewise about being pinged. (I can't immediately find the discussions, but I know i have seen the issue of unwanted pinging addressed in wp:ANI discussions.)

I had created those articles a couple days ago, and "Category:National Register of Historic Places listings in St. Louis, Missouri" would seem to be a correct category to include, and was included in all three. I had relied upon an outside tool which assisted in generating their NRHP infoboxes, which had also inserted that category. It is not wrong for me to have created those articles; it is no big deal that the category, apparently, should not have included the word "Missouri" and so it turns out the category would need to be tweaked. I regularly create new articles and modify them in multiple edits over the following few days, often refining any new categories that I might have added in that process, while I am usually more focused on other aspects of article improvement and of relationships back and forth between articles. These articles in fact related to sorting out confusion related to architect article(s) on George W. Hellmuth and his similarly named son, which I was working out in cooperation with User:MB. I made multiple edits developing the articles, without happening to notice the red categories, or I would have fixed them, as I usually do. However, it is just like a simple typo or a link to a disambiguation page or any other kind of minor glitch in an article; anyone is free to fix them but not to harass an editor about them.

I considered opening an administrative noticeboard section to discuss BHGs behavior, because this is not a new thing, it has been adding up, and there is a discussion section or two above relating to it. The repeated pinging seems to me to be intentional jabbing with intent to "punish" or bother me; I rather do believe that BHG would be happy to drive me away from Wikipedia entirely, and it certainly is intended to change my behavior by their imposing a cost upon me. However I didn't really want to make a stink that would force a bunch of editors to consider the situation. I proceeded to do more content edits like I usually do, and decided I should respond mildly to BHG directly, to ask them on the record explicitly to cease pinging me that way, as a lesser step. Which I did, choosing to share a couple photos I recently contribute, and trying to be light about it. I guess they could not have a sense of humor about it, and were not willing to discuss, but my posting was in fact a good faith effort to have discussion about the issue. (Further, in their reply there after blocking me, in my view they mischaracterize some stuff and I obviously cannot respond.) Whatever, it would have been a decent discussion that I would have engaged in if they would have.

2) BHG did not reply to the discussion on their page that I opened, and instead blocked me! This is not right. Admins are required to discuss and not to block someone for opening discussion. BHG, well after they blocked me, went back and "responded" there, labelling my posting to have been trolling. That is self-serving characterization at this point, as they seek to justify the block. But I was in fact seriously raising an issue, making a request to them that they cease pinging me, and equating the leaving of a red category link to the leaving of a typo in an article.

3) BHG in fact blocked me for something not a "crime" at all, confused in their mind with something different that might be termed an offense. At first they just blocked me without explanation, leaving a note in edits at 9:22 and 9:23 that they would state a block justification later. IMO this is an indication they didn't have a legitimate reason, they were going to have to come up with one. Their immediate explanation, at 9:46, which i saw last night before turning in, was in their edit summary at Central Platoon School article, including "categories do not exist. @User:Doncram, enough of this disruption: see User_talk:Doncram/Archive_29#November_2018 "

In Central Platoon School, I had started by creating the article, leaving it temporarily with four redlinks in the text, checking to see if articles for the topics existed, including one for "platoon school" which was referred to in the source document as if it is a thing. I am unfamiliar with the term, and I also tried a category for such things, which turned out to be a category redlink. Apparently there was another category redlink suggested/put in by the infobox tool, also, but so what. About new categories, I am often testing to see if categories exist and often do end up creating new ones (e.g. Category:Rustic architecture in Idaho on 23 Dec, Category:Pegram trusses on 10 Jan), which is fine and good. Anyhow both of those category redlinks would have been changed by me soon, in my usual practice of continued development of an article and the articles and categories it links to, over the course of a few days. I was not finished, I would have by now gone on to look for information about the architects and what "platoon schools" are, and would have perhaps created those as new articles and a new category if it turned out those were justified. And even if I did not go on at all, there is nothing wrong or disruptive about my actions IMO. Apparently BHG might disagree, but I have seen no ruling anywhere, no consensus of any kind, about this, and BHG is not entitled to make up a criminal standard of their own and impose it upon me with no process.

BHG's link to the previous block indicates to me BHG was convinced that I had just violated direction given in that block and its discussion, which in fact I have not. As another admin there User:JBW acknowledged, there has been disagreement between BHG and me about creating or re-creating certain categories. There was/is disagreement about the usefulness of administrative categories (which are not visible to readers) and about process to revisit the need for categories, none of which is relevant now. After that block, I suppose if I did re-create a previously-deleted category without following a proper CFD process, then that could be called some kind of offense; but I did not do that at all. The previous block was NOT about occasionally creating red links to categories, which is all that BHG can identify now as supposedly being wrong and constituting "disruption" worth blocking.

BHG's view is included in their block justification above: they state "that the non-existent Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States has been repeatedly re-created by you after its deletion by consensus at WP:CFD" and "that I had previously blocked you for trying again to re-populate it: see User talk:Doncram/Archive 29#November_2018" and "that the block was upheld by the reviewing admin User:JBW". Their recollection of that block is simply not correct; and JBW did not endorse about what they say now.

Later at 10:32 and 10:36 BHG composed the above block justification centering, mostly, on "your resumption of your long-standing disruptive conduct of adding articles to nonexistent categories". Which is not disruptive conduct at all, and this is simply not a reason to block me. And BHG also relied upon assertion that I had defied what was covered in their previous block, which as I just explained is not the case.

To the contrary, this seems rather like a) BHG responding negatively and inappropriately to a legitimate request on their talk page for them to cease with their bothersomely pinging me; and b) BHG attempting to criminalize something that has never been wrong before, and themselves imposing punishment according to what only they believe is a crime.

I do ask that this block be undone. I would be happy to participate in proper discussion, in proper venue, about what BHG seeks to criminalize, and to otherwise follow up on their and my behavior. Doncram (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is over 1500 words. You need to reduce this to around 100 or 200 words. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I wrote this as a reply to a post made by Doncram[13], but found an edit conflict when I went to post my reply. Doncram's post has now been reformatted as an unblock request, but my reply is still relevant, so I am posting it anyway:

A pinged Doncram. I have not zapped Doncram. Merriam-Webster defines zapped as to get rid of, destroy, or kill especially with or as if with sudden force, etc. Using that language to describe a civil notification is WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.
A ping to an editor when fixing an error created by that editor is not WP:HARASSMENT. 4 pings are not WP:HARASSMENT.
Redlinks to articles can be appropriate. But placing a page in a redlinked category is not: see WP:REDNOT. Doncram has been notified of that many tines before, and in my post above, so Doncram's claim that I make up a criminal standard of their own and impose it upon me with no process is utter nonsense in substance, and that fact that it is nonsense has been explained to Doncram many times. As to Doncram's hyperbolic use of the word "criminal" ... sheesh.
When you leave articles in redlinked categories, they appear on the Special:WantedCategories cleanup lists used by other editors. That makes un-needed work for others. If you want come back to the articles later to refine the categorisation, then either remove the categories until then, or put a colon at the start so that they become links, like this [[:Category:Foo]].
Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States has been deleted at 3 separate CFDs, each closed by a difft admin. I am upholding that consensus.
Doncram's comment about "administrative categories" is more nonsense. Administrative categories are for administration: they categorise properties of the article, whereas content categories are used to categorise properties of the topic. "Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States" is clearly a property of the topic. If Doncram genuinely believes that this should somehow be an administrative category, they can open a WP:DRV ... but re-populating the deleted category is clearly defying consensus. See WP:TE.
Docram's claim that I went looking for reasons to block is malicious nonsense. Their claim that BHG did not reply to the discussion on their page that I opened, and instead blocked me is demonstrably false as a matter of fact. I replied at 09:19, and blocked at 09:22.
The sequence is that:
- I drafted a reply on my talk, but as I usually do with a difficult discussion, I held off on posting it so that I could review it fresh before posting. I went back to work cleaning up other entries in Special:WantedCategories, and revised my reply before posting it at 09:19[14]
- I then went back to Special:WantedCategories again, and found that Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States was no longer empty, so I checked and found that it was the result of an edit by Doncram which was made six hours after I had pinged the warning about that category,[15] and an hour after Doncram had posted my talk to complain about the ping. So Doncram was clearly aware of the issue.
- The category title rang a bell as one that had raised issues before, so I used used WhatLinksHere. That's where I saw the links to Doncram's talk, and found User talk:Doncram/Archive 29#November_2018. That made it clear that this wasn't simply a matter of creating redlinks in error, but a re-opening of a disruptive re-creation cycle. That's why I promptly blocked at 09:22, rather than issuing a warning: to promptly top he disruption.
- About an hour later, I posted my extended reasons[16] for the block.

In summary, this is all very simple: Domcram should read WP:REDNOT. If and when Donmcram does read and follow WP:REDNOT, I won't need to clean up after Doncram. So no more pings.

But sadly, after years of this, Doncram seems to have difficulty reading that guidance, so for Doncram's convenience I will post it here in big print:

WP:REDNOT: A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category. Either the category should be created, or else the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists.

Simple. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(EC) I have never heard anywhere or from anyone the assertion BHG is making, that accidentally or temporarily linking to a red-link category is anywhere near the criminal offense they are making it to be. Editors make typos all the time, and make links to disambiguation pages, and use bare URLs in references, and submit inadequate articles to AFC, and omit categories that should be applied, and make all sorts of similar edits which will eventually have to be responded to or to be improved upon in some way later. There is no consensus anywhere that any of this is criminal.

As I stated to BHG further up this page:

"I disagree with your interpretation of how collaboration in Wikipedia works. Which involves allowing different people to do what they want. In general it is not valid to criticize Wikipedia developers for not doing something you happen to focus upon. It just isn't valid. One could as well criticize other article creators for not attempting to add relevant categories, i.e. for leaving new articles relatively isolated/unpopulated with categories. Or one could just as well criticize other editors for not creating articles, or not enough articles. Or to criticize you personally for not having created, before I did, whichever needed article that i did create. How dare you not create the article and put it into all sorts of wonderful categories, beforehand?

