Jump to content

User talk:Doncram/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

wp:HSITES

Sure, I'd work on the California task force. Rosiestep (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Huckleberry Island, Beechwoods Cemetery, and Glen Island Park (New Rochelle, New York)

When you removed the G5 speedy-deletion templates from these articles, you stated (or at least implied) that you would be taking responsibility for their contents, not merely shielding the unwelcome (and suspect) work of a banned contributor. I realize that only a couple of days have passed, but if you have not been able to get down to the task of thoroughly researching these articles and verifying them, I suggest that it is time for you to either move them to your user space (so you can work on them later) or expect an AfD process to begin. --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You tagged 5 New Rochelle area articles for speedy deletion within a few minutes. I and others removed the Speedy deletion tags as the Speedy tagging was rather obviously contrary to wikipedia guidelines. Two of them you put up for AfD, where I spoke against you, and where I think/hope the AfD request will be denied. I don't understand what productive purpose you are trying to accomplish with any of this. My honest question to you: why don't you go do something else, in or outside of wikipedia? doncram (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As I have stated previously, I tagged those articles for speedy deletion because they were created by sockpuppets of a banned user and the only substantial edits had been by other socks. Wikipedia policy (WP:Ban) states:
Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons.
Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to. Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a {{db-g5}}, or its alternative name {{db-banned}}, to mark such a page. If the banned editor is the only contributor to the page or its talk page, speedy deletion is probably correct. If other editors have unwittingly made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned user, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do.
Note the statement "Users who reinstate [edits by banned users] take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." Since you removed the speedy deletion templates from these pages, I concluded that you intended to take responsibility for vetting the article contents, but you have not done so. In effect, it seems that you have chosen to aid and abet the activities of the banned user.
As for the two articles that I put up for AfD, they were the ones that appeared to have the most trivial topics -- where I saw the least possibility of a plausible basis for arguing that the importance of the topic was reason to "rescue" the articles. If you are not interested in rescuing the other three articles, I guess I need to put them up for AfD also. --Orlady (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As I have committed, I am opening an Unban case by tomorrow. I believe that will be the correct forum to continue this general discussion. I think it will be distracting and unhelpful for you to open AfDs on these three right now. doncram (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of being unhelpful, it seems to me that keeping those articles on public view falls in the "unhelpful" category because it encourages banned users to engage in behavior deleterious to Wikipedia and the community of contributors. As I suggested earlier, you could move those three articles to your own user space (and ask to have the redirects deleted) until such time as you are ready to work on them. --Orlady (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
What i suggested would be unhelpful would be for you to open 3 more AfDs right now, to add to the 2 ongoing ones which will probably fail, at the same time as the community is being asked to ocnsider a complex Unban proposal about the Jvolkblum mess which your actions have, in my view, greatly widened and extended. Your actions have in general made a bad situation worse, in my view. The unban proposal will, unavoidably, be partly a referendum on your behavior (and on mine too, I suppose). Here, I am saying I think it would be unhelpful for you to force the AfD discussions right now. It will not really advance the general discussion for me to spend time on those 3 articles in some other way, either, right now. doncram (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If those two articles that I took to AfD survive AfD, it will be because the contents will have been verified and rewritten. --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I renew my request that you take responsibility for the content of these articles, in keeping with the implicit commitment that you made when you removed the speedy deletion templates. There is still a valid basis for requesting their deletion, as these articles are still substantially the creation of a banned user evading the ban -- not to mention that fact that this is a banned user whose content cannot be trusted. --Orlady (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have trimmed Huckleberry Island back to the content that the cited sources actually support, and removed the two external links, one of which was a link to a terraserver image (should be replaced by coords) and the other of which had no apparent relevance. Beechwoods Cemetery is already no more than a minimal stub, but I note that the only source for most of the article is "find-a-grave," which is not generally regarded as a WP:RS. This leaves only Glen Island needing verification. --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to note: You speak as if your revising some NR area articles to your liking, settles something. You have elsewhere expressed how you dislike New Rochelle, its students, its affluent community, etc. What you accomplish on your own, alongside with destroying any budding wikipedians who are actually interested in NR, is really not likely to be very good. Who are you writing for, and why? It may sound corny, but if the writer does not love the subject, the writing is at best sterile. If i took over these, I would want to allow and encourage the locals to contribute and take over, and that would be the point. I would see it as facilitation and that would be clear to others; I don't know how to describe what role you seem to envision for yourself with respect to these articles in any positive way. Can you envision a positive role there, for you or for some other moderator?
Anyhow, Find-a-grave is fine for establishing that someone famous, or semi-famous, is buried somewhere. This is not a Featured Article nomination. doncram (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I have come to dislike New Rochelle because of the time I have expended rewriting articles to remove and rewrite detail-filled flowery text (about ephemeral N.R. topics) that turns out to have little or no relationship to the sources cited.
On the subject of rewrites, I had high hopes that your desire to save these articles from speedy deletion would motivate you to take responsibility for their content. However, I finally gave up and trimmed Glen Island Park (New Rochelle, New York) down to what I could find support for. I would like to be able to say "You're welcome," but I don't guess I expect you to thank me for the effort.
A stubby article that is verifiable has far more value to this encyclopedia than a long detailed piece that has no relationship to the sources it cites (and is likely to be some combination of copyvio and fiction). However, this article still suffers from the fact that it doesn't know whether its topic is Glen Island or Glen Island Park. Perhaps you can resolve that question. Also, I left some unsourced content in the lead section, but flagged it with several "citation needed" templates. --Orlady (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:LAHCM

I have nominated Wikipedia talk:LAHCM (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 09:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded there to defend the redirect which i had created. Thanks for the notice, I guess, but why bother to attack a redirect in Wikipedia talk space? doncram (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion, please

Billwhittaker recently put together an article for the Bertrand Site in Washington County, Nebraska under the name of Steamboat Bertrand, along with several pictures. Which picture from the article do you think is best suited to the county list? I've put the picture of the model on the list for now, but I wonder if the picture of the artifacts might be better. Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Declared/designated

Is "declared" the official NHL term, or is it just the one that's preferred by WP:NRHP? Seeing your edit to the Wyoming list today reminded me of the question, which had occasionally popped into my head for quite a while now. Nyttend (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have thot the preferred term was "designated", but wikid77 has been trying to narrow columns and so i was going with the shorter declared there, better than a weirdly abbreviated and wikilinked desig. or desig'd or something. Yes, the NHL official webpages use "designated", e.g. this example. The nationwide PDF list of NHLs doesn't seem to use any term, just lists a date. doncram (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Unban proposal at wp:AN including topic ban request on New Rochelle area edits

I opened an Unban proposal, which also includes a topic ban request on User:Orlady, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady. This may reduce my availability to address other matters. doncram (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I meant to reply earlier to your kind invitation to participate in WikiProject Historic Sites. I seem to find myself up to my ears in reviewing, research, and writing, and I must regretfully decline. I wish you luck. Finetooth (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Siena College

I am sooooo happy to be for once roughly on the same side as you instead of being polarized opposition! Per your request that previous arguments be restated for the benefit of newcomers to the discussion I have added a new section to the argument on my personal opinions, as the person who kinda started all this. (Sorry about that). My goal is not to remove the name Loudonville and replace it with Newtonville. Simply to state that there is some wiggle room or unclear relationship between whether the college is in Newtonville or not, I think it is important for the article of Newtonville, New York to mention Siena College but that keeps getting an "undo" put on it due to the dispute here. Without compromise here the Newtonville article loses one of its most important aspects of why it should even exist.Camelbinky (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It really sucks that it came down to a block on the page and I feel responsible for the warning you got, as it was I who started all of this discussion and everything. I am truly sorry. On the bright side your version ended up being the version it got blocked at. If I understand correctly the block only lasts five days? Do you know if that is true and what happens then, can hippo just go back to changing it? I dont want you to stop commenting on discussion and walk away. I always thought wikipedia was the purest form of democracy, but I guess its more like hippo is fillabustering and we just cant overide. There has got to be some wikipedia guideline to end this. I mean we've all tried to compromise and nothing has worked.Camelbinky (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I liked the joke about the bar in the Pinebush. That was really good. Tell you what- next time you find yourself in an argument on an article let me in on it and I will start breaking chairs over people's heads!Camelbinky (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Have you gone and read the comments made by some other people on hippo's talk page? This really seems like a common thing to happen with him, he's been blocked for editing warring before, others have accused him of edit warring many times without taking things to the talk page to explain why he reverted in the first place and to continue to do it after a discussion begins and is ongoing. To continually insist the article remains HIS way while a discussion is ongoing and no concensus has been reached seems arrogant and against wiki civility if not policy. Contact them if you think it might help. I have said to hippo before, and I dont care if an admin warns me on it in the future, I really think what hippo likes to do is clearly trolling, he uses wikipolicy as a shield but the essays out there on trolls say they often do that, that having policy on their side isnt a defense. For the longest time we had a concensus of 5-1 on a reasonable compromise, it should have stayed that way. Now others have gotten fed up and left the argument. I really think you should bring this to the next level of whatever. I went and got a second opinion (daniel case), and that wasnt enough for a resolution, daniel case went and put out a request for comment, that didnt do any good. I support you and am with you the whole way all the way to the end, just lead the way and keep me informed what you need me to do as to where this is going and everything.Camelbinky (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You should do some research on wp:troll, remind you of someone? Hiding behind wiki guidelines to cause controversy despite commonsense and a majority of editors disagreeing? Hmmm....I have called our friend this before, and I stand behind it, regardless of if it gets me in trouble. We call out vandals and sometimes we are wrong, but dont get punished, I'm just saying it looks to me that this is what we have and I think it holds water to believe so.Camelbinky (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Camelbinky, did you actually read that essay on trolls - one thing I noticed was "When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not." It seems like you are reading what you want into it. By my reading of it, it could be applied to just about anyone who you disagree with. If you think someone is trolling, you don't think they are engaging in "genuine dissent" etc. It could certainly be applied to you, me, Doncram, maybe others in this dispute. Probably best if we all assume good faith.
To the above unsigned commenter I will respond here as I do not know who posted it and cant respond on their talk page (which I will assume in good faith was accidentally not signed)- I did assume good faith for a long time. The conflict has escalated. I am not the only one who has recently brought to others attention that more needs to be done regarding the editor in question. It is not about genuine dissent, it is about reverting and editing in contrast to any concensus or lack of concensus. Editing to a certain version during discussion before discussion is resolved is bad faith plain and simple, bringing the edit conflict to more articles without concensus after being told by multiple editors that they dont agree with that interpretation is further bad faith and against wiki-policy. Editing against concensus is vandalism even if the editor thinks they are right and everyone else is wrong.Camelbinky (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WHS Africa list

Hey, you made my nice neat list look sloppy and abandoned it!  :) Lvklock (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks nice. Where do you get those coordinates from? Lvklock (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
All that's left to do for basic tablization is the EUR region, exclusive of Bulgaria. Does it need to be split into smaller pieces, like Bulgaria, or just one big table for the rest for now? Lvklock (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I realized that likely most of the redlinks had articles, so I started in EUR checking for articles and pipelinking them, but now I'm thinking that i should possibly be setting up redirects instead....which is the way you'd normally do it? Lvklock (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and direction. Lvklock (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you know if there's a UNESCO WHS infobox somehwere for every one? I was finding them so regularly that I thought there was, but then there are a couple in Africa I can't seem to find. Lvklock (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you planning to finish tableizing the part you've done a couple passes through, or shall I? Lvklock (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm almost to the EUR section that you've partially processed. Since you haven't done anything with it in a while, i'll assume you want me to finish it up. Lvklock (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Siena College

Just as a reminder, you're at 3RR on Siena College. I know both sides are discussing this on the talk page (I'm also leaving a warning on the other reverter's page), but please don't edit war, even while talking it over. Good luck on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You are a Wiki-Terrorist ?!? (He is not, of course!)

Hey Doncram,

I am not exactly sure if we have talked before but somehow your talkpage pops up on my watchlist in connection with recent controversies. If we have not met before: "Hello there, nice to meet you!"

There is a lot of stuff going on on Wikipedia that does not head in the right general direction in my humble opinion. It seems that you are under the "suspicion" of being a suckpuppet, meatpuppet or contributor of worthless stubs. In other words, you are a Wiki-terrorist of some sort and every single one of your steps is monitored. The vultures are waiting for you to make a mistake in referencing information in an article. You are under the constant risk of being banned ... just because. Take the articles about New Rochelle referred to above, for example. Two of the three mentioned are stubs and one looks quite good to me. I did not check them in detail but the two stubs, again in my humble opinion only, should have a right to exist on Wikipedia. I have produced stubs like this myself and some topics do not have enough to write about (for now) but they still have a right to exist on Wikipedia and are helpful, at least in my understanding of the Wikipedia project. I have seen stubs created by the person accusing you (O), that were of the same grade or lower and they are still part of the encyclopedia. Stubs are something other editors can add to. Babies are not born fully grown either ...

The rating system here includes stubs and that is great. No editor, apprentice admin or admin, in my opinion, should be allowed to criticize or attempt to delete an article just because it is short and incomplete. The last definition of a stub that I use to assess articles is this one: A stub class article "provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition". (This is the definition taken from the Wikiproject Tennessee assessment page) That definition would cover every very short article that does not include information that is proven incorrect. I am opposed to develop articles in the user space in most cases, there might be instances where it is appropriate but this is not and should not be a general rule to adhere to and no one should be required to do so. Wikipedia claims that it can be edited by anyone, but that is only possible if the article develops in the open, where everyone has access to it. You can do it in the user space, if you want, but you don't have to. In general, secrecy about things related to Wikipedia should be forbidden.

If stub articles are unwanted, due to community consensus, the rating system should be changed to "perfect" (the lowest grade), "even more perfect", "apprentice admin approved perfect" and "admin approved perfect" (the highest grade, which can only be reached if you have good contacts to people in admin positions to grant that status). Please excuse my sarcasm here. But it is not only about the stubs, it is how (some) people treat other editors here, but still find supporting votes when they seek or are suggested for adminship. I have read your complaint about O and her paranoid behavior when it is about sockpuppets. Don't get me wrong here, I appreciate O's contributions and they are of value for the Wikipedia project, as well are yours. But there seem to be personal issues that get mingled up with Wikipedia. At any company you would get fired if you mix your personal deficiencies with job related tasks and that has a negative impact. Not here. I wonder why?

Maybe, maybe, Wikipedia is a psychological experiment. To see how Orwell's Animal Farm works out with real people. An experiment to find out how well it works if a group of people, essentially working on the same project, is given the opportunity to organize itself and make their own rules to govern itself. If I had to make a judgement about this question today, with the limited perspective I have of Wikipedia ... I would say, the experiment is a failure. The pigs are taking over and it is going to get worse. I admire and encourage your persistance to fight the negative and discouraging forces and I appreciate your contributions to improve Wikipedia.

Let me conclude this note with these famous few lines below. So long ago these words were formulated so perfectly, with so much thought, skill and care for the right words by one of the greatest writers of all times. Good old William Shakespeare would not worry about a copyright that might be violated here, I am very sure of that. He would smile in his grave (or where ever he rests in peace) and be proud that what he wrote could not be formulated better by anyone in the in the last 400 years since his work was first published. What if William Shakespeare had been discouraged from writing? A poor place this earth would be ...


Take care and happy editing, doxTxob \ talk 05:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken about me being a wiki-terrorist; rather i am involved somewhat in defending several persons caught up in an anti-terrorism-type campaign, where the cure is worse than the disease, in my view. Thanks though for the nice quote, nice message overall. doncram (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry for the misunderstanding! The terrorist remark was sarcastic. Of course you are not a Wiki terrorist!!! Not at all! I am sorry to have formulated my words in a way that could be misunderstood this drastically! As I stated above, your contributions are a valuable addition to the project. This is not only valid for your edits but also for your opposition against the "slings and arrows" that are cast at you (and others) from certain users or user groups.
Absolutely do I take the same stance on banning (or rather not banning) users as you do, especially if the only evidence is "duck-like" editing activities and the "suspicion" of something merely based on an IP number. "Suspicion" or "duck-like" activity is not enough. There are things going on here on Wikipedia that should not be like they are. Facts are kept secret and small groups make their own decisions, withholding information from the community. You are right, and I share your position in this matter, and that was what I intended to come over in my message, "the cure is worse than the disease". "Well roared, lion!" (Shakespeare once more).
Again, I am sorry that my sarcasm was not formulated clearly enough and offended you. It was meant just the opposite way, as a support of your actions to prevent useless user bans and as an encouragement for you to keep going in that direction, holding the true values of Wikipedia high and be willing to fight for the right thing. For this reason, I award you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. You deserve it!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your efforts to "take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them", ... hopefully. doxTxob \ talk 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Take care and happy editing, doxTxob \ talk 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

LA neighborhoods

Hi doncram ... Based on your edits to National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles, you seem to have knowledge of the neighborhoods of LA, would you please the neighborhoods for the 7 listings added to the NRHP this week? I placed 6 of the 7 in South Los Angeles and 1 in Downtown Los Angeles. For future reference, how do you determine which neighborhood a site is in? Thanks. --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fountain of Time/Washington Park

I thought you might be able to help me find info on Washington Park details about Fountain of Time. Might there be any commentary in the Park's National Register of Historic Places application about the vistas of Fountain of Time. FoT is now at FAC and I have a discussant who is looking for answers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked up "Washington Park" in Haargis. Why does it yield 24 displays?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, i tried Haargis too, following the instructions i wrote out at wp:NRHP for Illinois-specific resources. After building a query, i get to 24 database items' detail reports as well. There are separate entries/reports for a statue, for a swimming pool, for a fireproof warehouse, etc., all within the park. Unfortunately, I don't see a link to an overall document about any one of the first 5 or 6, within their reports. For the fireproof one, i do find links, but not getting me to a PDF file, at least not quickly. I took a guess about using one of the id numbers to guess what PDF for it might be filed under, parallel to some other document URLs from the agency. Hmm, I find nothing at http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/PDFs/163543.pdf but I get a 75 page, 3.5 mb document when i try http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/PDFs/200151.pdf. That is a scanned copy of a Hyde Park-Kenwood Historic District NRHP document, detailing 222 contributing structures and supporting a boundary increase application. I don't know if that district overlaps, includes Washington Park or is separate, but I got the 200151 number from one of those detail reports. You could try other guesses like that, but really any available PDF documents should be listed in the detail reports. You could wade through them all, looking for PDF links. Anyhow, it looks to me that the database is an inventory database of structures and objects. This is similar to a National Park Service database about structures within the National Parks that are operated by the NPS. This is rather primary data, not very helpful; it certainly would be better to find an original application document with narrative discussion, but i am not seeing that on-line. Perhaps this situation requires a request to the Illinois agency for a hard-copy of any original application. This is not NRHP-listed, right? If it is NRHP-listed, you could request same from the National Register (by email to nr_reference (at) nps.gov, to be postal mailed to you at no charge. Hmm, it is NRHP listed. You should just request the application documents from the National Register, for both the Washington Park (refnum 04000871 and 92000483) and for the Washington Park Historic District that also includes it (refnum 73000710). I got the reference numbers from searching on Washington Park in IL in Elkman's NRHP infobox generator. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
When you say contact nps.gov, I am not sure how. As I look at http://www.nps.gov/contacts.htm I do not see an applicable contact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Another contacts webpage http://www.nps.gov/nr/about.htm#contactus includes, under Contact Us / Email / Reference, the nr_reference email address i stated. I am in frequent contact with them via that email address. doncram (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I missed that that was an email address in the first communication. Sorry.
There are Washington Parks in Elkman's search tool in three parts of the state. The 24 DB items are mostly from the Cook County one. Would it be fair to describe things like Fountain of Time and the Adminstration Building that now hosts the DuSable Museum as contributing structures to a U.S. Historic district based on their inclusion in the DB?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Oh, sorry, the 92000483 refnum is for the one in Springfield. Other 2 refnums seem relevant tho. Hmm, i don't want to define a new term, contributing structures as opposed to contributing properties. I am not sure that contributing structures is an official term (it might be though). I would think that the contributing structures of a historic district would be anyhow, would be whatever is listed within the historic district's nomination document. Such documents often list out and number all the contributing properties or structures, and also non-contributing ones. I see that i myself used "contributing structures" in William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures#this example historic district article where i listed out both types. It's a good bet that the Washington Park and/or Washington Park Historic District docs would list those two, and others, but i'd personally rather have such documents in hand to be able to use the exact name that the district uses for the place, and to document it properly. doncram (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you'd be defining a new term. My interpretation, from looking at "Section 5. Classification" on a nomination document, and specifically at the "Number of Resources within Property", is that the NPS already uses the terms contributing buildings, contributing sites, contributing structures and contributing objects. I know I have used the term contributing structures, though I can't immediately recall where. In one historic district I have pics of but haven't written the article yet, there are 26 contributing objects...mainly hitching posts and carriage steps. I'd call them contributing objects in the article. Lvklock (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
73000710 is in Ottawa, Illinois. Only 04000871 is relevant if I am correct. I have sent for the document.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my further mistake about the Ottawa one. Skimming it, I saw that it was bordered by streets named Jackson and LaSalle which looked like Chicago streetnames to me. Good. doncram (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Lvklock is correct this shows the District includes 3670 acres, 15 buildings, 28 structures, 8 objects.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
What does MPS mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That source about the district is one of the URLs associated with nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, a private site mirroring public domain NRIS information. It's probably correct, although NRIS has data entry errors, and the original documents would be the better source to cite in wikipedia articles. What is an MPS? It is a Multiple Property Submission. You're semi in luck, as all MPS documents are scanned and should be publicly available via link low down on NR webpage http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm. You want to search by name for "Chicago Park" within Illinois, to get to the Chicago Park District MPS document, which I see now is mentioned in the NRHP infobox report. However, the search website is NOT WORKING NOW, it seems. It often is not working, I have noticed. You can request the document by email to the same nr_reference, and I think they will just email it to you or provide a direct URL to the PDF document. doncram (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For the Chicago Park District MPS

I got an email response with new insttruction: shttp://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/haargis.htm To use:

  1. Click on "Go to HAARGIS"
  2. Under property search, click on 'advanced'
  3. In the pop up window, click on 'County'
  4. choose the county you need
  5. type in one word from the property title then click 'finish'
  6. on the resulting page, click on the report link
  7. Scroll down until you get to the link for 'view background documentation'
  8. This is the link to the pdf of the nomination file.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Doncram/PR urgents

Why does your User:Doncram/PR urgents template have a FAC title, which gives you two FAC templates on your user talk page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It was a legacy from when I was developing what became the PR review box at Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox, copying the FAC review box idea. I blanked and requested deletion of that temporary userpage. thanks. doncram (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

List of National Monuments in the United States

Thanks for pointing out the FLC had finished successfully. Cool! dm (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Next picture request

Idaho is finished. Do you think it needs more pictures? If so, you'll have a small selection: there are only 44 pictures for the entire state, and only three counties (Latah, Ada, and Clearwater, with 9, 7, and 3 respectively) have more than 2. Even Bear Lake County, with 92 sites, has just 1 picture. I'm going to check for HABS pictures; I don't know if any of the pictures currently up are HABS, but there have to be a bunch of them available for download. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, I remember enough not to ask you to make a clickable map :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Correction, 45 pictures; I found one on Commons (for the Fenn Ranger Station in Idaho County) that might be good, if you want a vertical picture. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Adams Power Plant Transformer House

Quite some time ago, you added a HABS pic to this article with the caption "Adams Power Plant, with transformer house in left foreground". I recently added some contemporary pics of the building, and I actually think that the long building on the right side of the pic is the transformer house, based on the pics with the nomination form. I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something before I change the caption. Any thoughts? Lvklock (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, upon closer inspection I think the caption is right after all. Lvklock (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New FL criteria discussion: Final phase

Hello, I think we've hammered out a good revised Featured List criteria here. If this passes, there will be quite a few FLs (my estimate is somewhere between 50 and 75) that could soon be delisted just because of 3b. With that in mind, I'd like to get comments and opinions from all FLC regulars and everyone else who has participated in the discussion before it's implemented. Thanks, Scorpion0422 17:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:HSITES

What was determined with the bot tagging? Where is the bot category list? If List of Chicago Landmarks is listed as a top list-article article, why hasn't it or any of the landmarks it enumerates been tagged?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

New Rochelle discussion notice

To anyone who follows my Talk page, which maybe is my blog....I've opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles.

This relates to a perhaps overly complex 4 part proposal that i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady.

I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that good people will be part of the solution. I hope that this new discussion can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. doncram (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A word, if you please. The reason the "problem" won't go away is because there is no problem to begin with. As I've stated in the thread (which I have now closed), all of the checkusers who looked into the matter agree that, in every case, the same editor or group of editors is involved. Your desire to help editors who might have been caught in collateral damage is laudable, but at the point where you have been told — repeatedly — that there is no indication that there were any by the very people whose task it is to find them, continuing your crusade is no longer productive.