For some of these things, bots have been set up to give a polite reminder (like for creating a link to disambiguation page) but editors are given the opportunity to turn such notifications off. About a redlink to a disambiguation page, that happens all the time, and it has never been a big deal, indeed that is why the special category detecting such exists, I suppose, and nothing is forcing BHG to clean up after me. I happen to clean up stuff all the time, of stuff left by other editors, and also I return to articles I have created and improve them, including sometimes by creating categories that prove to be useful and sometimes by removing categories that I have put in deliberately (when trying to determine if a category existed) or without attention to fact of redness (when accepting suggested categories for a given article from the tool that I and other NRHP editors use all the time). This is fine. I can't immediately say how many good new categories I have created and populated, but it must be a high number (multiple hundreds, certainly).

Sure, I do agree that links to red categories should not be left in the Wikipedia, and I work on addressing that all the time, along with trying to create and improve articles in many other ways. BHG is extrapolating wildly from what wp:REDNOT says to assert a time limit and to assert that it must be me who fix any temporary red link i created. REDNOT does not say that, and I have not ever seen anyone else agree with BHG about their view. BHG has blocked me for something that is not policy or practice.

BHG is making a big deal about a specific category about Late 19th century and early 20th century revival styles. This is NOT a case of my willfully disregarding a consensus about anything. I did disagree in the past about that category being deleted, but that is not relevant now. However it happens to be in the top 10 most common categories assigned in fact by the National Park Service which then comes in automatically in suggested categories for new NRHP articles (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_47#Architectural styles#this report I generated back in 2010 about the top categories, which shows it), so it is going to come into articles sometimes. Like articles in St. Louis or in Georgia (U.S. state) are going to come in too, because the widely-used tool gets those "wrong" according to current Wikipedia categories and tries to put them in "wrongly", and I and others don't always notice. Sometimes/often I have noticed the revival styles category coming into an article and have removed it or commented it out, in fact I am 100% positive that I have done the latter multiple times in recent weeks and could prove that by diffs (if I could run AWB to search for them and if I could reference diffs which I cannot while blocked). I have also been the editor most active in suggesting specific improvements to the off-wikipedia tool, and I have requested addressing those quirks and/or many similar ones in the past. Many of my specific requests have been addressed, but I can't make the tool author implement them all, but nonetheless I am certainly going to continue using the tool. It is imperfect but it helps greatly in the other direction, in terms of getting good categories into articles. If any of this was so horrible, then bots should address any contents of Special:WantedCategories and lots of other editors should be blocked, which is not done.

Sure, I myself have been a tad irritated at times about other editors doing other things that I have ended up "fixing", but I recognize that we all have to cooperate and that no one, not I and not BHG, has been authorized to make up their own rules and enforcement policy about these things. A big example is that I am a stickler about getting author names and preparation date and details about photos into inline references to NRHP documents. Several other NRHP editors are not, and I routinely "fix" many of their articles, without judgment. I mean I may have jawboned that they "should" put those things in, but I certainly do not assert they must do so. They happen to choose differently than I would prefer, about what they do and do not address themselves. I certainly would be glad to participate in an RFC or other proper process to discuss any proposal about links to red categories or other similar things; I am positive no RFC would support blocking editors for their making typos or redlinks or anything else like that.

BHGs other numbered points are distractions. Gee I am sorry I misunderstood the timing of one of their edits; it doesn't change anything here. --Doncram (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Doncram, help me understand why you created a page with a nonexistent category many hours after you were notified about it? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I just did. It was a start to an article, and it obviously needs further development, which I would get to, about the regular and category redlinks it includes. I would focus first on the redlinks in the text, perhaps creating an article or two on the architects, and circle back to expand it with more content, and as I understood more about the topic I would naturally get around to adding and refining categories. Sometimes I use template:under construction on articles, but that is not required, and more often i just start and proceed to make improvements in further edits. There is no explanation needed; there is nothing wrong with this. I regularly create articles about individual historic sites and also develop and expand list-articles about them, and I participate fully in improving them. Again it is awkward not being able to provide diffs, but see Plaza Square Apartments Historic District, where on 16 Jan i did notice and refine two category links (which I focused more on, because I was unsure about one of them, the Modern Movement architecture in Missouri one). Or see Steelcote Manufacturing Company Paint Factory, where in my 9th and 10th edits on 16 Jan I got around to refining categories, getting rid of a red category or two. Or in my last edit on 4 Jan at Kendrick Fraternal Temple i did same. Those are edits done separately about categories which I can find from the edit summaries I used; there are lots of category refinements including about that revival styles category which I implement in initial article creation or mixed with other changes. As I state above, I could prove that i have commented out that revivals style one multiple times recently. I am a prolific, productive editor, and have been so for years, and I have worked cooperatively with many many other editors focused on categories. This has not been asserted to be a problem by anyone else, ever, as far as I recall, and whatever category redlinks existed temporarily in more than 10,000 articles created by me have been addressed without contention, by me and others.

For an example of coordination with category editors, take this new List of trestle bridges created by me, and related edits. I realized there was a lack of explicit coverage about these, when I came across the topic while creating San Luis Southern Railway Trestle on 17 Jan. In my first edit there i tested "category:Trestles" and "category:Railroad trestles" and found neither existed. I created the first one, then later discovered that "category:Trestle bridges" and "Category:Trestle bridges in the United States" existed, and switched use to the latter. I started the list-article by use of the categories and an outside tool to find some NRHP-listed ones, and I went through the existing articles and added the relevant category where it was missing, or refined to put some into the U.S. subcategory. This is implicit coordination with others in the ongoing big effort to get categorization done well. Then later, I got a notice at my talk page that another editor, User:UnitedStatesian, proposes the Category:Trestles should be deleted, as the category was then empty, and I agreed to that (by my edit summary, in my removing the notice). I suppose that UnitedStatesian had found the category in that special category BHG mentions. This is all fine.

I do personally think BHG is being unduly negative, and unduly focused on the wrong priority in general. There is no need for BHG to follow me, whether by use of that special category or by any other means, and given past ill will about categories and other things (e.g. their nominating an essay of mine for deletion not too long ago and calling it crap and so on, which was not accepted by the MFD outcome), I rather think they should be enjoined from doing so. --Doncram (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doncram: you are making very heavy weather of something very simple for the millionth time, I am not following you. You choose to dump errors into a cleanup list which I and some other gnoming editors use, so if there is anyone following here, it's you following me by dumping pages into a cleanup list.

New categorisation entries are added to Special:WantedCategories at a rate of ~40–100 per day. Most of them fall into 3 categories: a) simple typos, b) edits by newbies who don't know that a category shouldn't be a redlink; c) categories which are part of a series, and might be presumed to exist.

In two years of clearing tens of thousands of such entries, you are one of only two editors I have ever encountered whose name appears frequently and repeatedly. The other was using a tool which didn't allow him to check for errors, and he had his tool access removed.

Your suggestion that bots should address any contents of Special:WantedCategories is more nonsense. Cleaning up Special:WantedCategories needs human judgement. It can't be done by a bot, which is why a few human editors work long hours cleaning up the mess.

Now, as to the rest of it:

All the rest of your commentary about categories is irrelevant. This about you populating redlinked categories.
As you your comment Gee I am sorry I misunderstood the timing of one of their edits; it doesn't change anything here ... try to learn a little but of manners. You made a whole set of allegations of misconduct against me, without checking our facts, which is why I used some of my limited time on this earth to disprove a slur which you chose to try to make. When your attempt at a smear is disprove, please have the decency to simply apologise for your error, and not to use sarcasm to claim that your falsehoods and slurs and irrelevant.

Again, this is all very simple. Read the guideine:

Which part of "never" is unclear to you, Doncram?

Donmcram says BHG is extrapolating wildly from what wp:REDNOT says to assert a time limit and to assert that it must be me who fix any temporary red link i created. There is no extrapolation at all here: WP:REDNOT says don't do it. Expecting others to cleanup after you is classic disruptive editing.

Doncram claims You seem to me to be asserting that the number one issue in Wikipedia is that redlink categories should not exist, over all other priorities. No, of course, this isn't the most important issue on en.wp, not by a very long way. What makes it an issue here is that Doncram's uniquely persistent, and long-term deliberate refusal to follow WP:REDNOT. This endless, intentional repetition of a simple error wastes a lot of time for a lot of other editors: in other words, it's disruptive editing.

WP:Disruptive editing is very clear about a persistent pattern of bad edits becomes disruptive: "An edit which, in isolation, is not disruptive may still be part of a pattern of editing that is", and "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is."

Both those problems describe Doncram's conduct. When repeated warnings don't get through, then blocks for disruptive editing follow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(uninvolved non-administrator comment) From reading the entirety of this and related sections it appears as if Doncram is displaying IDHT behaviour in regards to violating WP:REDNOT having been warned six times in the past (excluding the warning prior to the block) yet has continued without change. His claim that BHG is following him is laughable, given that she patrols Special:WantedCategories any redlinked categories he creates appears in there for all to see, it just so happens that she is one of the most active patrollers there. Tknifton (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It is also a suprise that given the number of warnings Doncram wasn't blocked for longer for it. Tknifton (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

unblock request 2

Doncram (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocking and not removing this block constitute unacceptable abuse of admin power/tools by the administrator BHG.

1. BHG's decision to block was partially based on their incorrect belief/assertion that I had done what I was blocked for previously (re-creation of a category without new CFD consensus). They cite endorsement by another admin as if their view on the different question here has been supported, which it was not. They have not admitted this or apologized. The fact of their mistake is pretty good reason why they should not insist on continuing the block. They have not admitted this or apologized.