I dislike brandishing the specter of sanctions, but community patience with your argumentative insistence is not infinite. It would be wise of you to find some other area of the encyclopedia to occupy yourself with— or at the very least accept that, no matter how well-intentioned, your repeated intervention are neither productive nor welcome. — Coren (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Coren -- I consider your closing the discussion at wp:an just now to be heavy-handed and unhelpful. Your closure seems to be a response to the previous discussion, where i started by proposing a solution that was/is not accepted. Or to incorrect assumptions about what i was asking of checkusers. There is not consensus that there is no problem; there is some support by other editors to my views that there is a problem. doncram (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

discussion btwn Elkman and doncram only

Here, let me force you to make an uncomfortable and unreasonable decision: Either you stop advocating for banned user Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and anyone who appears like a sockpuppet editing New Rochelle articles, or you lose me at WP:NRHP and my contributions to that project. One or the other. It's your choice as to which editor you want to keep. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ultimatum; I sort of appreciate that you are over-the-top unreasonable with it. Hmm, well, I do think that there is a lot of negativity involved in dealing with the New Rochelle area articles. I would be interested in a different solution, say involving Orlady backing off too, while right now she is reiterating demands that i get more involved in New Rochelle articles that she wants to stir up. It's a dilemma. To refine your comment, anyhow, can you say what you like to see me doing? I wouldn't mind getting some positive direction that wouldn't be so uncomfortable to deal with, as you put it. doncram (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This is your decision alone. Orlady isn't involved. I'll ask again: Who do you want contributing: me, or Jvolkblum and his army of sockpuppets? Yeah, I'm being unreasonable with this question, but you brought me into this policy argument last night by canvassing me on my talk page. If you really want my advice on what you should be doing, it's this: Don't keep advocating for Jvolkblum and his army of sockpuppets, don't get involved in the New Rochelle articles, and back down from your dispute with Orlady. You've got articles of your own you could work on. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. You may see above that Orlady is asking me to take over 3 NR articles, which I take it you are asking me not to do. I haven't agreed to do that, anyhow. But one thing that I think you may be unaware of is that i already took over responsibility for about 100 New Rochelle area articles: all those about neighborhoods. There are many neighborhoods, and there have been slightly varying names of articles. I did so by creating List of New Rochelle neighborhoods, setting up merger proposals into that for all the separate neighborhood articles that had been created, and following through gradually to eliminate all the separate ones. This consolidated a wide-ranging mess of repeated deletions and edit warring, into one place where sources could be discussed centrally. In the process, I explained out what i was doing, mostly at Talk:List of New Rochelle neighborhoods, I moved selected material from the merging articles into a "Mapwork" page, and I gave some direction about what I thought would be more useful. Early in the process, I opposed a an administrative deletion request or two from Wknight94, saying to some admin that I had it under control, and early on I moderated some back and forth between Orlady and Person G or H, i forget which, in the editing for one or two neighborhoods. You might think the List of neighborhoods article looks bad now, but there is a Temp version linked from the Talk page which I meant to move into place to replace it. And the main thing accomplished is that a big chunk of all the NR problem has gotten reduced down and eliminated. It succeeeded thus far by tacit agreement of Orlady and of the Person G and Person H editors, all of whom don't mind so much my management of these articles, for whatever reasons. Note, Orlady is asking me to extend my reach, and G and H accept my cutting out big swathes of stuff. As I believe my replacing the entire list article by the short stub already prepared would be accepted pretty much by all involved.
I wasn't able to talk about this alternative way yet in the recent wp:an discussions. I am afraid that if I backed away from all New Rochelle articles, that this progress would be undone. Currently, this area is entirely under control, requiring no recent edits, but it would require some involvement from time to time to maintain, and it would perhaps be necessary to actually involve myself in positive development of the articles. Also, I think i pretty much took over several of the NRHP articles similarly. So, I wonder if it would be compatible with your request for me to maintain the NRHP and neighborhood articles that i already took over, and just not extend any further? I don't want to give you undue grief with your proposal, whose simplicity is/was admirable. Please note i don't want to insist you make it reasonable or anything. :) doncram (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break to separate from above

Sorry that I get involved in this. User Orlady has no authority to assign responsibilities to anyone at her discretion. Take care, doxTxob \ talk 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not trying to tell Doncram what to do, nor assign him responsibilities. Doncram took it upon himself to remove speedy deletion templates from three articles that qualify for speedy deletion under G5 as the creations of a banned user. I have reminded him that (under WP policy) when he removed those templates, he was saying (implicitly, if not explicitly) that he would assume responsibility for the contents of those articles. He is not required to edit those articles, and no one can tell him what to do. However, if he is not going to take responsibility for them (and no one else picks up the mantle of responsibility), then the articles will need to be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Since DoxTxob (talk · contribs) is working on an RFAR, this discussion has become a moot point. I'll let you guys figure out to do with New Rochelle and with WP:NRHP in general. Thanks to the both of you for reminding me just how badly I can fail in an online community. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not about New Rochelle or a group of articles on the NRHP. This discussion is not about making deals about who gets to edit which article. In my view, the main problem here is that editors who made reasonable edits to an article are kept from editing Wikipedia for no reason but a shared IP number. It is that simple. Should that be possible on Wikipedia, that users are randomly banned/blocked for no reason that can be found in their edits, I would admit that I lost my faith in Wikipedia. doxTxob \ talk 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:A. B.#New Rochelle discussion notice

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at A. B.'s talk page.
Message added 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Hey doncram,

Are you interested in filing a request for arbitration in this sockpuppet case? In my view this is heading further and further in the wrong direction. Especially the latest ultimatum by User:Elkman to make you chose between keeping him in that NRHP project or continue to support innocent editors who have been banned. I know what my choice would be.

If you are interested in filing the request it would be great if you could do that because all involved parties need to be named and you are much closer to the topic and more involved than I am. You would probably be able to formulate the case better in 500 words.

The key criticism I see her is (1) that User accounts ar banned for no reason except for sharing an IP with a disruptive editor from the past. Another point (2) is user Orlady's paranoia, she is proud to have already investigated an blocked 66 accounts from editing. The next point (2) is that attempts have been made to discuss this matter in a very reasonable and matter-of-fact fashion whis was cut short twice and was closed after a few hours. In my opinion a discussion that had a reasonable chance to be solved in a civilized manner is avoided and a few "investigators" who obviously have nothing else to do with their lives is busy playing the secret Wiki-Police to feel important and powerful. I also critizise (4) that the group of users denies that there is a problem at all.

Do you agree on these key points for the request? Let me know here on your talk page. If you file the request, I will comment on it. If you chose not to file the request yourself, that would also be fine, then I will file it later today or tomorrow. Take care and happy editing, doxTxob \ talk 19:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

They are good points, but I feel caught in a bind here. Also, browsing earlier today i notice that User:Coren who closed both discussions emphatically turns out to be an ARBCOM member. I expect he would emphatically reject ARBCOM consideration of a topic which just received some community attention. He/she clearly does not think the issue belongs at wp:AN, anyhow. I would want to secure advice/approval from one or more past or current ARBCOM members before proposing something there. And perhaps that is not the right forum, either, yet. Sorry not to be more encouraging just now. doncram (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: I didn't file the CU request that led to blocking 66 socks, and I would not boast about the number. Actually, it was a bit horrifying for me to realize how much work the CUs did in checking such a large batch of accounts, which had built up during a period when I was not reporting suspected socks in real time. --Orlady (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration - Unjustified ban of users

I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum You are mentioned as an involved party and I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 22:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


"To whom it may concern" : Orlady files most every claim of sockpuppetry against New Rochelle related editors, so her claims of 'innocence' should be taken with a pound of salt. I doubt that she is 'horrified' by the amount of work that the CU's have done in terms of checking for these "socks" since she is the one responsible for 99% of the requests. Also, her selective choice of wording for her claims varies tremendously - from innocent and sincere to spitful and full of snimosity. You can see this clearly in her user history. If she was so sincere, as she claims, I wonder why she has been unable to produce any evidence of plagiarism or wrongdoing? She clearly is out to prove that is occurring yet she is unable to do so. This is why she resorts to her 'safety zone' - she reiterates some baloney claims of sockpuppettry, adding numbers of users blocked and her typical rhetoric of " the last time I slacked off on my tracking of Jvolkblum socks, the result (about 6 months ago) was a burdensome task for the checkusers, leading to the blocking of about 66 sockpuppet accounts. Additionally, a lot of articles that these and other socks edited still have not been thoroughly vetted to separate the solid content from the unverifiable cruft. I would far rather prevent this stuff from being created -- and get it deleted as soon as it shows up -- than ask volunteers to expend precious time sorting through it. If these topics are notable, sooner or later someone honest will create solid articles about them, but the Jvolkblum cruft probably makes it harder (not easier) for true newbies to contribute content on these topics". I find this extremely hard to believe. This user has proven through her actions that she is clearly researching the sources provided, and she has shown to be jubilant when she has been able to prove the most miniscule proof of "plagiarism". Thus, her only resort is to make continued mention of the sockpuppetry claim that she is 100% responsible for her. Obviously she is personally affected by the city of New Rochelle, or maybe she is upset that there could be a successful, diverse and historic municipality out there that supercedes Oak Ridge Tennessee?
I think it is also pertinent to note that Orlady tracks the talk pages of users involved in this issue. She apparently believes she can not only monitor what information is listed on Wikipedia, but also track the dialogue between other users. If she is entirely innocent, as she so strongly claims, them I challenge her to step back and let other users verify "misinformation" and revert vandalism. If this so-called master soickpuppetteer truly exists and is so villanous and detrimental to the site, than other editors will surely find these issues and act accosdingly. Who made Orlady the Sherriff of Beacham County? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onesang (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC) — Onesang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Typical of Orladys nature, she has taken a sole communication which was posted to you and added the account to her cockpuppettry claim. If she were truly in the right she would stop her endless drama and leave everything up to the countless other competant users who are aware of the issue. She obviously cannot do so because of some personal animosity that she has, but why dont we see if maybe she can rise to the challenge?? My bet is she cannot. cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onesang (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments will be more helpful on the arbitration request page found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum. Please do not forget to sign your post with 4 tildes "~~~~" at the end of your comment.

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Montana

Since you give me a few things, I'll do likewise:

  • In case it wasn't clear (I'm not clear whether you understand this or not; pardon!), I added the L&C Bridge to the other county list because its coords and description placed it on the border between counties, but not between states.
  • You note that it needs a notice in the comprehensive list of entries at the top of the state list: I agree, but I didn't place one because your version still had the ?s on many lines: between its incomplete state and the notices about it being split between counties (the ones on which you remark in your last note), I thought it better to wait until the top list was ready to be completed.
  • As you probably know, I don't work much with disambiguation: my primary concern with these lists is making sure that we don't link to the wrong target. Once I discovered that the L&C Bridge linked wasn't the right one, I only cared to see that we had an appropriate link to the correct one. Because I don't work with bridges and other structures, other than ones on the NRHP, I had no clue which (if any) was the primary topic, so indeed it might be a bad idea for me to move things around myself.

As far as the research notes — I've always been somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of having them fully visible in the article. You can see that I don't simply go around removing them, but my uncomfortability is the reason that I quickly investigated the issue and added it to the other county list. Could you perhaps comment out these research notes and the list of untableised sites? Again, not a big deal; just a minor concern that definitely doesn't upset me.

Just realised that I never signed my post. I wonder why not? [Signing this one now before I finish it, lest I forget :-)] Regarding your comment, "If in comments, you cannot see whether they link successfully to any article" — it's not a problem for me, as I would simply remove the comments and then preview; still, I understand that you and I have different preferences :-) Another possibility: could you perhaps format the tables (including changing the postal abbreviations for the state name to the actual name) and merge the lists in Notepad before posting? That's how I finished the Utah and Idaho lists in one stroke: simply working them out on my computer. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really clear about the benefits of adding a bunch of links to redirects instead of adding a bunch of links to the actual articles. It's especially a problem with sites in rural areas, as for unincorporated communities there's a lot higher likelihood that no "Communityname, ST" redirect exists; if we just convert ST to State, we don't need to worry about looking for red ones. As far as looking at the old ones vs. the new: I mean that, having removed the comment tags, I'd click the old ones to see them. What I mean is that all my changes are made in Notepad, not that I don't go and look at the articles before producing finished Notepad files. I too look at them "above and below"; I simply don't post the "above" until after merging it with the "below". You can see that the "finished" original versions of the Utah and Idaho lists include pictures where possible; it was by going through all bluelinked articles in the original list (and all bluelinked communities) that I obtained these pictures. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd not considered looking at the bluelinks in the original; surely that wouldn't be too hard for me to do (again, just previewing), but I've not done it. And about the pictures, I simply like seeing as many ones with pictures as possible (thus I've gone through every HABS file for Alaska and Idaho), so perhaps that's a more important thing to me than anything else except actually getting the links right. And that's why there are plenty of redlink listings with pictures that I've found online or taken myself. By the way, what do you think of the number of pictures on the Idaho statewide list? Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Somewhat on this note, can you look at Virginia City Historic District and Robbers Roost? Both go to sites outside Montana, but are also the names of sites in Madison County, Montana; I'm making those sites Virginia City Historic District (Virginia City, Montana) and Robbers Roost (Alder, Montana). Nyttend (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Thanks for the compliment :-) As far as the new disambiguation notification page: it might be a little while before I do anything with it. I learned about WP:NRIS issues some time before I began using it, simply because I kept forgetting how to get there. I'll try to remember :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

With Idaho I split out everything, because with few exceptions there were several sites per county, and there weren't a ton of counties. With 56 counties, most of them having rather few sites, my idea was to split out everything with double digits, just to make it a reasonable size — even after cutting out all the counties that I think reasonable, it's still 58 KB. As far as the counties: I don't think it's a good idea, simply because it would likely make the page too large. At the resolution I've been using for Montana counties (the same as for most other individual county lists nationwide), the Custer County map, to take a random example, is about 14KB. With thirty different counties being listed on the main Montana page, we'd be expanding the page's total size significantly. After all, people can always go up to the top of the page to see the statewide list. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I'm ignoring boundary increases for Montana at the moment: since I'm merging some lists but not all (because you did the rest), I'd like to do the increases all at once. Only four counties remain to be formatted (Carbon, Ravalli, and two others that I can't remember right now), so I'll get that soon. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Completion

All counties are now virtually complete; I'm going through recent listings to get the recent boundary increases, and I'll be adding coords for sites without that I can find. I just made an interesting discovery: were you aware that Montana had two new NHLs in October? The October 10 list shows these sites. I've updated one site's article, but as the other has no article, I didn't write it. Could you also update the NHL list? Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Siena College, again

Hey Doncram, please be aware of WP:3RR. By my reckoning you've had 3 reverts in the last 16 hours. It's probably not worth getting blocked over this, or getting the page protected again. --hippo43 (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

BYE

I'm glad I got to patch things up with you before retiring from wikipedia. Good luck and thank you for all you taught me, though I was thick-headed and didnt always listen the first time. Give 'em hell.Camelbinky (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am very glad we got a chance to patch up stuff also. It hasn't been one-sided: I have certainly learned from you too, and I appreciate your graciousness throughout the Siena College discussion. I enjoyed getting to know you. You don't have to stay retired, but either way i do hope we may sometime get to hang out in person. I look forward to hearing chairs breaking behind me.  :) Anyhow, feel free to drop me a line outside of wikipedia; there is an email-to-me link at my Userpage. doncram (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Empire Building and color of NYC landmarks

I chose red -> big red apple. Anyway, take a look, especially at the nyc landmark reference, that's the way every reference doc should look. dm (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgia

At first I thought you meant that an IOOF Hall was up for Good Article :-) Sorry, I'll not be able to do much for the next little while: I have lots of picture work to do (non-NRHP stuff from my spring break trip that yielded lots of Denver NRHP pictures), and schoolwork demands a little time, too :-) I'll get to it when I have time. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Last post

Hey, I retire from this. You are one of the good guys. Keep going to fight the slings and arrows, it is important. I wish you luck. Take care, doxTxob \ talk 03:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. There seems to be an epidemic maybe. Well, thanks for your good efforts recently. I am not going anywhere, myself. Feel free to be back in touch, anytime, and u can un-retire, as some do. Hope you have a good alternative experience, outside this. :) doncram (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C) 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice to fairly or unfairly banned/blocked users

Rodiggidy, Sonkinator, and/or others: I've defended persons that I think were truly treated badly, whether the original Person A or others caught up in sockpuppet accusations since. I don't really much care whether this is all one person or several; you one or all have been treated badly. You've seen, or should have seen by now, my comments in two wp:an discussions and in a request for arbitration. But, if you are creating new accounts or IP-editing, you're not helping.

What you need to do, is to participate in an Unban request and get one account to edit from. The recent wp:an discussions and an arbitration case request did not result in an immediate unban, but the way is open to request one, and to start over. Please contact me via email if you would like my assistance. But if you are more interested in playing a game of provoking W and O, then you will gradually have me joining the opposition to you, despite that putting me in the company of persons who I do think behaved badly. doncram (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oregon NRHP

Have you checked to make sure that addresses, communities, listing dates, names, etc. for Oregon are in accord with the NRIS? If I remember right, I read somewhere that the listings had been changed around a lot to favour the Oregon Register's version of this data, at the expense of the National Register. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You should check out the county-by-county discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon, culminating in an extraordinary reconciliation between the Oregon list and what is now showing in the wikipedia tables. Combine that with extensive listing at wp:NRIS info issues. Also, did u see my note at wt:NRHP estimating an overall omissions error rate, nation-wide, in NRIS? Brief answer: Yes. :) Further note: it was partly fun, partly unpleasant dealing with Oregon editors having rather higher ownership over their state's list-articles than any other state's locals. Definitely reaches more accurate state llist overall. doncram (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Much obliged. Katr67 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Good. Hope there are no hard feelings. doncram (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This New Rochelle business

Doncram,

I started looking at this a few days ago, after seeing the flurry of activity on AN/RFAR. Frankly, I was puzzled—I know I remember you as a prolific and productive contributor to NRHP articles, and so I didn't understand why you were so vociferous in defending what looked like a fairly serious cluster of sockpuppetry and misbehavior. If I understand the hints you've been dropping correctly, you're saying that some of the accounts now lumped into the "Jvolkblum" cluster of sockpuppets are actually associated with a different person, with a legitimate interest in improving New Rochelle, who's unfairly being blocked due to supposed editing similarities with Jvolkblum. If this is a correct assessment, I'd say that part of the problem is that you've been approaching the case the wrong way, arguing for an "unban". Bans apply to people; in this case, the person behind the Jvolkblum account. If you want to make headway, I'd suggest you try to show clearly which account or accounts is not Jvolkblum and request their unblock on the grounds that they aren't banned.

That said, I'm very concerned by what appears to be ongoing misbehavior related to New Rochelle articles. I decided to look at some of the recent dust-ups between you and Orlady over New Rochelle content, and found the deletion discussion on Commons for the train station interior and, later, the Glen Island Park revisions. What I discovered was that:

  1. The photo of the station interior is missing Metro-North signage and various ticket counter paraphernalia that existed in a 2007 photo online. Yonkinator has almost certainly not told the truth about the date of the photo, which in turn makes me doubt that it was self-photographed.
  2. I began looking at the Glen Island Park article—the material tagged for citation by Orlady seemed plausible enough. I did discover sourcing for it, but it turned out that the entire first paragraph was a nearly cut-and-paste copyright violation by MaryEastVill.
  3. I looked at some of the sources that Orlady removed. Scharf and Panetta are both available in full or in part on Google Books. p. 870 of Scharf, v. 1, has nothing on Glen Island, nor does it appear anywhere else in Scharf's book. The sentence cited to Panetta is so minimally rewritten as to border on plagiarism. The citation to "Natural History Museums of the United States and Canada" is supposed to support the assertion that the Glen Island museum contained "mummies fron 332 B.C., Indian relics of the Stone Age and other rare antiquities along with the first fire engine used in New York state, several meteors and a giant stuffed white whale". The only one of these that's mentioned in the source, however, is the Indian relics—no meteors, no fire engine, no stuffed whale, no mummies.

This last is what's really alarming about this whole affair. What's the point of having lengthy, detailed articles about New Rochelle—about any topic—if they're crammed with misinformation and misleading citations, and plagiarized from other works into the bargain? I've had previous experience on Wikipedia where someone came in and wanted to level an extensive series of obscure articles to the ground, and I think the only way to defend yourself in that situation is to be brutally honest in assessing the articles you're trying to protect. Source 'em to the nines. Chop out and rewrite anything close to copyvio. That's the only way to save them when people take an interest in deletion. And right now, this is not happening. Maybe I'm reading with a jaundiced eye, but this is how your recent exchanges with Orlady sound, in condensed form:

  • O: "These articles are crammed with copyvio and misinformation!"
  • D: "But if you cut all that out, the articles are boring and stubby! Don't you want nice articles on New Rochelle?"

I can pretty much guarantee you that "Orlady hates New Rochelle" and "Removing misinformation makes these articles short and useless" is not going to trump WP:V and WP:COPYVIO in the court of Wikipedian opinion.