2. Otherwise, we simply have a disagreement. I have explained well enough how and why I operate as I do, which sometimes allows redlink categories into mainspace, while allowing me and cooperating others to specialize and get more and better categorization done. It is not a case of IDHT, it is a case of "i do not believe your assertion about process", where BHG's assertion has not been supported. BHG has not, and I think cannot, point to any real support for their assertion.

Frankly, it is abuse of admin power to decree a rule and enforce it with blocks. I have offered to participate in RFC or other discussion; they show no willingness to discuss and in fact blocked me for my temerity in bringing up the issue at their Talk page. This is not what an admin should do.

About 1: BHG;s reasoning included "that the non-existent Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States has been repeatedly re-created by you after its deletion by consensus at WP:CFD" and "that I had previously blocked you for trying again to re-populate it: see User talk:Doncram/Archive 29#November_2018" and "that the block was upheld by the reviewing admin User:JBW". That is irrelevant here: JBW did agree with BHG on the issue of my trying to re-establish a previously deleted category, which I had tried to do in part by use of an admin category, intending to accumulate examples and then go to CFD. But after the block I gave up about that and it did not happen again.

About 2: The disagreement between BHG and myself otherwise about how wikipedia works, or should work, in the area of categorizing articles, and BHG or other admin should have recognized that by now, and cancelled the block. BHG is involved, obviously, in the disagreement and should not be enforcing their view. We have disagreed before, in discussion at my Talk and theirs. All they are doing is re-stating their view, and citing a statement which does not address the question. Insulting me by repetition fails to convince me about what are the policies/guidelines/practices associated with process of trying and adding categories. I know for a fact that Wikipedia did not always operate as BHG asserts it does now (as if accidental or purposeful trying of categories is a blockable offense); there was cooperative, natural specialization of editors interested in different aspects of article development. Those who liked creating articles did so, and omitted categories or took a shot at specifying categories and related stub tags. WikiGnomes, notably including User:Pegship about stub categories, chose to address categories and stub tags, and developed their specialization to do so. Multiple creations of redlink categories was considered as evidence that perhaps new categories were needed. Or their familiarity with existing categories allowed them to find existing ones to replace redlink ones. Wikipedia talk:Special:WantedCategories, the Talk page for shows some old evidence of that. Some time back I questioned BHG at their Talk whether it was they who put in the current wording that they cite; they did reply. I looked into it and could find no RFC or other discussion, it seemed that an editor just inserted it without discussion. It did/does not address timing or any idea of punishment/encouragement at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sorry, but this is just another variation of "unblock me because I was right". The fact that you dispute the basis of the block is a given: only deliberate vandals would not do so.

Instead, you should show how you will avoid future disruption. Guy (help!) 23:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment by blocking admin

Whether by accident or design, Doncram is making huge complexity and drama out of something very simple. This is all about WP:REDNOT, which Doncram bizarrely doesn't even mention by name. It says: "A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category. Either the category should be created, or else the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists."

There is no mistake, so naturally I make no admission or apology.
My reason for blocking is that Doncram's pattern of disruptive violations of WP:REDNOT had escalated by addition of an article to a category which had been deleted by consensus three times after Doncram's three creations, and by his addition of a further article to that category after I warned him on 19 Jan. Doncram could not re-create the page Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States for a forth time because it has been salted; the problem is that he was adding articles to a category which had been deleted three times. Doncram appears not to comprehend the simple point that the category has been deleted, so editors should stop adding articles to it ... and in particular that an editor who has a history of ignoring consensus about that category and has previously been blocked for that disruption shoukd not try any more end-runs around the core policy WP:Consensus.
No, it is not true that we simply have a disagreement. This is not a personal disagreement. It is a matter of Doncram disagreeing with the long-standing guidance WP:REDNOT.

Doncram says abuse of admin power to decree a rule and enforce it with blocks. If that was true, then maybe it would be an abuse of power. But Doncram's assertion is demonstrably false: I did not decree a rule. Doncram's repeated bogus allegations of misconduct are appalling behaviour; they are a form of smear.

Doncram says of me that All they are doing is re-stating their view. Not true; I am restating a long-standing guideline, whose wording is very clear. The rule is in the guideline WP:REDNOT, which I have never edited. (The section was added[17] in 2010, after discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Red_link/Archive_1#Avoiding_creation_of_certain_types_of_red_links. The wording was tweaked in 2018[18] Doncram could have checked that history himself, and should have done so before casting aspersion, but instead of doing so has chosen to repeatedly malign my good faith in discussions above, and in the latest unblock request has falsely claimed that it seemed that an editor just inserted it without discussion).

So I don't know why Doncram persists in repeating the demonstrable falsehood that I "decreed" a rule. I have posted the relevant two sentences of the guideline twice in the last few days, so Doncram's persistent denial of its existence is very troubling. (If he feels "insulted by repetition", then he can at any stage spare me from the need to repeat it by acknowledging what REDNOT says). I am unable to see how a competent editor acting in good faith could fail to understand what WP:REDNOT says. I am also unable to see how a competent editor acting in good faith can repeatedly claim that I made this up, when I have repeatedly pointed to the guideline.

Finally, Doncram makes a long comment about how some things were different in the early days of Wikipedia. Indeed, many things were difft in the early days, but consensus can change, and in this case it is no longer what Doncram describes from those early days: the current guidance has been stable for a decade. If Donmcram would like to change the guidance, then WP:RFC is thataway ... but unless and until an RFC agrees to change it, Doncram should follow it as every other does, and stop their WP:Disruptive editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I did NOT try to re-create that revivals category or the "St. Louis, Missouri" category or any other category that BHG objects to. Some articles got put into them by the process of article creation using the tool; the remedy is to revise those articles, e.g. to remove the revivals category or to change to "St. Louis".

I did NOT say that BHG inserted or revised what REDNOT says. I stated accurately that in the past I searched for the creation of that wording, and I found that some editor (not BHG) added it without any discussion that I could find.

I do see what REDNOT says, and in general I work to use existing categories and create new ones where appropriate, and to do good categorization of articles using them. Maybe this hinges on the word "never", which is interpreted by BHG as an absolute prohibition, while I interpret it as "in general, no redlink categories should be left permanently or for a long time in mainspace".

I do assert BHG is making up their interpretation that any entry by me, or by anyone, of a redlink category into an article, whether by accident or when deliberately testing for existence of a category, is a crime, and is a crime justifying their being blocked. I see it as a collective effort, and I am helping as I see fit. It is okay that I (a prolific editor using a specific tool that suggests categories) and others have occasionally or often made edits putting in categories that turn out to be redlinks. There is no deadline, and as long as I and others are working along to do categorization (like in the examples I gave above, where i addressed temporarily red categories) that is fine.

Never allowing any redlink in an article, or never allowing any red category anywhere, or adherence to what rule BHG declares without ability to point to any consensus, is not what Wikipedia is about.

If existence of a redlinked category was so horrible, or even very high priority to address, the situation could be addressed by many different means. Software could enforce it absolutely (like not allowing an article to be saved if it cites a blacklisted source). Or a bot could be targeted at that revivals category or others known to show up occasionally, and make specific edits to them. Or relatively gentle automated reminders could be given, as happens for mainspace article links to disambiguation pages. Or some editor(s) other than BHG, who does not get along with me, could voluntarily choose to work with me specifically to improve categorization of NRHP articles in various positive ways. Bureaucratic criminalization + punishment has driven away countless editors.

--Doncram (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(Uninvolved non-administrator comment) BrownHairedGirl is not saying that the block is for adding the redlinks themselves. Rather, the stated reason for the block is for ignoring warnings and proceeding anyways (i.e. the WP:IDHT and WP:CIR parts of the disruptive editing behavioral guideline). Also, you may want to revise your unblock request since NinjaRobotPirate's denial of your last request says You need to reduce this to around 100 or 200 words. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Doncram thinks that never doesn't mean never. Just wow.

The rest is a mix of Doncram denying that they ever made their false claim that I decreed a rule, and Doncram yet again ignoring the simple fact that they were blocked for re-populating a category which has been deleted three times after they re-created it in defiance of a CFD consensus.

There may or may not be scope for improvements to the way that redlinked categories are handled. If Doncram wants to propose any improvements, WT:CAT is thisaway, and if they want to change guidance, then WP:RFC is thataway. Meantime, the current guidance stands.

This is not about whether or not to "improve categories". New categories are created all the time, and Doncram is as free as any other editor to create new categories if they choose. This is just about a very simple technical issue: do not leave a page in a category which does not exist.