I think you're a good guy, and if there really is a systematic problem where people can't make *good* contributions to New Rochelle–related articles, I want to help fix it. But the only way to make progress on that is to acknowledge that the things I've found in my investigation above are malfeasance, and that the people who are doing that should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. If there's anything you want to send me off-Wiki to clarify your position, please do. Because right now, I'm seeing a valuable contributor run his reputation into the gutter for reasons that are not, frankly, clear to me, and I'd like to find a solution that's better for you and for Wikipedia. Choess (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely not taken a position like you are suggesting for me. In the New Rochelle area articles that I agreed to take over, not including the Glen Island Park one, i have removed material that was not adequately sourced. I am fine with the articles being boring and stubby. That reminds me, i'll return to List of New Rochelle neighborhoods to switch in a boring stub type alternative that i developed, see its Talk page to see some evidence more in line with how I prefer the situation be handled (involving talking about sources, removing material to talk pages, in a boring lowkey way, etc.). I am not defending the language that was in the Glen Island Park article. So, you have not understood the whole situation and/or my role in it.
At commons, I have not generally been active, but recently I posed some questions and I pointed out errors that Orlady has made, which i think is legitimate to do.
I do think that O has behaved badly in the enforcement game she has engaged in, in particular showing disregard for collateral damage, working in ways to block out others' taking a constructive role, and more which tend to perpetuate and extend the warring that has gone on. Some of which is in the 2 wp:an discussions, but not much, as those were closed quickly before the problem was talked out. I am indeed interested in a bigger solution than just fighting in one article after another. Let me browse a bit about yourself, too. I don't currently see a solution in sight.
Perhaps to clarify one thing for you: my first post at the Talk page of the Glen article was reflecting frustration that Orlady had twice removed the wp:HVNY wikiproject tag from the article. I have been hoping to get a wikiproject involved in taking some responsibility, and specifically asked at the HVNY wikiproject for clarification that it would cover all of Westchester county for this reason. I don't know why O would object; she just seems to assume that the Long Island Sound facing part of Westchester must not be part of the wikiproject. And she chooses, uninformedly, to be abrasive and use the deletion keys rather than discuss, repeatedly. I really don't know what O was thinking, to edit war to remove a wikiproject. By the way, it is not optimal timing right now to develop the HVNY involvement much, though, as a key person is unavailable for 3 weeks now i believe. doncram (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I promise not to remove any more Hudson Valley templates from articles about islands in Long Island Sound, although I still don't think Long Island Sound is part of the Hudson Valley. When I remove a Wikiproject template from an article, it's usually because it appears to me that the template was inserted there by mistake. (For example, at one time a bot process placed Alabama Wikiproject templates on all Tennessee Valley Authority dams and reservoirs, regardless of which state they were in. I thought these Hudson Valley templates were a similar situation.)
Regarding List of New Rochelle neighborhoods, note that the list could include links to the existing articles for Beechmont (New Rochelle) and Wykagyl. It will be interesting to see what sources you can find for the article, though -- I think it likely that most of those neighborhood articles that you merged to the list were based on original research. --Orlady (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for promising not to disrupt Wikipedia in that one particular manner. I dislike sarcasm in written forums, but it is hard not to respond with sarcasm to your sarcastic tone. Specifically "I still don't think Long Island Sound is part of the Hudson Valley" is sarcastic and unnecessary about the wp:HVNY which has very consciously chosen its scope to include all of certain counties and to exclude certain other counties (the New Jersey ones) that are partly included in the Hudson River valley. Also your remark about the neighborhoods list seems sarcastic and misleading, I would assume deliberately, towards others watching this discussion. Do you have some specific complaint about the current List of New Rochelle neighborhoods article? Its main content is a few sentences that you yourself wrote and/or rewrote, as part of a neighborhood article that i merged there. Also, I'll go visit those two articles. Thanks, sort of, for bringing them to my attention. doncram (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I visited the Beechmont article and made, if i recall correctly, one edit to expand out a New York Times article reference (hmm, no that my edit at Wykagyl (New Rochelle); i don't recall how i edited the Beechmont article). At the Beechmont talk page i made comments and a proposal to merge it into List of New Rochelle neighborhoods. User:WkNight94 has just deleted the Beechmont (New Rochelle) article and the Talk page, which seems to me to be very unhelpful, in the context of this discussion here and other discussions ongoing elsewhere. I think it would have obviously been better to bring the article to AfD, or to support the proposal to merge and redirect. Actually, I thought WkNight94 had given up adminship, so I don't know how he did that.
The deletion is not visible in Wknight94's contribution history. Here is paste-in from my watchlist:
# 15:28 . . Wknight94 (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Beechmont (New Rochelle)" (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
# (Deletion log); 15:28 . . Wknight94 (talk | contribs) deleted "Beechmont (New Rochelle)" (G5: Creation by a banned user in violation of ban: Yet another Jvolkblum battleground)
Anyhow I do not have access to it now, and I think it would be helpful and would advance matters if the page and Talk page were restored with their full edit history. doncram (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
If you spent a little less time defending sockpuppets and a little more time editing articles, you could have created Cook County Courthouse (Minnesota) as more than a two-sentence stub. You may like boring and stubby articles, but I don't like them, at least not for the Minnesota NRHP articles. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Elkman. You're not wrong in your general view here, though i have thot there are some principles worth fighting for. Thanks for changing the subject back to something more reasonable. About the Cook County Courthouse (Minnesota) article, that is like a number of others i have created, for specific purpose of supporting a disambiguation page, in this case Cook County Courthouse. DAB pages seem to need to have at least one article, and i randomly picked the MN one to stub rather than the GA one. At the DAB page, each entry needs to have one bluelink, too. If the entry has no article, so the main wikilink in the entry is a redlink, then a second wikilink that is a bluelink is required. Per general policy at MOS:DABRL and per discussions with WikiProject Disambiguation (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#followup feedback sought on NRHP disambiguation). If these requirements aren't met, in past practice, the dab page is likely to get deleted and/or the NRHP entries are likely to be deleted. I've been doing a lot of NRHP dab page creating and developing, currently related to developing out List of RHPs in GA, where i am working on counties starting with letter C now. In the process i do spin off 2 sentence NRHP stub articles occasionally.... doncram (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I notice the 1, 2, and 3 that Choess painstakingly researched have been ignored. Doncram, surely even you have to admit that the pro-Jvolkblum position is looking less and less tenable, don't you? To your earlier question about conditions for an unban, I would ammend my answer with a requirement that Jvolkblum respond to each of the points raised by Choess above. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't like your characterization of the situation. One or more of the associates involved have behaved badly. Orlady and you, Wknight94, have behaved badly. It feels like you are sailing back in again, to derail any possible amnesty and restart that would perhaps allow a solution. If there are more than one person involved, it would be impossible for one to address all past transgressions. And whether it is one or several persons, I don't think it is likely to work, to require them to apologize for everything done, when what O and W and others have done has at times also been wrong, and can arguably justify renegade-type tactics. I wonder if there is a mediation setting in which possible solutions could be talked out. This conversation here, does not have any promise of yielding an agreement among all the parties that would have to agree to some solution. Wknight94, would you agree to participate in some mediation type of process? I asked Orlady once whether she would do so, not centered on this topic, and she declined, but maybe she would agree if you would.
For now, I am going back to developing Bishop House disambiguation. doncram (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm still having trouble understanding your position on this. Could I suggest clarifying some of the following points?
  1. What exactly is the "collateral damage" you're referring to here? Point me at diffs of the valid information removed, the good-faith contributor lost, or whatever. You've made references to multiple "associates," some of whom have "behaved badly". Where are the good associates?
  2. What is your proposal for keeping the badly behaving associates from adding copyright violations and misinformation to New Rochelle articles? Right now, the only concrete proposal I've seen is from doxTxob to have you, him, and Orlady walk away from these articles. While that has a certain superficial reciprocity to it, it completely ignores the elephant in the room—whether it's Jvolkblum or multiple people or whoever, proposals that don't acknowledge his/their ongoing attempts to damage the encyclopedia seem to me to be flawed.
  3. What outcome do you desire from this process? Obviously, it's fairly unpleasant to be spending time on these charges and countercharges, so presumably there's something that makes you unwilling to disengage. What are you hoping for from this?
I'm asking this not because I want to irritate you, but because you're going to need some kind of help putting forth your case. After two AN threads and one rejected RFAR, you've made pretty much zero gain in converting people to your side. I think this is because most people, like me, can't understand exactly what you're trying to accomplish, and don't understand the weighting that's made you put Orlady on the same moral plane as the "badly behaving associate". If you're going to continue to remain engaged with Orlady, I suggest you consult me or some other third party, because I think you can expect more of the same, and worse, if you keep taking the same line of approach as you have in the past.
BTW, if you'd like to speak with a third party about my character and past actions, you might say something to User:Ruhrfisch, who knows me well and I think has done peer reviews for you. Yours, Choess (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful engagement. Your reference to Ruhrfisch is helpful in showing that you have done some homework about me and know that i respect him, which indeed i do. Also I appreciate your sympathy that about unpleasantness, which I do not enjoy. I don't think it is zero gain, however, from the 2 wp:an discussions and the arb request. For example there were two sympathetic nods from arbcom members giving some direction, although the case was not accepted. Indeed it was not an adequate case for arbitration, as I evaluated somewhere above in this Talk page, just before Doxtxob opened it anyhow. For one thing I would have wanted more advice from others more experienced, such as you are offering. Thank you for offering.
I agree that the brief Doxtxob proposal is not adequate. I did provide a 4 part proposal in the first wp:an case which if adopted would have gone further to resolve the situation, although the proposal was abundantly rejected. I concede to anyone that opening a complex case with a complex proposal, without first laying groundwork on what is the problem, etc., is a bad idea in terms of winning with the proposal. I will respond more later. doncram (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. And FWIW, I disengaged from this conversation because Doncram was expecting answers from me while mostly ignoring what I was saying and also ignoring the terribly relevant points raised by Choess in his original post up there. Not to mention that the premises of Doncram's questions are quite flawed. Orlady and I have not behaved badly. We have been totally within policy and, when we have let things slide a bit, things have gotten further out of hand resulting in greater cleanup work having to be done. The net gain from no one having deleted the Jvolkblum articles - as I was doing - has mostly been little mini-stub articles that few people care about but that have become disruptive battleground areas further perpetuating the problem. Look at all this time we're taking talking about Jvolkblum, all the while not adding content that could be of actual use to people. As for mediation, who are you planning to participate? Jvolkblum seems to have gone completely quiet (as an aside, it's interesting how activity at all of the New Rochelle articles goes quiet simultaneously, isn't it? Why, it's almost as though only one person was behind it all ... but perish the thought). So who are we mediating with and for what? Jvolkblum needs to get himself unbanned first. That means he and only he needs to contact Arbcom and make things right with them first. Then maybe the community will allow him back and let him get along - with great supervision of course. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Briefly about the 3 specific points Choess made about photos and sources, I'm not sure of the utility of discussing that level of detail here, not part of any bigger solution. Instances like that are valid parts of discussing the broad pattern of behavior by one or more associates. If every past possible transgression on associates part and every past transgression on the part of Orlady and Wknight94 has to be discussed in detail as part of a solution, it would be impossible to ever get to a solution. It if helps you, I do believe that one or more associates has behaved badly, but I've said that before. I am sure it can be exasperating for an administrator or other enforcer to come across instances which you are pretty sure, or are 100% sure, are evidence of copyvio and bad faith and so on. On a moral, human level, an extensive pattern of bad faith, heavy-handedness, and human meanness on the part of enforcer types can possibly justify bad faith gaming on the part of in a renegade-type person. Specifically it may be arguably justified to do exactly what ticks you off the most, because your previous actions show you deserve to be ticked off. I am NOT endorsing that, I am just saying it is arguably justifiable in human terms. I'll respond later more about those 3 points, though, because you have specifically ask me to and I don't want to avoid your direct questions, and I'll try to re-read this to see what else you may think I ignored in your previous comments.
Briefly about "he and only he needs to contact Arbcom": I would, at this point, strongly advise person or persons NOT to do that right now. At this point, Arbcom or its new Unbans subcommittee would likely accept the case, judge that the person has behaved badly, and confirm the ban, complicating any further effort to resolve this case better. It is a complex case to make, and I don't believe that one person in poor standing can succeed on his/her own in making the case in a way that would be properly heard. Among other things, as the current Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady discussion shows, it is hard to demonstrate a broad pattern of sarcasm and heavyhandedness. It is further hard to show convincingly that the broad pattern is sufficiently bad as to justify in human terms, or otherwise, the types of actions that person or persons have engaged in. Some familiarity with how arbcom or others have dealt with long cases of wp:wikihounding and other precedents, which I don't have yet much myself, is probably also needed for someone who is preparing a decent case for an Unban. It's like you need representation, and by not just one lawyer but a team of them. doncram (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination form?

Nyttend's pic at Merrill Lock No. 6
Nyttend's pic at Merrill Lock No. 6

Can you get me the NRHP nomination form for the Merrill Lock No. 6 (#80003410), in Beaver County, Pennsylvania? I've never figured out where I can get nomination forms online, except for the few that Google finds. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: http://www.arch.state.pa.us/pdfs/H001270_01B.pdf I haven't used the PA state system much, but i jotted down enough about it at wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#State specific sources to be able to find it. In the PA system is a color photo for the site, which may be helpful to see, but it is probably not public domain and I can't link to that search result like i can for the PDF document. Also i had noted at "state specific sources" that wp:NRHPMOS has some example reference formatting advice for Pennsylvania documents. Hope that helps. doncram (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! I don't care about the copyright status of the picture, because the skies are clear and I'm going there today. It's been sitting in my sandbox for a while; I've only lacked a good picture before I nominate it for DYK, complete with the picture. Nyttend (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictures are online: see File:Merrill Lock 6 Landing.jpg and two other color pictures in its dedicated Commons category. I expect to list it at the DYK candidates page tonight. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The article is now as complete as I can make it. If you get a chance, can you take a look? Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks great. Adding pic here, from today, right? I think the word "complex" oughta be worked into one of the first 2 sentences, since the buildings are part of a complex but not of the lock itself. Thanks for sharing your day. doncram (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
"Complex" is added, thanks for the reminder; I'm not sure why I didn't use it before. And by the way, this isn't the only site I saw; a friend and I also visited all ten Butler County sites, so the only thing keeping pictures of all of them from being posted is deciding which of us posts each picture :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical atlas

Hi Doncram,

I don't know why, but i looked at my user contributions the past month instead of my watchlist, therefore, i missed your reply. I would probably have contacted you the day of your reply or a day later, and now a few weeks have past. It was pure coincidence. I haven't done anything with Wikipedia the last month. I see you are pretty active.

Despite the lack of activity, there still is a group of people for the historical atlas. The most important interraction is not visible for the public on the project page, because we use email. I think it is better to use the project talk page. But the benefit of email is that social bonding is easier. Present situation is that we are with 3 or 4 people. I was thinking about making some initial maps, but i lack severely in money and need to take care of my income first. A programmer, Tibor, is busy in private life, but he will look at the programming part of making the historical atlas. We got email contact with an Australian director from the university of Sydney, who is in charge of a project which includes making maps for historical atlases. He got a program that we will use. Tibor will look at that when he got time. There is also another member, but i don't know if he is still active.

I will look at the links you provided.

Bye,

Daanschr (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Invite to Task Force California Historic Sites

Thank you for your words of encouragement, it is much appreciated!!! So I'm not in a vacuum after all ;) I already have more on my plate than a lifetime's worth of work-alas, we live in such a large state, but I will keep the task force in mind if the offer still applies in the future. Again, thank you very kindly for the assistance, both in morale-boosting and resource-getting. Marcia Wright (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Academy of Music, Philadelphia, PA, Photo

You have left a request for a photo of the Academy of Music in Philadelphia, PA. Unfortunately, the Academy is undergoing extensive restoration work, and the front facade is covered with scaffolding and the windows are covered with plywood. I have uploaded the photo at Wikimedia Commons, but the result is not satisfactory to me, and should not be used, in my opinion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Academy of Music in April, 2009, being renovated

About Infobox Protected area

If the infobox is intended for areas that are formally on the IUCN list there would be far fewer valid cases where the infobox could be used. I don't think thats what you meant to say. There was no mention in the original template documentation that stated the requirement that it be used only for areas that are on the list or might qualify. If the IUCN field is not specified then I don't see the harm. Many areas that are considered protected such as Managed Resource Protected Areas are heavily exploited for natural resources. Habitat/Species Management Areas such as wildlife refuges in the US are highly modified and are primarily supported and exploited by hunters. I'm sure you are aware of this and I don't mean to be pedantic. My point is that there are few truly protected area. Even national parks are exploited by tourists and these visitors are considered consumers by the National Park service.

So I guess what I'm trying to say (forgive the rant) is that maybe there should be more over site on how the IUCN classifications are applied. I'm also thinking someone should consider the possibility of having one infobox for IUCN area, World Heritage Site areas and NRHP sites. In my travels through articles that use the Infobox Protected area template I have noticed a number of occasions when there were two of these boxes on the same page.

There is story that applies to this I think. "Years ago when I was visiting Yosemite and I stopped at at a pull off on Tioga Pass Road. There were a number of people there including a ranger. I overheard one of the tourists ask the ranger 'Who is taking care of all the squirrels.'" I don't think we should worry too much about what the squirrels are doing. Somehow it all works out. Don't take any of this too seriously. --droll [chat] 22:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Beechmont (New Rochelle) deletion

Per your message above, I have indeed deleted Beechmont (New Rochelle). It was created and edited by at least six different Jvolkblum socks. And you were about to get a fight from another who commented on the talk page not wanting it to be merged. So, now you are free of the banned user and you can merge at your leisure. You're welcome. (BTW, interesting how all of his pages have suddenly lit up on my watchlist all at the same time after all being 100% quiet for so many days. Again, it's almost as though there were only one person..........) —Wknight94 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I raised the issue already at wp:ani, please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wknight94 and Beechmont (New Rochelle) area article. And i see u have been notified already, i was just going to. My posting there was at :12 after the hour; i get your message from :11 after the hour afterward, whether or not it would have necessarily changed my decision to open an incident. doncram (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The article when deleted was pretty short: basically, it said that Beechmont was a neighborhood in New Rochelle, listed the neighborhoods that surrounded it, and that Beechmont Drive was the main route through it. I'm looking at the Beechmont neighborhood association's map, but they use slightly different neighborhood names, which is confounding things a bit as I attempt to do a merger. Choess (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It's probably not that important to merge a lot there into the List of New Rochelle neighborhoods article, though please feel free to. It would be helpful if any sources cited were posted at Talk:List of New Rochelle neighborhoods, however, for them to be considered centrally. For many of the other neighborhood stub articles there were no particularly informative references and really just one datum, the gnis coordinates of a point within the neighborhood. I have pointed out that describing which are the surrounding neighborhoods is not that helpful as it could be efficiently conveyed by having one map of the town with labels of the neighborhoods. The coordinates point may be enough. Which, for the most part, as i describe at the Talk page, i moved into a "mapwork" work area. doncram (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've purposely avoided all of the Jvolkblum/New Rochelle debates, as I've got enough RL aggravation. However: it is an established fact that Jvolkblum has disrupted the project and is banned, from what I see, for sound reasons. I've blocked a fair number of sincere people who want to contribute to the project but can't manage to work within the rules. I don't do that lightly, but they need to be removed from the project for the sake of the project. How useful is it to have a nice set of New Rochelle articles of unverifiable or worthless integrity? You do excellent work, and I value you and your contributions highly, so it pains me to see you squandering your credibility in this manner and indulging in complaints about everyone who opposes you. This is a consensus-driven project, and consensus is firmly against you. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. By the way, what does RL mean? I don't want to argue, and your point is clear. But for others who may read this, I don't think i complain about everyone who opposes me. And I agree it is not particularly important to have a such a set of New Rochelle articles. What i have disagreed about with others has not been for that. Again, thank you for taking the time to say this here. doncram (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
RL = Real Life dm (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, RL=Real Life: business transitions, disputes, sick dogs, etc. I don't think you complain about everyone, but you've complained about a large subset of those who disagree with you concerning Jvolkblum, which indicates to me that a holiday from the subject would be in your best interest for regaining perspective about the wiki in general. I've welcomed back editors who I proposed to ban and believe in editorial redemption for past sins, but I don't see it in this case. Acroterion (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
And for the record, I agree with Coren's direct warning. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

To make things perfectly clear

Hello, Doncram.

I think your obvious devotion deserves a clear, final warning before sanctions are applied. At this time, your obsession with defending hypothetical victims of errors in misidentifying socks of a highly destructive vandal (none of which, I should point out, have ever been considered seriously as even possible errors) has begun to severely affect your own reputation and the community's patience towards you.

You have been told, unequivocally, on three AN threads (and a request for arbitration) that you are (a) barking up the wrong tree, (b) doing so disruptively, and (c) exhausting the community's patience by insisting on continuing your crusade. To make things perfectly clear, none of those users will be unblocked at your request. Ever. It will not happen. There was no misconduct by editors or administrators. Orlady is doing a stellar, difficult job of tracking down that vandal, and has the full support of the community.

You need to stop that crusade now, and for good. Do not further argue the topic— in the extremely unlikely case that one of those blocked accounts happened to have genuinely been a collateral damage, they can request being unblocked and argue their case. Doing so yourself cannot result in an unblock, and harms you.

I very much expect that if this finds itself on a noticeboard again with your name associated, you're likely to end up being blocked yourself; you narrowly escaped that very fate on the latest thread.

Take care, — Coren (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You are perfectly clear in the main intent of your warning here. Noted.
I don't want to argue anything out here, but in my view you misunderstand some key aspects of what i was saying in those threads, perhaps deliberately or perhaps not. And your assertions "There was no misconduct by editors and administrators" and "Orlady is doing a stellar job" are either representing a subjective point of view (which others besides me disagree with) or they are deliberate overstatements for effect. Notwithstanding, I do appreciate what I take to be your main intent here. doncram (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd be careful counting on the apparent support your position gets. Wikipedia does have a number of malcontents and naysayers that will happily support any attack on process or general policy enforcement because they are attacks on process or general policy enforcement and not because of any actual substantive merit of the claims. Likewise, you can find a number of editors who will gleefully pick up the torches and pitchforks at any claim of admin abuse without so much as having investigated the actual allegation simply for the sake of attacking authority. — Coren (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Noted. Agreed that people will come in without looking at enough evidence, based on their personal views/experiences/needs elsewhere.
Part of what I am missing in all this, though, is where in the wikipedia system there is provision for reviewing administrative / enforcement type actions, especially patterns of them. It seems you have taken offense at me opening wp:an or wp:ani threads on these topics, as if that is not the place, but then where is the place? Like, corresponding to real life police review panels, which might allow for review of an incident or pattern of actions that caused community concern, with some authority to come to a public judgment on whether the police actions are fully justified, or whether there is some gap in police training that needs to be addressed for one officer or in the general training program, etc. In that analogy, your judgment about nothing wrong going on seems to be coming from a certain experience-hardened perspective, like a police captain might have. A police captain might at least start from the perspective that he/she has heard many complaints along these lines before, the allegations are just what always is said, etc. I am in the position being a community member who has some experience with one police officer, and sees the officer in action in places/ways that the police captain does not. Complicating this, from where i am coming from, I experience and view individual officer statements differently. A police review board addresses such situations. It provides a place for people to note their concerns, for them to be taken seriously, sometimes for patterns to be accumulated and noted over time, and sometimes for resolutions to be found. I don't see where is that equivalent in this wikipedia world. I feel rather shut down by your attention (which is your intention), as if your concern is to have peace and order, irregardless of the validity of my concerns. It would be better if you were pointing me to where the concerns can be noted and used constructively. doncram (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that place is Request for Comments. Franamax (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh my, I don't want to see that. Doncram, I hope that the backlash to your second (AN) and third (ANI) review requests and Coren's words above will convince you that RFC would bring a ton of bricks down on your house. It really is time to cut your losses. I know you're having trouble hearing people - two ANs, an ANI, Choess's findings above, etc. - but I really hope you hear this. Cut your losses. If Jvolkblum wants back in, he knows where to go. I told him on his very own talk page. He ignores people, therefore he got banned. Don't do the same. You know where the community stands on this matter. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You're not helping, W. You continue to oversimplify as if this is pro-Jvolkblum or anti-Jvolkblum. Where the community stands on general patterns of long-running wp:wikihounding (still a relatively new wikipedia term) and on patterns of possibly abusive treatment by such as yourself and self-appointed officer Orlady is not clear. You don't need to reinterpret for me what Coren and others have said. So, i don't mean to be dismissive to others who might want to give me advice here, but to you i want to say: your (simplistic) views are noted, and I am not particularly open now to hearing more from you right now. doncram (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Coren, are you speaking on behalf of the ArbCom or yourself? I believe your statement is ignoring multiple AFDs that showed a lack of following the notability guideline and were, as she stated, pursued mostly because they were connected, in her mind, of a sock puppeteer. As I have had experience dealing with one of the most prolific sock puppeteers to go after the WMF and involved in the original project banning of them and subsequent fallout, I can say that she has acted in an unreasonable manner in her pursuit. Her actions have damaged articles and potentially valuable content. That is never appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Doncram: I don't know if you think you're some sort of civil rights crusader here, or if you're trying to fight some sort of big injustice, but you have been going over and over and over and OVER with this crusade. It's getting really tiresome. I could say more here -- a lot more -- but I'm too angry to really articulate it. You are wasting a lot of people's time going off on this stupid crusade, and meanwhile, your articles are suffering.

As an example: When I checked out Hill to Hill Bridge, a new article, I found that Bethlehem Waterworks was linked to it. It's a National Historic Landmark, and when I read the article and noticed how short it was, I knew it was one of yours. Here's one of the pearls of wisdom from it: "(It) is a site significant for its age." That doesn't give the reader any context. Doing just a little bit of research -- just reading the PDF online -- would have produced some more interesting facts. It was the first municipal pumping system that provided drinking and washing water anywhere in the American colonies. The Moravians who founded Bethlehem, Pennsylvania in 1741 had a village of several hundred people in 1750, and since they were spending so much time and effort hauling water up from the creek, they contracted with a local carpenter/millwright to build a water works. It was an ingenious system inspired by European technology. Yet the reader of the Wikipedia article on this topic wouldn't realize this -- all they'd know is that it's a site historic for its age, and it's on the banks of a creek.

I guess I'm seeing two different problems here: First, you're spending a lot of time advocating on behalf of a banned user who has been known to willfully damage the encyclopedia by inserting false, misleading, and unreferenced content. Despite everyone's attempts to convince you that there's a reason for the ban, and that the banned user(s) should appeal for themselves to resolve the ban, you keep pressing on with this crusade. Despite everyone's attempts to convince you to let the matter drop, you keep on railing against the administrators involved. The second major problem, which is unrelated, is that you've been creating a lot of short stubby NRHP articles that have no context and don't provide any useful information for the reader. "The houses are, indisputably, houses." is NOT educational. I don't know how many two-sentence stubs you've created that don't have context, but I can only guess at how many of those articles someone else is going to have to come back and clean up. I really think you should take on that duty yourself and produce at least a modicum of information before you press the "Save Page" button. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Doncram -- At this point, have watched your behavior for a few weeks, i would react with joy to any RFC you choose to open, or any other forums you seek to reopen this non-issue in again, because i will be making a very strong argument for a disruption block when you do. I make this comment here as someone who only got involved in a new rochelle article once, because of an AFD for an article written by a jvb sock that was inacurrate, deceptive, and wasted a lot of volunteer editor time, all the while with your squawking about fictional injustices done to the friends/roommates of the banned user. Even though i'd be happy to see you blocked at this point, i post here so you understand which way the wind is blowing.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

James W. Townsend House

It's cool. Only thing needed doing was tweak the links to Commons, which was easy. I remember when I created the stubs, thinking how odd it was that two identically named listings were so close [1]. And not the same person, AFAIK. Though the Townsend Building in Lake Butler is "related" to the house there. Cheers! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

PA nrhp names

Hi, I saw your comment on Nytend's talk page about the above. I changed a couple of Chester County names today to reflect the post office name rather than the township name. Many of these appear to be in township MPSs which is fine but I think a PO name is preferable. One had several local places listed but I went with the one the church itself uses {Wayne, PA]) Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope you don't mind, i will copy your comment from here to User talk:Nyttend#PA nrhp names to keep conversation together, and i'll reply further there. doncram (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason I've changed these is either (1) these names refer to a municipality in which they're not located (see the NRIS info issues for an older example, the Gardner-Bailey House near Pittsburgh), or (2) the names are for an unincorporated community. As far as I was able, I changed all the Chester County locations to the municipality, using a recent edition of the Pennsylvania Atlas and Gazetteer and the provided coords. Do you watch the Rhode Island lists? Someone just did the same thing with at least one county over there. My preference is for the municipality (whether township, borough, or city) to be listed in the community column, since that's objective while the other is subjective, and if we're doing that it's only reasonable to change the disambiguation name. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I posted more at Nyttend's talk page. Should it all be moved here instead? Nyttend, feel free to move it all here. doncram (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason that you couldn't find Roughwood on the Chester County list is that I had accidentally given its name as "Easttown Township" instead of "Roughwood". Don't know how this happened. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Allentown Historic District

I am puzzled. Why am I unable to find this here, here and why is it a redirect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Allentown Historic District should not have been a redirect to Kleinhans Music Hall. There are in fact two NRHP-listed historic districts, so I replaced the redirect by a disambiguation page. I see that the one in Buffalo, New York includes the Kleinhans Music Hall. The available interfaces have changed since 2007 when the redirect was set up; it probably appeared then that Kleinhans was an alternative name for the district rather than a "See also" type reference within the National Register Information System. The NHL search screen and the New York State NHL PDF list which you link to don't report Allentown HD because it is NRHP-listed but is not further designated an NHL. Kleinhans is an NHL though so should appear in both. In the process of clarifying, I started the Allentown Historic District (Buffalo, New York) article. I included a link to New York State's version of the NRHP application document for the district (a 108 page document) and two photo sets. These documents are available within the NYS system, and can be seen a lot better with Internet Explorer than with Firefox, FYI. If you have trouble with it i could email versions to you that i could print to PDF--I already printed the 108 page text to a PDF for myself to search through for author info to reference it properly. I began describing the district a bit in the article while files loaded for me. Hope i didn't put too much into the new article to make it hard for you to 5X it, or else I guess i started the clock for you if you want to do a DYK. Hope this helps.  :)doncram (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I can barely use it in Firefox. In MSIE, I can not tell, which add on I am being prompted to enable. Thus, I am unable to read anything right now. You can toss me a PDF by email. Do you know the boundaries of the area?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I am now able to access them in Firefox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Snyder-Middleswarth