Good luck in finding those others willing to work with an editor who thinks that never doesn't actually mean never, and who describes an en.wp block for sustained disruption and WP:IDHT as "criminalisation". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Good heavens. I read Doncram's last paragraph as "But it's too hard to do what I've been told five thousand times to do over a period of nine years, so I can't be expected to do it, and it's everyone else's fault for not making Wikipedia clean up after me automatically or working with me patiently and endlessly in a way that will allow me not to have to change my behavior." Utter abdication of personal responsibility for their own activity. Largoplazo (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doncram: You can see how the AN discussion is going, so can I make a suggestion? Just replace your current unblock request with something like "OK, I won't add any more non-existent categories to articles". What do you think? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- If something as clear as that is posted without qualification, then I will lift the block. Just ping me and I will get to it ASAP ... and no prob if someone else gets there first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Boing! said Zebedee for the suggestion, but I don't agree to the criminalization of category redlinks, or to BHGs enforcement of their view. I don't agree that occasional existence of category redlinks is a disruption at all; it is part of Wikipedia development just as much as article redlinks, links to disambiguation pages, and typos. Consider this: I have created more than 10,000 articles, including say 1,000 or more in the last year, and for a moment there were 4 or 8 or some other very small number of them (all new ones) which temporarily had category redlinks. Which were going to be addressed, by me and by others, including others who follow that special category of redlinks and help out in resolving them, sometimes by creating the categories. --Doncram (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly leaving residue in a cleanup pile for others to deal with is, by definition, disruptive. I'm reading your latest remark as "I disagree with the guidelines, and my disagreement exempts me from them. And the extra work I cause you is of no concern to me; how vulgar of you to protest." Largoplazo (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You are framing it differently. Sure, all pesky issues of untidiness could be addressed by closing Wikipedia, by blocking all potential contributors. What I and many others are working on, cooperatively, is developing articles, and there are stubs which can/should be developed further and there are typos and similar minor things that happen to require followup. I am not forcing anyone to do any work at all, and I would prefer that editors who are not interested in actually positively building categorization of articles, should not be checking that special category. For example, the temporary presence of a redlink to that architectural revivals category is an indicator that some architectural category is probably needed; it should not be removed by a robot or by an editor hyper-focused on the elimination of items that category. And sensible processes, mostly by me, have addressed items there all along, without conflict. The conflict is happening now because BHG (alone, as far as I know) is decreeing that there is a horrible problem, and is enraged that redlink categories -- equivalent to typos in articles -- ever exist. I don't think it would be wise for the collective editorship to criminalize the work-in-process, and I really think it is wrong for one admin to decree it so and then go out and impose punishments. --Doncram (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Doncram, this is repetitive. As noted before, Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States was deleted at 3 CFDs, each closed by a difft editor. You still seem to have a WP:IDHT response to that sustained consensus.

No, I am not the only editor who cleans up Special:WantedCategories. A huge lot of work has been on that done by a range of other editors, including (at various times) by e.g. @Le Deluge, Gjs238, and Rathfelder.

As above, I didn't decree anything: WP:REDNOT was written by others. And do see the discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock_appeal_from_Doncram. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourself. But your repetition about that revivals category (which is not an issue at all here; there is no CFD or other proposal to restore it) does seem to indicate you confused that into your decision to block me. --Doncram (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Doncram, I repeated facts because you haven't taken them on board.

And I repeat that I confused nothing. The problem is simply that you refuse to hear what is said to you ... whether by me, by 3 CFDs, by WP:REDNOT, or at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock_appeal_from_Doncram.

Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States cannot be restored by you, because it is salted. Given the history, you can be presumed to be well aware that it does not exist and will not exist.

So there is absolutely no benefit in placing articles in that category. The only effect is to breach WP:REDNOT, and create entries in Special:WantedCategories which other editors will have to clean up.

You were blocked because deliberately making cleanup work for other editors is WP:disruptive editing, and because you did this only a few hours after a warning about that very category, and only 13 months after you were blocked for your previous failure to accept consensus about that category.

You have been told that repeatedly ever since you were blocked ... and yet you still pretend that you have not heard it.

As I noted two hours ago[19], I will unblock you if you promise to stop leaving articles in non-existent categories, and there are clearly other admins who are also willing block you if you give that assurance you will stop the disruption. Your call. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not persuaded that "Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States" is a typo. Largoplazo (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doncram: OK, it was just a suggestion, because I wanted to see you back to content work as soon as possible. I just don't understand the degree of melodrama over something so relatively trivial, especially when you can see the consensus at AN is overwhelmingly against you. Oh well, I tried. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There, I fixed it

Apparently, my infobox generator was allowing "Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States" to be listed as a category, even though it doesn't exist. I've always cautioned editors to be careful and to proofread the output of the infobox generator, but sometimes people don't do that. So, I made a code fix.

In common.php around line 424:

// HACK of a fix so people don't keep stuffing bogus categories into infoboxes if (strcmp($row[0], "Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States" == 0) ) { $row[0] = "THIS CATEGORY DOES NOT EXIST"; continue; }

I need to get back to my day job now, but suffice it to say that I think this should alleviate the problem. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus of one

In one of doncram's many subpages I found links to previous category disagreements between doncram and BrownHairedGirl. One of those links is an addition to the Categoriazation Guideline:

An article should never be left with an uncreated/redlinked category on it. If a category that you want to apply does not already exist under any title, either create it or remove the redlinked category altogether. (Bearcat, 2009 Jan 21)

doncram's notes also indicate that no discussion took place Talk page archive 10. Perhaps doncram is finding it difficult to believe a consensus of one is at the root of his block? 76.119.40.77 (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

To the I.P. editor, who are you, by the way.

But sure, that looks accurate to me about being the edit, apparently by User:Bearcat, which created REDNOT or added that statement to it or whatever, which i had identified in the past. About the link to Archive 10 there, I don't immediately see a discussion supporting that, maybe a more specific pointer would help. But I don't imagine it considered, much less established a consensus about, the idea that red category links were to be treated as a horrible problem justifying blocking.

I do appreciate that this I.P. editor is the only respondent so far who has attempted to point to any past discussion which might have established the consensus that BHG decrees to exist. It was/is entirely reasonable for me as target of that admin, to object i do not see where they are coming from; they certainly did not reply seriously on this. --Doncram (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Doncram's false statements on points of fact

Doncram post above[20] (17:09, 22 January 2020) continues to display at best an WP:IDHT approach. At worst, Doncram is telling lies.

This point has been raised by Doncram before, and I responded in a post above,[21] timestamped "02:16, 21 January 2020" in the log (and "02:15, 21 January 2020" in the sig). Here's what I wrote:

The rule is in the guideline WP:REDNOT, which I have never edited. (The section was added[22] in 2010, after discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Red_link/Archive_1#Avoiding_creation_of_certain_types_of_red_links. The wording was tweaked in 2018[23] Doncram could have checked that history himself, and should have done so before casting aspersion, but instead of doing so has chosen to repeatedly malign my good faith in discussions above, and in the latest unblock request has falsely claimed that it seemed that an editor just inserted it without discussion).

It took me only about 5 minutes to check the above.

Sadly, Doncram has chosen not hear what I wrote above, and has chosen not do his own checks. Instead Doncram falsely states that this I.P. editor is the only respondent so far who has attempted to point to any past discussion which might have established the consensus. That is untrue.

Doncram also writes It was/is entirely reasonable for me as target of that admin, to object i do not see where they are coming from; they certainly did not reply seriously on this. This is another demonstrably false statement, which misrepresents my actions: I did reply seriously on this, at 02:16, 21 January 2020[24].

If Doncram is acting in good faith, then then they will promptly strike both of those false statements. I understand that Domcram does not like being blocked, but that resentment does not give Doncram a licence to tell lies ... and if Donmcram is not a liar and does not intend to deceive, then they can demonstrate their good faith by striking their false assertions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

points not addressed, harsh consequences

I do see this process is working badly for me, and that others are not agreeing to, say, rule that BHG overstepped their admin role and should be chastised/reversed or whatever. An unblock request process is simply not ever going to do that; it is not the right forum. It is my understanding that the unblock request process cannot handle a defense of "what i did is not wrong"; the only allowable defense is "i confess i was wrong and i promise to not do that again". Facts as I see them are:

This situation is one where no disruption has happened. A few category redlinks existing temporarily does not break Wikipedia, and is comparable to typos, regular redlinks, or links to disambiguation pages existing temporarily in articles. For which no one deems there to be a horrible problem, it is just Wikipedia proceeding along.

an admin, who has had abusive-type interactions with an editor (me) before, has come back to the editor with an only-decreed-by-them crime and punishment. This has been pointed out to them; they should have withdrawn the block; other admins should have cancelled it if they did not, and perhaps there could be some new RFC or whatever could ensue to debate whether category redlinks should be criminalized.

the difference between BHG and me is that they are an admin and I am not. They are imposing with raw power what they want, and are not willing to act like an admin and not do that. If I were an admin, I would be sensitive to fact or appearance of bullying; they simply are not, it is what they do AFAICT.

the admin has not seriously answered questions, has proceeding by deriding me and acting tough, which is inappropriate but is carrying the day; a lot of ANI editors find that appealing and support it, and also will tend to side with an admin against a non-admin as here.

I have been really damaged by this. I don't think the admin or anyone else cares or would believe this has any bearing on how this should be resolved, they rather would think i am getting what i deserve (for what? for disagreeing with the admin, I guess). How i am damaged:
- the block adds to block from November by same admin destroying my record, my prospects for an RFA, say.
- I am publicly ridiculed, abused, identified as a suitable target for other bullying. Derisive treatment by others has already ensued. I expect participants here and at ANI are likely to follow me and identify faults to be prosecuted.
- I am damaged in the WikiProject NRHP domain where i mostly have worked; my productive record is again dismissed, and my ability to get big things done in cooperation with other NRHPers is diminished towards zero again. This has happened before, I can see it.

The decree is giving no weight to value of good positive categorization getting done, in cooperation with others who choose to specialize and work together; all weight is put on shutting down . If that were the goal of wikipedia, it should be implemented in software, not by coming down on me.

The admin is trying (maybe succeeding) in setting the bar for my going forward to be that I must create and win an RFC to change from what they decree to be the status quo. Note that if in that I were to try to state their rule as, say "if anyone creates a red category link they are to be blocked", that would be denied; it would be pointed out there is an prohibition for me alone. There is no feasible way for me to proceed here, honestly. The admin is clear that they will not cooperate in any real discussion of what works for Wikipedia; i surely would be just abused by going along the path they pseudo-suggest here.

The only option allowed for me is to put my face in the ground and smell dog poo, pretty much. I am sure that is what is wanted, to press my nose down, really for reason of objecting to the admin. The point would seem to be to humiliate me, which is succeeding.