Snyder-Middleswarth (NPS photo)

Hi Don, I saw on dm's talk page that you are interested in Snyder-Middleswarth National Natural Landmark in Pennsylvania. Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area exists as an article (the name is what the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources calls it now - it used to be a state park). I made the first red link above into a redirect. There are some sources hidden in the article as comments, and I have some print sources too. If I could ever find out when it stopped being a state park, I think it could be a FA. I also have been there and several times and have some photos to upload to Commons. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think, way back, I had picked the Snyder-Middleswarth NNL as an example to use specifically because i had noticed your interest in it, when I contacted the NPS trying to find sources equivalent to the NRHP application documents, but for National Natural Landmarks. It turned out they were very helpful, with 2 persons contacting me and giving their names and contact info, but it seemed as a general matter that the application-type documents are not available on-line. So I wasn't able to announce some great new source for these at wp:PAREAS. I'll look for the printed document(s) they mailed to me, and scan/send them to you. I think there was an application type document, plus a copy of a newspaper clipping about the opening ceremonies, one or both of which I think you don't have yet in the article, which indeed looks very nice. Thanks! doncram (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to give you a simple "thanks" in case you weren't watching the discussion from Killiondude's discussion page - SoSaysChappy (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bullying

Long comment from Orlady (collapsed by doncram)

Doncram, you have been persistent in accusing me of being a bully, both before and during my ongoing RfA. In my interactions with you, I try hard to focus on the subject matter and not the person, but since you have insisted on personalizing the situation, I think I need to respond in kind. I believe that you are the one who is truly a bully, and you are labeling me as a bully primarily because I have refused to back down in the face of your bullying. I don't know whether you have behaved similarly with others (I hope not), but I'd like you to examine your interactions with me so you can recognize your bullying behavior and refrain from this behavior in the future. Some of your comments at Talk:National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts are almost a textbook example of bullying. If you review that page, you will see that I started the discussion by posting a straightforward query on the talk page, commenting that I did not see encyclopedic value in the article and asking "What notability am I overlooking?" That was an invitation to provide your reasoning, not an attack. You responded quickly (but did not answer the question about notability), saying: "Whether or not it is a great wikipedia article yet, it's not hurting anyone or anything, either. I hope you will please not make a stink about this." A few hours later, after my response to you, you responded back to me in a statement that I consider to have been belligerent. Here it is, in part:

"...If you want to force an issue by opening an AfD or something, then ... you will force me to respond, and I expect that I would personally resent being forced by you to have to work on this list-article rather than other more important-seeming activities... Also ... you may raise larger questions which apply to many other lists of NRHPs. I don't know if it is helpful or friendly or wise to put a whole bunch of NRHP lists into AfD processes. What would be your point, if you were to attack this article? Seriously, how would you be improving wikipedia? What would you be teaching me, doncram, if there is something that you want to teach me? I simply don't get any general purpose that would be served by your attacking this article. I grant that you could put it up for AfD, and I don't know how that process would turn out. I grant that you could force me to research about this program.... It is in your power to affect my wikipedia activity and to lessen my enjoyment of working on positive articles here. I would strongly prefer that you either just walk away and let it be, or that you do some research yourself and develop the article. I strongly prefer that you take on some constructive, cooperative task, instead of starting an attack that I suspect would accomplish very little. For example, what about the issue of parentheses vs. commas in NRHP article names? I note that there are a bunch of local Los Angeles articles on non-NRHP historic sites, not following the NRHP naming convention. I note there are churches in England and elsewhere, not following the same naming convention. Honestly, I think there is an editorial consistency issue that would affect many thousands of current articles, and many more thousands of future articles. This is an issue that is more important than one small list of NRHPs. How about working on that, instead?"

I see that as the language of a bully, inciting an aggressive response by accusing the other party of inciting aggression, and concluding by delivering a message that can be distilled to "butt out of my turf!" In my response, I interpreted your comments about lack of coverage for the topic as "acknowledg[ing] that this topic currently lacks notability" (because your words had reflected language in the Notability guidelines, I assumed you were familiar with the guidelines, although you essentially denied this later on). Also, I said "I was hoping that you would agree to move this page outside of article space," but that it could be moved into article space in the future if evidence of notability was found. I concluded: "I also don't want to take this to AfD. However, if it's necessary to go through an AfD discussion to reach consensus regarding the application of WP policy to this article, I will reluctantly take the article there." (Note that you, not I, had been the first one to mention the possibility of taking the article to AfD.) Your next statement indicated that (to my surprise) you were not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, and you indicated an unwillingness to participate in WP processes. You said that WP policies "often conflict anyhow and have to be interpreted in long processes that are often hard to fathom," and objected to the possibility of an AfD, saying "Just because you have the power to create an issue and to force me and others to consider it, doesn't mean you are compelled to use it." In the schoolyard context, this was like the bully saying: "Keep this between you and me, here in the schoolyard; don't call in the school authorities." I responded with an explanation of my understanding of the notability guideline, the reason why I found the article lacking in notability, and a quotation from WP:NOT that supported my view that it did not belong in article space. I concluded that "there is .... nothing preventing this from being maintained in project space, as a useful resource." Your next comment asked me to "explain reasons." You focused the comment on me, questioning my motives ("reasons for creating an issue here", "why spend your and my time in your attacking this"), and made the statement I cited earlier: "If you don't feel like explaining, and if you feel inexplicably compelled to continue, then go ahead and raise the issue in AfD or wp:Requested moves or requests for arbitration or whatever other forum, and I will respond more fully to point out what I feel to be inaccuracies in your statements, and I will muster arguments for keeping this list-article where it is now." I see that as a bully drawing a line in the sand, or the equivalent of "Go ahead, make my day." Although your comment had been focused on me and my motives, I chose not to respond to that aspect of your comment, but instead responded by enumerating the issues I saw regarding the article. I saw this as a reasonable response to your request to "explain my reasons", and since you said nothing more on the subject (after 10 comments on the talk page in about 29 hours, there was no activity for almost 4 days). I misinterpreted your silence as acquiescence, so I moved the page to project space (what I had proposed earlier and as User:Appraiser had encouraged doing). Apparently, though, you had been watching and waiting for me to do that (that was my crossing of that metaphorical line in the sand), and you reverted my page move 35 minutes after I made it. After that behavior, I truly believed (and I still believe) that you had "dared" me to take the article to AfD.

This is hardly the only instance in which your communications to me have had a strong flavor of "Get out of my space and stay out, or else!" That is the classic behavior of a bully. I can only conclude that it is because I refused to back down in the face of your bullying that you have reacted by attaching the "bully" label to me. --Orlady (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I reference and respond to Orlady's long comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady#Questions for the candidate, Question 12, where she first composed this comment. After getting feedback at her talk page apparently about this RfA passage that "a long strident argument" did not serve her well, she chose, oddly i think, to move it here. I would be willing to engage in a discussion about bullying in wikipedia, and the ironic problem that standing up to a bully can be seen as bullying and/or merge with bullying behavior itself, in some other appropriate forum, some other time. Again, my response is within the RfA. doncram (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
As it happens, I had removed those comments from the RfA and moved them here before that remark appeared on my talk page. Also, you replied on my RfA page several hours after I had moved the comments here. In what way do you think that your very deliberate decision to reply on the RfA and hide my comments on this page benefits the encyclopedia? --Orlady (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I've learned that the explicitly stated times of timestamps can't be relied upon to establish sequence of comments, due to timezone differences i suppose, without further research. Hence i identified it as "apparently" about that RfA passage. I do think it serves wikipedia to bear witness about what i perceive to be shortcomings in your wikipedia behavior, in your Request for Adminship that you opened. I think it helps to collapse your comments here and have any separate, general discussion about bullying another day, in a different forum. Neighbors to where i am now are calling out Easter Day greetings to one another; I'm going out on another walk in the sunshine now. doncram (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I also get confused by time zone issues for timestamps in edit histories (I'm in US Eastern Time, which is 4 or 5 hours behind UTC, depending on whether daylight savings time is in effect), but I've learned that the time stamps on talk pages (including noticeboards, RfAs, etc., in the "Wikipedia" space) all use UTC. --Orlady (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

On the general subject of interpersonal behavior, I am disappointed to find evidence that you have been canvassing to encourage others to change their !votes on my RfA. How many other users have you contacted in this fashion? And how many did you alert to the RfA, or like this? --Orlady (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not positive but I think that may be the only 2 mentions i made, unless you want to count mention of the RfA at my Talk page which you and others have participated in, and at the ANI incident where I mentioned the RfA going on and no one objected. The second case you point to was a person, who, like me, was already involved in discussing your adminship bid at your Talk page, before you opened it. As the eventual RfA nominator or someone else noted, your RfA was "open" before it was open. I know that in some general ways "canvassing" is disapproved of, etiquette-wise, for RfAs, but that seems to be a person with self-avowed interest in speaking in your RfA, already involved in the pre-RfA that would be some kind of special case. The first I also don't know exactly about the etiquette of, either. I don't know that it is prohibited to talk about an ongoing RfA, elsewhere, with someone who already voted in the RfA. Like, I don't believe it can be prohibited for people to talk, outside of wikipedia, about what is going on in wikipedia. It certainly turned out in your favor as Hans Adler seems to be a great supporter of your candidacy. I'll go and check that wp:canvassing link now. If either of these is a transgression by actual rules, I may owe an apology, but it will have been an unintentional mistake. doncram (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not clear to me. The policy or guideline states "Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." The 2nd person had announced that he had specific information relevant to the RfA to bring to bear in the discussion, which would improve the quality of the discussion. It looks like I should have said publicly that i invited that, in terms of being more open, but I have not seen examples of others making such announcements in this RfA or other RfA's (I have not watched many RfA's closely). About the first person, I came across his posting within a discussion between you and me at my/your Talk page about communication styles, and I thought he might have some expertise and/or something useful to add to the discussion by focussing on that. If i recall correctly i said i would appreciate his consideration either way (neutral) although i was asking him to consider changing his vote (not neutral). I have not sent out private emails asking anyone to vote or posted at wikiprojects or done anything else that would constitute mass scale canvassing, which is what the policy or guideline seems most concerned with, anyhow, if you are wondering that. If others with more expertise on the protocol want to share their views on what exactly would have been more appropriate or what should be done now, if anything, that is fine by me. Perhaps it would be appropriate for someone to write something neutral at the RfA, at the comment by the 2nd person, that this was an invited (or invited-by-doncram) comment from someone who had previously expressed interest in commenting along those lines in the RfA. I could insert such a note myself if you like, or someone more clearly neutral and knowledgeable about practice here might do it better. doncram (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb this talk page again but the discussion seems to be purposefully and conveniently spread out on user talkpages, whereas it should take place at the RfA for Orlady. I do not see any reason not to notify other users who might have had interactions with the user proposed for adminship. I did the same thing at the Arbitration Request, as it is recommended. I notified any user who was formerly involved in the case of the Arbitration Reqyest.
Orlady, do you remember the instance where I commented on your RfA when it was not yet opened. I did not notice it was not opened yet, but there were two support votes already on March 3rd that made me think it was open already. See this diff [2], all due to mistake of course, as the supporting users admitted. However, the mistake was only mentioned when I left my comment there (neutral at that time), the premature support votes were welcome, obviously. Compared to your accusations against Doncram who invided users who might be interested in you RfA, these premature support votes border to what some might call fraud, I just call it suspicious. Would you agree that this premature start of your RfA sounds sort of suspicious, Orlady? Do not answer here, I added this as question 10c at the RfA. doxTxob \ talk 06:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the "premature" comments, I have responded to you at the RfA, DoxTxob. Regarding WP:Canvassing, I appreciate Doncram's candid answers to my query. I think there's no harm done, and if nothing else, the conversation has alerted both of you to this guideline. I admit that I was a bit surprised by the guideline when I first learned about it (when I saw accusations that others had violated it), but it's an embedded element of Wikipedia culture that we all need to be aware of. --Orlady (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for accepting that as no harm done. Going the other way this seems more like canvassing by Kaldari. Mass-nature announcement to a wikiproject. A 2nd announcement, non-neutral, after already making clear that Kaldari was the nominator. doncram (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