On principal I object to changing my effective practices for no valid reason. If i tried to go on strike by, say, dropping all categories out of articles I create, that would be laughable; the admin involved and all others AFAICT would not give a whit. I happen to have experience with longterm bullying from admins before, and it matters to me that the bully should not get their arbitrary way. The prospect of my ceasing to create articles or my only working on a extremely short leash (actually I perceive it would be a zero tolerance leash) is humiliating and depressing already. It is bad for my mental health.

I already perceived the admin as seeking to drive me away, to impose punitive costs on my, by their pinging me and probably being unwilling to ever stop with that. With the current resolution, such as it is, I am to expect that all my further edits can/will be reviewed by them with eye towards blocking me, and this seriously detracts or eliminates my expectation of being able to enjoy contributing in Wikipedia going forward

If i proceed creating articles as I regularly do, at anything like the rate I do, and using the really very good but imperfect tool that I use, then pretty surely a red category link will appear sooner or later. As a matter of my routine, which works very well and does not disrupt anything, I create articles that in their first edit are clearly legitimate topics with sources, but are incomplete, and I proceed to go back and forth with related topics, e.g. creating articles about architects and whatever. And refining coordinates that are imperfect, if I check them and see i can do better. And refining categories to describe the topic, which often can't be done until the topic is more fully developed. I most often accept at least temporarily the categories suggested by the tool I use, but if I happen to be aware of a glitch in that tool and notice it has come into play, then in my first edit or later I will make changes (e.g. add or drop "(U.S. state)" following the word "Georgia", because actual categories vary kind of randomly in using that qualifier or not).

On one level, because I object to the raw authoritarian unjustified imposition, I think either i could be inclined to push a little on the margin, or I would be perceived as doing that. Say with my linking to Category:Platoon schools, which I thought might exist and which is possibly/likely a good category to create. Or say my creating an article but then "fixing" it within 30 seconds. I rather think BHG, or others now interested in this kind of thing, would be watching like hawks in order to block me for a week or two weeks or whatever, next.

None of this serves Wikipedia's development. None of it goes along with sensible, comparable practices elsewhere. It is all a matter, as I see it, of one admin making a decree for the sake of making a decree or following a vendetta or what other reason I do not know.

I understand that none of this probably matters to the admin or to the participants here or at wp:ANI who have self-selected in (with scant exception, perhaps just one exception that I know of). I wanted to express, at least here, some of the impacts and facts as I see them. I would actually welcome comments and advice about what should be done, and how I could possibly proceed. Besides quitting Wikipedia, say, which would be personally wrenching, but might be one of few ways for me to continue in my life with any dignity. --Doncram (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Doncram, there is no decree. There is no unilateral imposition. There is no vendetta against you. Your points have been addressed repeatedly, at length, but you choose to ignore the answers.

Any damage to Doncram's reputation is caused solely by caused by a0 Doncram's persistent refusal persistent refusal to end the disruption, and follow the ten-year-old guideline WP:REDNOT; and b) by Doncram's repeated false statements. See for example, the section above #Doncram's false statements on points of fact, where I note Doncram's repetition of untruths which I had already demonstrated to be untrue.

The current block will expire in a few hours. I made this block a short one, in the hope that Doncram would accept this ten-year-old guideline. That is the outcome I want: an end to disruption, and Doncram free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

However, that does not seem to be what's happening. The disruptive effect of Domcram's continued dumping of articles into a cleanup list has been repeatedly explained, but Doncram chooses to ignore that. Doncram refuses even to accept that after their repeated re-creations of Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States have been deleted by consensus at 3 separate CFDs, they should stop defying the clear WP:CONSENSUS: i.e stop adding articles to that deleted and WP:SALTed category.

In my extended explanation of this block,[25] timstamped 10:32, 20 January 2020, I wrote: please be in no doubt that if after this block expires there is any resumption of your disruptive rejection of repeated consensus on the same point, then I will block you for much longer, possibly indefinitely. That warning still stands.

If Doncram wants to continue editing, then there is a simple way to do so: follow WP:REDNOT as the established guideline, and accept the consensus about Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States.

That simply means that unless and until there is consensus to change a guideline, that Doncram works within that guideline. That doesn't mean like the guideline or agree with it; just aceept it unless and until it is changed. In this, or any other case, if you disagree with the consensus or believe that the guideline as written does not reflect a consensus, then feel free to open a WP:RFC to propose a change ... and accept the outcome of that RFC.

There are numerous en.wp guidelines with which I disagree, but which I accept unless and until consensus changes. Every experienced editor disagrees with some guidelines. But it is absolutely central to the whole process of working collaboratively that we accept that sometimes things don't go our way. That applies to any human collaboration, online or offline, and there is no loss of dignity in accepting that sometimes our personal preferences do not prevail. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ublock discussion

OMG. Far too much text here for a simple man like me to make sense of. @BrownHairedGirl:, would you mind terribly if I post a request at WP:AN for someone to try to read all this? I've gone cross-eyed and have a headache from trying.-- Deep fried okra 11:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: A note at AN sounds like a good idea. This has indeed turned into a morass, and while Doncram deserves to have someone review his unblock request, it will need to be someone willing to put in more time than is needed for most such requests. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Roger. Willco-- Deep fried okra 11:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Really? All this verbiage for a 72 hour block? As NRP has intimated, conciseness is to be valued. If he couldn't get through it, there's no possibility I can. @Doncram: As you have made an accusation of admin abuse, I suggest you complain at WP:AN once this block expires. ANd Doncram, could you please archive this talk page? It is very, very long-- Deep fried okra 11:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

For a minute here, i thought I was unblocked, but that is not so. Maybe the ongoing block review serves some purpose, but I cannot participate there. Being blocked, i still cannot cite diffs or specific revisions of pages, anyhow. Thanks Deepfriedokra for the advice; i will follow up in those ways. --Doncram (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Well you can certainly post responses here and ask that they be carried over. However, the block expires in < 24 hours anyway.-- Deep fried okra 11:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:AN

I have posted a request for a block review.-- Deep fried okra 11:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that Deepfriedokra's request is at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unblock_appeal_from_Doncram. Discussion there is ongoing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Central Platoon School

As an aside to all the above discussion, if you had spent the time researching and writing the article instead of writing many paragraphs arguing about nonexisting categories and appealing for an unblock, the article would be a lot better quality. The casual reader would be able to get a sense of what a platoon school actually is and why it was innovative for its time.

Also, you left the "architect OR builder" wording in the template, instead of changing it to just "architect". (Remember when you asked me to make that change to the infobox generator?) And, it's Renaissance Revival architecture, despite the NRIS just listing it as "Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals".

Do us all a favor and spend the time researching and writing the articles, instead of writing page after page of arguments and unblock appeals and other non-article content. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure this article and perhaps a new article on platoon school concept can be developed and cover the idea. I take your word that the NRHP document cited in the article does support terming it Renaissance Revival style, and I would be happy to address that. I really didn't get that far, obviously. So far what has happened, development-wise, is just determining that a "platoon school" is a real thing, and that it seems not to be covered yet in Wikipedia. Also, there appears not to be coverage in Wikipedia of the architects mentioned, but I think the NRHP document contains considerable detail about them which will support article(s) for them, too. I am perfectly well proud of my content contributions in Wikipedia, including discovering and developing about many larger topics that get brought up by my main focus on developing articles about historic sites. --Doncram (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment

I'd read all of the disagreements between you and BHG as a dispute between two editors, but I seem to be the only one who sees it that way so I stand corrected. Regardless, I hope you resolve the issue quickly to get back to writing content. Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that sentiment, and for your speaking up at the admin noticeboard. An effect of my being blocked is I can't use the "Thank" tool, by the way. I do hope/think you are not the only one to think that way. I too would like to be writing content as I usually do, but not with a sword hanging over me. --Doncram (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

notes

Revisit First Methodist Episcopal Church (Salt Lake City, Utah) about change of NRHP listing name being out of order, tho sure allow commentary on longest name.

University of Montevallo Historic District

You did some updates on this one and left it in an "under construction" state. Maybe you can revisit sometime? MB 03:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

No topic

I trust you are enjoying a short wiki-break and hope you will be back building content soon.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Mistresses of schools has been nominated for discussion

Category:Mistresses of schools, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Church lists

Thanks for your comment. I'm sorry I have contributed to the AfD being unpleasant, I actually just wanted to move forward on improving the article with a bit more time than just the time elapsing during an AfD (especially when editors have offered to do that, and I'm happy to help to the limited extent I can). I just find the comments (and I don't mean from you at all) to the effect that it "must be immediately removed from mainspace" and the like really unhelpful. My comment about editors disliking religious-themed articles stemmed from a !vote in the first AfD that was explicitly to that effect, but also the feeling that it seems that articles like that are subjected to far more scrutiny than other AfDs I have participated in, where finding a couple of sources is more than enough for a keep !vote. But I can see it was an unfair generalisation.

I'm very happy to help with any religious-themed articles - over the past month I've created articles on just about every current bishop in the Anglican Church in Australia (many of them were missing) so happy to find somewhere to contribute more than making unconstructive edits at AfDs. Bookscale (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This relates to my comment/invitation to Bookscale at their Talk page, and to ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester. Hey thanks, User:Bookscale for replying, and I do hope we can cooperate on some religious-themed stuff in the future. I did not mean to blame you, if I seemed to do that, about how the AFD has unfolded. I do feel it got to be unpleasant, and perhaps/probably I contributed to that or we all did. Anyhow I hope that we can do differently in the future. :) --Doncram (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

An apology

Sorry for hounding you in the AfD. At the time, I just felt like I was defending my position, but looking back at it now, I can see how annoying and in-your-face I was being. Bait30 ^Talk? 01:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This relates to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baitus Samee Mosque (Houston), where I commented in the AFD about what i felt was going on, process-wise, fairly directly. An alternative would have been for me to post to a Talk page elsewhere (and often/usually is the best course), but in this case I felt something needed to be stated in the AFD itself. Thank you User:Bait30 for hearing me and for your kindly apologizing here. I hope/expect we'll get along well in the future! --Doncram (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Doncram,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Innis Dye Works

Hi! I'm de-orphaning places on the NRHP and I came across Innis Dye Works. I was wondering if I could get some help - I cannot for the life of me figure out what's up with it. It's not listed at National Register of Historic Places listings in Poughkeepsie, New York, the link with the NHRP reference number doesn't work (straight up just shows a blank page), a raw search of the NHRP database doesn't produce any results... I'm stumped. I can't think of any other way to figure out if it's an individual listing, a contributing property, or if it's even on the NHRP. Since you seem to be the resident NHRP guru, I was wondering if you could help at all? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Not Doncram, but I can help. Innis Dye Works refnum 82005072 appears in NRIS with status DO (determined eligible - owner objection), per the Elkman NRHP tool. The Poughkeepsie MRA document also includes it on a list of owner-objection properties, so it would appear to have never been listed on the National Register. (You can ask these sorts of questions at WT:NRHP.) Magic♪piano 04:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I had no idea about that tool, that's very cool. Since it's never been listed, should the NRHP infobox/cats/etc all be stripped out? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Builder/architect field

I remember a year or so ago you were concerned that I may have made some mistakes in fixing some of these issues. Today I found Robertson County Courthouse (Tennessee), and it just looked wrong to me to have two names in the architect field in such a short article. So I went to the nom form and found one was the architect and the other the builder. The infobox had them both listed as architect from when it was created in June 2009. I'm guessing that was just what the infobox generator tool did back then? Do you think there could be many more of these? There are so many very short articles like this one that don't get much attention....

Hi, i see i created that article in June 2009, perhaps before I knew to make the distinction or perhaps when I thought it was okay to go with the probabilities. Yes the infobox generator operated that way until some date in 2012(?) i think, contributing/building up an issue (about 10 percent of infoboxes would provide incorrect information, is the estimate I settled upon later). I started working on a big list of architects, builders, engineers in this edit from December 2010, towards sorting out which was which for the top 900 cases at least. In between there was a brouhaha about it all. Yes, it is possible/likely that articles created before mid-2010 or December 2010 or whenever in 2012(?) the infobox generator changed, especially ones not much developed since then, could have such miss-statements. I wonder if candidate articles to be reviewed could be found using AWB, i.e. if one can select NRHP articles created before a certain date? --Doncram (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Another way to find likely errors would be to browse in articles that were relatively recently NRIS-only or were very short articles, occasionally listed out in multiple reports within User:NationalRegisterBot/Substubs. Or browse among the articles created by NRHP editors who never made the distinction, out of a 2016 or so report of substubs organized by creator (a report which I ran a few times before the code broke, not sure right now where that report is located). --Doncram (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

On another note, I created another NRHP article quite unintentionally. I went to write about the Apache Powder Company - due to a AFD on the place it was located - and when I was almost done with the article I found there was a HD associated with the company - a group of adjacent houses rented to management. So the HD is covered in the company article also. MB 01:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Neat, thanks for sharing. --Doncram (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

March Madness indeed

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bacondrum (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Buffalo Presbyterian Church (Montello, Wisconsin) moved to draftspace

Hi, I moved the article to draftspace for now because of the issue at Talk:Buffalo Presbyterian Church (Montello, Wisconsin)#Wrong church?. Hopefully this can be figured out soon... kind of a strange one. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Taunting

I have reviewed the ANI thread that resulted from your "nyah" comment. That posting can only be understood as taunting, and was improper. Do not do anything like that again. If you do, I will block you for a substantial period of time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Marine Hotel

Hi, thanks for your comment at The Cunninghams AFD. On another topic I wonder if you might be interested in creating an article for The Marine Hotel in Brora, Scotland - its a Grade II listed building so it qualifies under WP:NGEO and its chef has a michelin star unless he's left in this crisis, regards Atlantic306 (talk)

Hmm, the Royal Marine Hotel, Restaurant and Spa or Royal Marine Hotel or Marine Hotel, the one at 7 Golf Rd, in Brora, United Kingdom, at 58°00′44″N 3°50′54″W / 58.012188°N 3.848210°W?

Which per Visit Scotland page on it, was "Originally built as a private country house in the early 1900's by renowned Scottish architect Sir Robert Lorimer, and per the hotel's "About us" page, "Sir Robert Lorimer designed the original mansion house in 1913 as a private home for a northern industrialist. The property was built a few years before Lorimer’s return to Brora, immediately after the First World War, when he was commissioned by The Duke of Sutherland to restore Dunrobin Castle, which had been ravaged by fire in 1915. / The ambiance of the Royal Marine Hotel owes everything to Sir Robert Lorimer: The wooden arches in the entrance hall; the formal dining room, the panelled snooker room and the grand staircase all contribute to an atmosphere of quiet elegance. / Bedrooms 1 to 8,12,14, 22 & 23 are parts of the original House. / Later addition in 1997 are bedrooms 9 to 11 & 15 to 21." And which per its "About Brora" page is by the Brora Golf Club, "designed by the great James Braid in 1891, takes the Arctic tern as its crest and the course has been praised by major champions Tom Watson and Johnny Miller. / Neolithic settlers were here 5,000 years ago, their burial chambered cairn is on the shore of Loch Brora while the remains of seven brochs, or towers, from 600 BC to 100AD are in the parish. / Clynelish Distillery is acclaimed for it’s ‘water of life’, to be sampled after a stroll, or a visit to beautiful Dunrobin Castle, home to the Dukes of Sutherland, five miles away. / Brora is on the North Coast 500 route and the John O’Groats Walking Trail and is ideally located an hour south to Inverness and an hour north to Wick or Thurso past the internationally protected Flow Country." The one with physical description at BRORA GOLF ROAD ROYAL MARINE HOTEL, at Historic Scotland, which was built for C.H. Ackroyd and formerly known as Duncraggie?

Hmm, well it would be nice to have the plans for "House for Charles H. Ackroyd. Sketch and survey plans, sections and elevations." and other subcollections from the Lorimer and Matthew collection at Historic Environment Scotland, which is regrettably closed for the time being; hopefully those would be in the public domain now. Would you have any chance at getting to those, if it were open? By the way, a C.H. Ackroyd, presumably the same, authored "A Veteran Sportsman's Diary" at The Pennie Collection, Edinburgh: Scottish Geneology Society. Which is a 337 page book at Amazon, from 1926. --Doncram (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, yes its the Royal Marine Hotel, 7 Golf Road, Brora. Unfortunately there is an essential travel only order in the UK so I can't get to the archives until the restrictions are lifted which could be months at least.Thanks for looking into it, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your thoughtful resolution of the Taman Bunga Merdeka matter. BD2412 T 03:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The Jefferson Hotel

Hi Doncram, there is already a disambiguation page at Jefferson Hotel. Would it make more sense to make The Jefferson Hotel a redirect to that page? The only article that would need to be added is The Jefferson. Leschnei (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), definitely, especially since both entries were already listed at Jefferson Hotel (The Jefferson was already there). I have boldly redirected this. MB 15:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Leschnei and MB, both of you for this! And now I have refined a bit more at Jefferson Hotel, including looking into whether the 1851-built Jefferson, Texas one might be included in Jefferson Historic District (Jefferson, Texas).

(Seems not, based on Google maps pointing to a modernish building (though this seems to me could not have been built in 1851, and, using Google streetview, shows name as "Inn at Jefferson", which is just outside the bounds of the district, per map in NRHP doc).

But maybe it the Excelsior House, the one hotel in the district. Leading me to compose the entry as:

Jefferson Hotel (Jefferson, Texas), asserted to have been built in 1851, subject of a My Ghost Story episode (and if it is the hotel known as "Excelsior House", is NRHP-listed as an element of Jefferson Historic District (Jefferson, Texas))

That's somewhat unusual for a dab page entry but i think it is good. --Doncram (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC) [revised 15:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)]

relics of some ancient page moves/corrections

"Cortes (disambiguation page)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cortes (disambiguation page). Since you had some involvement with the Cortes (disambiguation page) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"Elmhurst (disambiguation page)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Elmhurst (disambiguation page). Since you had some involvement with the Elmhurst (disambiguation page) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"Elmhirst (disambiguation page)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Elmhirst (disambiguation page). Since you had some involvement with the Elmhirst (disambiguation page) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Per discussion there, the existence of redirects reflect ancient moves of pages to make corrections, which left redirects behind. One related edit of mine, fixing stuff but then leading to one of these moves by me, was this edit in 2010. Deleting them now causes problems apparently. --Doncram (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"Trinity United Methodist Curch" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trinity United Methodist Curch. Since you had some involvement with the Trinity United Methodist Curch redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 15:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Leicester churches

Thanks for your help in building the Leicester churches list. I've always believed that one of the best indicators of high intelligence is the ability to keep an open mind and adjust when one's original beliefs are shown to be wrong. With the combined efforts of all, this is turning into a pretty decent article.

I've long believed that Catholic churches are one of the most under-represented areas for Wikipedia article development. The Catholic Church (at least in the US) appears to be reluctant to seek historic designation for its churches and other buildings -- probably because (a) there's no property-tax incentive for a church to seek such designation (since they are exempt anyway), and (b) the designation impose restrictions on potential redevelopment without the counterbalancing tax savings. Lists of churches such as the Leicester list and similar lists in California (e.g., Our Lady of the Angels Pastoral Region) can be great resources not only for church organization purposes, but also for identifying historically significant structures that have been overlooked. If you have any interest in further work in this area, I'd be happy to help. Cbl62 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Harrumph, i wasn't wrong! And who are you referring to about having intelligence? Not me! (This is about List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester). Grrr. --Doncram (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, i meant the above jokingly, and accepting that I was wrong about one thing there. I was in fact wrong about several things and admitting it, there, and i have been proving wrong in unrelated discussions, but unfortunately i've gone back to the Talk there and started claiming i was technically not wrong about that thing. Which doesn't matter there, and I don't mean to undermine what you've said, Cbl62. The bigger point(s) stand, and humility in editing matters a lot in helping/letting good stuff get done. About pursuing a big RC-dioceses-and-their-churches-and-schools campaign, I am not sure. I do very much like cooperating in a campaign with two or more editor(s) actively contributing and figuring stuff out and writing better and better. I think it depends on geographic area and sources and maybe local editors being receptive or helpful or not; it is hard to get up to speed, to be definitive about what can and cannot be found about churches and schools, in a different area with different sources. There are some geographic areas where I do NOT want to go in editing. And I'm not sure about this level of detail, the level of parish churches. For RC stuff, would it be better to work at a higher level, like on List of Roman Catholic churches in the United Kingdom addressing more significant churches? Or addressing gaps for whole countries or continents in Wikipedia's coverage of RC stuff, again depending on sources? Sorry not answering simply. But, sure, actually, Cbl62, I would be happy/willing to do another project and see how it turns out. What do you have in mind. --Doncram (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I hope you didn't take my comment wrong. I was trying to reflect my appreciation for your moving from (a) initiating an AfD on the RC Leicester list, to (b) working diligently to improve it, including addition of geocoordinates and digging up promising source materials. I appreciate that effort and meant my comment purely to be an expression of gratitude.

As for the next list, I have been working a bit on the list of churches at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit. I chose this one, because (a) English churches, though architecturally and historically interesting, are far afield from my realm of personal experience, (b) Detroit is full of beautiful old late 19th century and early 20th century churches, many of which have unfortunately fallen into neglect as the city was depopulated (from 1.8 million in the 1950s to a little over 600,000 today -- some jokingly refer to Detroit today as an archaeological site, though things have rebounded significantly in recent years); and (c) I have some personal familiarity with area, having spent the early part of my life there (my parents were married at St. Alphonsus in Dearborn in 1950, I was baptized at St. Regis, first communion at St. Owen, confirmation at St. Mary's in St. Clair, married at St. Columban in Birmingham). I decided to keep the existing list structure, even though I think it's a bit crowded with columns. Once I get a basic structure established, I was going to ask some of the great editors who have been active with Michigan historic sites to add to it (including hopefully photographs). Given the size of the archdiocese, it will need to be be split, sooner or later, into a separate list (perhaps List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit, perhaps even two lists (one for the city, another for the rest of the Archdiocese). If you're interested in contributing there, I'd certainly welcome it. Cbl62 (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and split the list to List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit. Cbl62 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

No. 1 Fire Station (Perth, Western Australia)

Hi Doncram, doing some work on heritage sites in WA I came across your 2018 article No. 1 Fire Station (Perth, Western Australia). This looks a lot like a double-up of Old Perth Fire Station, created in 2008. If you don't object I would suggest making your's a redirect as it is only a short stub. Please let me know what you think, Calistemon (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Calistemon for your attentiveness in identifying the duplication. I created that article as part of developing List of fire stations, where I see that both articles are linked, one after the other, without my figuring out they are the same place. Or maybe one or both of the articles changed, whatever, this happens. Yes will do redirect of mine (as it is the newer, duplication one) and will merge very small amount of different info i had constructed, e.g. a different/alternative name for the museum, and perhaps some aspect of referencing. Soon. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries, no particular rush. I really only discovered it when I saw that they both had the same Inherit number and, following that, the same address. Calistemon (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your new article: Phoenix Park Hotel

You recently copied the content from the draft to the same page in the article namespace. However, the articles is not proven to pass WP:Notability. Please submit it for WP:AfC when you are ready. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

No, CrazyBoy826, sorry (mildly) that i seemed to have provoked you, but it is notable. Follow process, yourself... you can prod it, say and I will dispute that and u will be over-ruled. --Doncram (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, when you first created it, it was not notable, but you later expanded it into a notable article. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

PA

Hi. You said that "To the badgerers, (...) I disagree with you, and I don't care to listen to your opinion; others here are not idiots" (emphasis mine), which to me seems to suggest that those that you do not consider badgerers are not idiots, while the "others here", i.e. the "badgerers", are idiots. Though I may have misread your comment; English is not my native language. --MrClog (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:MrClog, you did misread it. Badgering in AFDs usually involves one or a few editors repeating themselves predictably, as if they think all others are idiots. Badgering is fundamentally insulting to the editors who have participated and to all others who might. Thanks, I guess, for coming here to try to clarify. --Doncram (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then perhaps also it may be useful to explain: I used template:collapse-top and template:collapse-bottom there to hide the exchange which was going off-topic, was not about the content of the article. That is sometimes done, though usually by an uninvolved other person trying to protect arriving editors from having to wade through off-topic stuff. The collapsed section might be labelled as "off-track discussion" or similar. I didn't put in any label at all; it turns out that the default label is "Extended content". Again, I do appreciate your coming here, which is okay/good to do, keeping this as a side discussion that all the other AFD editors do not have to read. --Doncram (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand why you collapsed the content, but felt that the parts of my comment that I did not strike are relevant to the AfD. I appreciate your explanation however and I apologise for misinterpreting your original comment as a PA. --MrClog (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. MrClog, you seem unaware that in AFDs or any other discussion, it is generally regarded as very unacceptable for one editor to remove another editor's statement(s) or to edit other editors' statements. A small amount of reformatting is sometimes okay, say to fix indentation. Collapsing comments, as I did, doesn't actually change the others' statements, but is pushing pretty far; you uncollapsed it and I will not re-collapse that. Also, by the way, after you have been replied to, it is not okay to change your own statements, esp. where that makes others' replies nonsensical. Using ~~strikeout~~ on your own statements (as you have done) is fine though. But you actually did completely remove one or more statements by me, and your own statement which I was replying to, which is very unexpected. Here, at this point, I don't really mind, and let's not go back and re-edit it further, but you should be aware that in general you simply cannot do that. --Doncram (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty familiar with AfD. I only changed my comment by striking something that was no longer important and clarifying in a new comment why I did so (which also makes it clear the striking happened after your response), which happens all the time. I also didn't remove any comment or !vote, only a "unsigned statement" notice that you added behind a template that does not require a signature, which you, I assume, wasn't aware of. MrClog (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, User:MrClog, i do object to your going back there and continuing sniping, as I thought we were talking here instead, and I thought you agreed, and there is not the place to test out your "assumptions". You stated "The only editing of "others' comments" that happened was this. {{page creator}} isn't supposed to be signed, meaning the "unsigned comment" notice was very likely added by mistake, possibly due to unfamiliarity with the template being used, which is why I removed it." To be clear, that is bogus, you do not get to remove another editor's comment and signature, just because you think they were wrong. I even disagree with your assertion about usage of template:Page creator; there is no statement at the template doc page about whether or not a signature should be added, and it is downright false to assert that it "isn't supposed to be signed". I rather think in practice it probably appears sometimes signed (when put in by someone not involved) and sometimes not, and my edit was specifically to point out that it was you, the deletion nominator, highly involved, who had put it in. Good for you, too, that you worked in an apparent insult towards me, that I would make a "mistake" that was necessary to be corrected, and by you. Anyhow, in the future, do not ever edit, in any way, anything I ever write. If you do that to others, I expect to see you spent time appearing at wp:ANI or being blocked, too. --Doncram (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The reason I put that comment there was that thr way the comment was formulated could easily suggest to a closing admin that votes and or rebuttals were removed, when only a "unsigned" notice was removed.

We both had a different understanding of {{page creator}} and we seemingly both though the other party was probably unfamiliar with AfD/the template, when we are both familiar with AfD and the template. I apologise for the fact that my comment - upon rereading - certainly can be insulting. It was meant in good faith as a clarification to the closing admin. I hope we can agree to disagree w.r.t. {{page creator}}. I thought I would remove your notice, in the same way one would remove {{unsigned}} that was added to a signed statement, but I understand that there is a genuine disagreement w.r.t. to the use of {{page creator}} and that my removal "in the heat of the moment" could easily be seen as bad faith. Therefore, I do apologise for the removal of the notice, which was merely the result of a misunderstanding. Can I suggest that we both remove accusations about "unfamiliarity" from the AfD page and that you either remove the accusation about editing other people's comments (or, if you really want to keep it there, clarify it as meaning that an "unsigned" notice was removed)? I suppose COVID-19 and the lockdown puts us all in a more attack-y mode, so I hope we can resolve this peacefully. MrClog (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, one further thing i don't like is how, here, you clearly enough acknowledged that I did not call anyone an idiot, but there you left pretty clear assertion that I did. You wrote there "I misintepreted the comment as meaning that those other than the "badgerers" are not idiots, as opposed to the "badgerers"." Which seems pretty clearly implying that one side or the other are idiots. I did not say or mean that, I was stating that repetitive, predictable badgering, which you have continued with (e.g. the question you posed to GhostInTheMachine), is insulting and implies you think that others are idiots. At this point, I don't want you to "clarify" or anything else there, just drop it.

I don't agree that a closer would think votes were removed, based on my statement. I am not inclined to negotiate with you what I will write there. Partly because I don't want to invest even more in trying to figure out what you changed and did not change, before or since this discussion started. The basic agreement, here, I understood was that we would not write more there. However I thought it was okay for me to make the general statement there, meant magnaminously, that there had been apparent misunderstanding and editing, explainable by language barrier based on what you said here and unfamiliarity with AFD process. Neither explanation seems valid any longer, though.

I think your impulse, what you are suggesting now, is for both of us to go and edit statements already made at the AFD. That is going against what is acceptable. What's written, errors and all, is what's written, and others have responded (including that I responded a lot here, which has been referenced there by my mention of discussion elsewhere, and I don't think you should be further tinkering, like you did in removing your question to GhostInTheMachine). Further changing stuff makes it hard/impossible for others to follow, or for you or me to clearly explain what's happened if this comes up in a wp:ANI or other proceeding in the future. At this point I don't want you further changing anything already written there, by me or by you. It would be acceptable for you to insert clearly indicated additions, I suppose, but I'd rather you just stop. --Doncram (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The way I read my comment, it means that I misinterpreted the comment as meaning that the not badgerers were not idiots, as opposed to the badgerers (i.e. those are the idiots). It surely isn't meant to imply any side here are idiots (in the same way your comment isn't meant to imply someone removed !votes). I only removed the question because no-one had responded to it yet and on second thought, I saw the question as unhelpful on my part (which you agree with). If someone had responded, I would not have removed it. It had been there for just about half a day, which is why I removed it under WP:TALK#REPLIED. I did strike part of my other comment, but clearly indicated why and when in a seperate reply, meaning it is clear I did so after your reply, which also complies with the guidelines. When I said "remove", I meant using <del>, which means it stays on the page, but is stricken, meaning it is clear we no longer hold those views.

I think we can both agree that this issue is largely a misunderstanding that blew into something unnecessarily big due to unhelpful behaviour/behaviour that can be easily interpreted as unhelpful from both sides. I would be the last to deny that I should not have removed your notice and that most of the blame for this issue - maybe even all - falls on me. I have apologised for that and I hope we can let the issue rest for now and get back to content creation. I also see how my replying, especially when combined with the fact the other user replied to delete !votes as well, can be see as insulting, and I would like to apologise to that as well. I was unnecessarily heated in this exchange, probably also because of the lockdown, which doesn't per se bring the best of us to the surface. I agree we should not make any more comments about this on the AfD and that it is best if we both just drop it.

Happy editing and stay safe, MrClog (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I agree, and I too would rather be back to content creating. --Doncram (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Historic Hotels of America

I notice you are creating a whole series of articles for these hotels. They are presumably notable (or at least the building they are in is notable, the hotels are not always that old themselves), but the website yuu use, which should in theory be a neutral one, actually reads like the most spammy promo site. The texts on it are most likely written by the hotel owners or staff and not by some independent writers. Could you please base your articles on independent, neutral sources and not just on the "Historic Hotels" site? They are just good enough to verify that a hotel is listed as a "historic hotel", but nothing more. Examples of such promo pieces used in your articles (as only source): [26], [27], [28]... That last one comes from Inn on Boltwood, which you created but seem to have abandoned a bit soon, judging from the text. Fram (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I have been developing list-article Historic Hotels of America and a series of articles linked from there. And I am very aware that there is some risk of them sometimes coming across as promotional. If I were a paid editor or had any association with any of the hotels (which I do not) besides having visited or been near a number of them over the years, there would be reason for some concern. I got started on these from coming across one AFD, for one in Hilo, Hawaii, and it seemed to me that Historic Hotels of America (HHA) membership was actually a marker of historic merit. This has been borne out in my experience since then, where I have indeed found that numerous HHA-associated hotels not previously having articles turn out to be majorly, obviously, hugely notable, including that many turn out to be documented as separate NRHP listings or as contributing buildings in NRHP historic districts. There is some circularity present, which is not a bad thing, that HHA membership does indicate existence of substantial coverage and hence notability, and hence validity of Wikipedia article coverage of HHA places. It is my well-considered judgment that it is best to proceed with developing about all of them. I have personally tried to add value by looking for NRHP-specific sources, by connecting to existing Wikipedia coverage (which has often turned out to exist under a different name), by searching for Commons photos, and by using Google maps to identify coordinates. Some, yes, are not developed very far along. Anyhow, these concerns are addressed in several discussions open at Talk:Historic Hotels of America. Please do participate there. I would especially welcome your contribution in the area of developing more about hotel associations per se, of which this is just one example, an area where Wikipedia is weak (do see discussion there). --Doncram (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

About the Inn on Boltwood, thanks for pointing that out, it did look like I must have gotten distracted away from there; I have just returned and added a bit more. I think that is a case where I went away to look for potential coverage about it in NRHP listing sources, but did not find any. In general, again, HHA membership does suggest existence of substantial other coverage, so I have reason to believe there does exist substantial coverage about this one, in addition to the HHA's own pages. Note the HHA is a program of a reputable organization, the National Trust for Historic Preservation. It is nice to do so, but it is not immediately necessary to find additional other independent coverage about this place. --Doncram (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the HHA discussion, but you don't seem to have really adressed the core reason for my post: you are posting articles where the only source is not providing neutral, factual information, but biased, promotional information (which reads as if it is provided by the hotels directly). Please see WP:RS#Questionable and self-published sources, articles solely based on such sources are not acceptable. If these are truly notable, then you shouldn't have a problem finding other sources with significant infomation about these hotels, and your articles should be mainly based on such sources then (with the HHA source as an EL or to be used for very specific information like the fact that the hotel is listed as a HHA). If you can not find such good sources, then the notability of the hotel is dubious and you should refrain from creating a separate article for it (including it in a list of HHA hotels is of course fine). Your claim that "It is nice to do so, but it is not immediately necessary to find additional other independent coverage about this place." is wrong, such sources are immediately, from the start of the article, necessary; and they shouldn't be "additional" sources, they should be the crucial, central source. Fram (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I moved the main article to draft space, Draft:Historic Hotels of America. The article contains too many internal discussion comments, which is not something we may have in the mainspace. Either have a "clean" version in the mainspace, and a working version with comments elsewhere (draft, talk, project space), or wait to have a mainspace version until the commented version is finalized and cleaned up. As an example, a text like "(doncram: the only Shingle Style one of all HHAs?)" should never appear in an article (not because it is "doncram", the same question directed at "fram" would be equally unacceptable there) Fram (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I think we probably have some disagreements. Fine, yes, there is an obvious point to be made, which I guess you are making, that articles about hotels can be promotional. Which is not unambiguously bad, either; frankly it is somewhat a motivation for me and many other Wikipedia writers about historic sites to be "promotional" about them, in terms of wanting to explain what is of general interest about the places. And I and others do not begrudge links to bed & breakfast inn's own websites, say. I think it is not a bad thing, it is a good thing, to kind of support the commercial enterprises indirectly, for their public value in preserving and presenting about history of general interest.

In case this is your opening salvo in a battle or war about these which you are willing to undertake, well, I ask you not to proceed that way. If you browse through a good sample of the development so far, you or any editor reasonably familiar with Wikipedia coverage about historic sites, will agree that overall these are clearly meritorious as topics. And while you can raise trouble, if that is your goal, by asserting the HHA website is not a reliable source, I think that would be mistaken. The HHA's language is indeed a bit promotional and indeed appears partly reliant upon information provided by the member hotels, as I point out on the relevant Talk page, that does not mean that HHA is grossly compromised. In fact I have found it to be reliable where I have been able to compare it to other sources, and it has proven accurate in a number of cases where the independent hotels' own webpages assert something that I can determine is inaccurate. And it doesn't truly matter whether HHA website is itself a fully great independent reliable source or not. Actually, no sourcing at all is required in Wikipedia articles, as you know. Subject to some qualifications, such as when another editor credibly questions accuracy of something. At this point, I believe you have zero specific complaint about any fact asserted in any of this.

I really don't welcome your opening a war, if that is your goal or inclination: please don't. I don't think you will add value by doing so. Seriously, do you really question whether my overall development efforts in this area are good or bad? I think it is obvious I am constructively developing Wikipedia. No, your wish that I immediately find different other sources, because the HHA sources have a promotional flavor, where nothing is in fact in question, is not required by your say-so. If you do have specific concerns, probably those should be raised at Talk:Historic Hotels of America or at the Talk pages of specific hotel articles. Please do ping me if you open discussions. I shouldn't continue a big discussion today here or at those other pages, by the way, due to real life stuff. So long for now. --Doncram (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Fine, discussion started at WP:ANI#Historic Hotels of America. Fram (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrea Head Hall

Did you see that it got deleted? I see absolutely no consensus for that do you?† Encyclopædius 20:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, the "Delete" decision at the AFD is pretty clearly inappropriate and will not survive upon appeal to wp:DRV, IMHO. How about having a quick talk at User talk:Spartaz#AFD on Wrea Head Hall, but then, because it seems right now I am being raked over coals at wp:ANI, i'd prefer deferring an appeal for a few days. Or you or someone else would have to take it forward. --Doncram (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Based on the discussion, I am surprised this was not a keep closure or, at worst, no consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The process forward is to speak to the closer first (and please do!). Who knows maybe they can explain the decision well enough. Only afterwards can a formal wp:DRV be requested. --Doncram (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Even if it doesn't have enough material it's certainly notable enough to mention in an article on a nearby village. Architectually it looks like a notable country house to me.† Encyclopædius 09:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I've reverted your changes at the talk page[29], as they introduced large copyright violations. Adding quotes around a text doesn't give you (or anyone) the right to copy whole sections of text as is. E.g. a '294 word setion copied straight from here is not allowed anywhere on enwiki. Please try to avoid using copyrighted text, or reduce it to the very minimum: in most cases, simply linking to the information and stating in your own words what the issue is, is more than sufficient. Fram (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Declaration of copyvio here is completely bogus, somewhat insulting, no such 294 word limit, also not recognizing nature of source and of current use; i am adequately/better aware of copyright issues. This is an irritant, and in timing and nature is consistent seems to be a deliberate extra salvo within pattern of inappropriate bullying from User:Fram. --Doncram (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

PLease don't change someone else's post, including their section header. The timing is solely caused by the moment you posted these, not by anything else. But feel free to raise the issue in the ANI section and let others decide whether these were copyvios or not. Fram (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, unexpected! --Doncram (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)