CN Y Road pics

I know you're interested in CNY stuff. I just uploaded a bunch of road pics for Mitchazenia here [[3]], if you feel like taking a look. Note the snow in the last one, taken on April 5. I bet it's nicer where you are. Lvklock (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to thank you truly for your recent additions to your comments at Siena College. I had not taken offence to anything you had said before, but do appreciate the clarification of your position on my views. It seems a few editors take issue with the way I present my facts and dont care if my facts are true or not, they just assume they are not. Though thanks to your kind words I may just revive Camelbinky since you have proven that I do have friends around here. Again- thank you.Camelbinky (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you ever need my help in researching something or need me to comment somewhere or vote on something all you have to do is ask. I have plenty of freetime at work and home I love to research things. Anyone gives you a problem about anything tell me and I'll give them a bigger problem to deal with, I'll whip out that chair from the bar in the Pine Bush!Camelbinky (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, quick question

Locke, CA pic by David Manniaux

What was this edit for? I stumbled upon the article (I found that its actually relatively close to where I live), and when I perused the article history I noticed that edit. Just curious. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Switching from use of template:infobox nrhp2 to use of template:infobox nrhp was purely a technical matter, involving cooperation of many. Previously, nrhp2 was a fork / alternative implementation of the infobox template. It has since been merged and my edit was towards implementing that merger, towards eliminating any confusion about there being two versions (while in fact there is just one now). Locke, California seems like a seriously interesting place. Adding pic here, for visual pleasure. Thanks! doncram (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

FLC for Hennepin County: Forget it, it's a waste of my time

I really don't understand why you want to pick a fight with Orlady on my talk page. You've already done this at WP:AN/I, WP:RFAR, WP:RFA, and whatever featured article/featured list discussions where you've clashed with her. I guess you're going to go ahead and snipe on my talk page since it's your custom. I was just sort of testing the waters as far as making Hennepin County a featured list when I asked Orlady her opinion. Since you and Orlady are just going to butt heads together, on a list where I've invested the huge majority of effort, I'm not even sure I want to bother with the process of seeking featured list status. It would be just another series of pointless arguments. And to think I've driven all over Hennepin County to take photos, all the way from Hassan Township in the north to Rockford in the west, and even snowshoed across Lake Minnetonka in the winter so I could get to Crane Island. No, let's just go ahead and shoot down the process -- and shoot down the list in the first place -- so you can start yet another battle. Now I know why I've lost faith in WP:NRHP and in my editing of Wikipedia in general. And this shouldn't even be my fiasco to begin with. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that that is your interpretation. I don't want to pick a fight. I meant to signal that I wanted to separate conflict about tone / communication style / etc. out, away, from content-building activity. And, towards that, at the point of some potential misunderstanding, i was registering that there was something to discuss, but that it could wait until later and be discussed elsewhere. I assume you prefer that rather than actually having an unpleasant fight then and there. doncram (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You didn't even have to register that there was something to discuss at all. You didn't have to start sniping on my talk page. Besides, it's quite obvious that you've had a running disagreement with Orlady. All you wanted to do was to point out yet another opinion of hers that you disagreed with. And that was in a conversation that I was having with Orlady. That was two people involved -- not me, Orlady, and you. If I had a problem with what she was saying, or how she was saying it, then I would have taken it up with her. I didn't see any problems with her communication style, although I didn't take all of her suggestions as requirements that I had to implement or else. (For example, I want to find a way, in addition to color, to indicate that properties are National Historic Landmarks, historic districts, or just regular properties. I don't think I'm going to take her suggestion exactly, but I'll take it as a springboard for further discussion.)
As far as "content building" is concerned: Clean up your own content first. Let's take a look at Hays House (Lorman, Mississippi). You created the article with gems like, "It is, indeed, a house with a history." And you just filled in the date built, NRHP reference number, the date of the registration form, and the number of pages with underscores. Someone else had to come along later to clean up your work. I think you probably would have had more time to work on the article, but instead your next contributions on March 20 were to complain about the featured list process (this edit and this edit) and then to try to find a loophole to get a New Rochelle editor unblocked. Does "content building" to you really mean "building content to support my own personal interests"? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 13:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Quackenbush House

Thank you for starting this article! I've added quite a bit and an old photo, Ive found it fun working on it, even though it probably wont ever get very big. If you can do one of those DYK's for it, I think that would be great, but I've never done anything like that before so am hesitant to nominate it myself. I'm hoping Wadester can help out and take a current photo from roughly the same spot and angle as the 1890 photo so we can have a good contrast between 1890 and today. I came across something, but the website wasnt all that reliable that the house underwent renovations in the 1800's that made it more in the Federal-style, did you come across any comments like that in the NRHP site? I havent been able to verify the statement anywhere other than one other source that says the house was "modified during the Federal period" which I dont know is the same as putting in Federal-style architecture or just expanding the footprint of the building during a specific historical era called the "Federal period".Camelbinky (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey what you added looks good. There is plenty more in the NRHP application document, which i hope you can access via the footnote link, though it works a lot better in MSIE rather than Apple browser or Firefox. It would be really nice if anyone else would help with that so Camelb could get a DYK, but i probably can't right now. doncram (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad you like it, its the first NRHP article I've worked on, that I know of at least. Wadester agreed to take a photo if time allows, it may be awhile though, but its not like the article is in any time-crunch anyways. I'm thinking the three of us could be a great team to go through pretty quickly all the NRHP redlinks in the Capital District (probably constrained at first on how far Wadester is willing to drive). I'll start looking over the footnote link and learning about the special quirks relating to NRHP articles, but if you want to make as many of those redlinks into stubs with the basic NRHP templates and standard info, I can probably churn out history sections for them fast enough to keep up and then if Wadester wants to he could at his leisure take current photos of them. I remember there was another editor in the CD wikiproject who had listed that he had a good collection of photos of NRHP sites in the Capital District..perhaps contacting that user would be of help, as many people as we can get would speed things along.Camelbinky (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa Street Power Station

I created this stub a while ago. Recently a revision was done that I believe is Copyvio and a problem as promotional info. To be honest, I'm not terribly interested in policing this kind of stuff. I'm not sure whether reverting the edit is the appropriate action, and if it is whether I'm supposed to give some kind of waarning first. I thought of asking Daniel Case, as an admin I'm familiar with, but he's on vacation. Should I take it to a different Admin, or what? Lvklock (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which edit you mean in its history, but I do see a new editor made his/her first edit in wikipedia there, perhaps needing some direction. I placed a welcome message and asked about sources for the article. Could you post what sources you found, at its Talk page, either now or in a day or two if the person doesn't reply? I don't mind helping out there, would probably just revise what was added to reword or to use quote marks. doncram (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I already posted the article I found at the talk page. Lvklock (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again, for taking care fo this. Lvklock (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comments on my recent edits to this article. Fladrif (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohio

Please pardon my copying the following section from above; I just realised that you might not have noticed my comments, as I placed them in the middle of the page.

I see that the WP:NRHP section with how-to-get-forms for each state has nothing on Ohio. I'd appreciate having access to Ohio forms for when I go home; do you know where those can be obtained? I know that I can get them through the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, but I don't feel like paying for them (see the bottom of this page, their profile of the Plaza Apartments, for details), so I'd appreciate it if you could find if they're hosted anywhere for free, like the Pennsylvania ones that you showed me. I'm not going to be home for a month, so please don't think that this is some sort of urgent request :-) In the meantime, I'll continue using the Pennsylvania ones; I hope to get out to the Old Homestead in Lawrence County this week, and the materials on its form will be quite helpful. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok, np, sorry i didn't reply sooner. There are docs on-line at the NPS Focus site ( search at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do?searchtype=natreghome ) for, it looks like, more than 100 Ohio sites, which will be the National Historic Landmark ones and some others. But the NPS Focus system has not been working for me when i go all the way to try to get a document now. I think there's a server error going on. If there's nothing in the "state specific sources" section, then i never looked into or found any separate Ohio state source. What you found is probably all that is available from the state. I guess i should add your link to the Ohio HPO, there. Only some states have made all their documents available. The National Register is perhaps going to add more... i heard California ones were being prepared. But, any other Ohio ones, you can/should put in a request by email to the National Register for what you most need. Email to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. They copy and send by postal mail to you, at no charge. I've only asked for a couple at a time though. They often state it might take a week or two, but then i've gotten them sooner. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! My interest is a few sites very near my home that don't really have precise enough information: I'd like to visit them if access is permitted, and if it's not, I'd like to know that. Without the forms, I don't know if I'll be able to find the sites; perhaps I'll check the local history rooms at nearby libraries. PDFs for all the sites I want are available from that search, but I too got a "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage" message. Hopefully it will be available when I can make use of it :-) Nyttend (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I hope you'll fire off an email to the NPS, to ask for electronic copies for the docs you need. I don't think they get many inquiries that highlight their websystem is not working properly, which is a problem pretty often on exactly this. No cost to them or to you, for them to email the documents, as they've done for me on some other sites. doncram (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for not saying this before, but I did send an email to report problems. Just now I tried to access all three PDFs, and I'm not getting an error message — however, instead I get "This nomination form has not yet been digitised". Are the printed versions as full as the online versions (when they're available) hosted at nrhp.focus... are? Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Accountancy task force

Hello, this message is being sent to you since you are a member of the Accountancy task force. This is just a heads-up that the task force has been expanded with new features and its main page modified. Now that the task force has assessed over 800 articles in its scope, a breakdown can be seen of the quality of articles. A new userbox can be added to your page, and if you know of a editor contributing to accounting articles, a welcoming template can be used to invite the editor to join the task force. If you haven't already, consider watchlisting the main discussion page. There is currently a discussion about adding a template to some main accounting topics that would benefit from input by other editors. Feel free to leave feedback on the discussion page for further improving these new features. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

stop canvassing (copied in from User talk:Kaldari and extended)

(This is, confusingly, a copy of my notice plus Kaldari's response at User talk:Kaldari#stop canvassing. Kaldari's apparent canvassing has been discussed now at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#inappropriate canvassing where Kaldari concedes the appearance of vote-stacking by his edits. The possibility that Kaldari further covered something up is further discussed at its subsection "further, coverup?".

I am going to collapsing the discussion that appeared here, and I suggest further comments should be atWikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#inappropriate canvassing and possibly at User talk:Kaldari, where there is at least one other comment already. doncram (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Kaldari's paste-in plus my reply believing it was at his Talk page (collapsed by doncram)

I noticed your second announcement of an ongoing RfA at Wikiproject Tennessee, which I think verges on inappropriate canvassing. I see you have since posted 5 announcements at selected individual Talk pages. Stop it. doncram (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the hypocricy :) Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I had hesitated to question your 2nd posting at the Wikiproject, due to the discussion already at my own Talk page about whether my notice to that Opposer plus my notice to a Supporter constituted canvassing. That has been discussed rather fully at my Talk page, and i have consequently informed myself more fully about wp:canvass guideline now. But your multiple posings in at least 6 selective places (the nominee's Talk plus 5 persons you judge as supporters or possible supporters) appears to be possibly going over the line of what should be acceptable, and could suggest you are ready to post more that way, so i thought i should speak up. You are an administrator, involved in RfAs, and you should know better, in advance. I posted mention of your possibly inappropriate canvassing at the general RfA talk area (already with disclosure of that discussion at my Talk page, and i think timestamps should show that was before your counter-accusation here). You may wish to comment there. doncram (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Albany County, New York

I added the photo of the Quackenbush House there. Also I noticed that the Albany Academy link is to the academy itself and there is no article on the original building itself, which is what is on the list. Should the building itself have an article or do you think the academy article is enough? The original building is (at least for now) the offices for the Albany City School District and was where Joseph Henry conducted his experiments that led to the discovery of electro-magnetism/self induction (among other things never patented and led to the invention of things such as the telegraph).Camelbinky (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've pretty much done all I can right now for First Reformed Church (Albany, New York), Quackenbush House, St. Peter's Episcopal Church (Albany, New York), and Ten Broeck Mansion. Unfortunately I am unable to, at this moment, find anything of note to add to the Abrams Building article. If you make any more NRHP articles for the CD or know of any that could use help let me know I'll do what I can, I'll start looking at the lists of NRHP listings in the other counties in the area in the meantime for articles to work on. I enjoy working on these NRHP articles as they are giving me info that I can also use in history sections on the appropriate city and county articles as well.Camelbinky (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fleet's Hall and other Oyster Bay historic sites

(section retitled from "Thanks for your support" by Doncram, so i can link to this from elsewhere)
Hello,

Just wanted to say thanks for your message. Am working hard to get the Oyster Bay content in order. Interesting issue with Fleet's Hall. This is for a building that once existed in the center of Oyster Bay, but which is now demolished. Apparently people feel it's not notable. I strongly disagree. Thankfully, most of my other articles are for historic buildings that are still intact. Any help you can provide dealing with these pesky editors who don't understand historic buildings would be helpful.

Inoysterbay (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I just commented, already, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleet's Hall. It does seem a bit awkward to have an article about building whose predecessor was notable, perhaps it needs to be reworked. So, the AfD nominator and the pesky others aren't all wrong, but I think the article can be improved and kept. More historic-sites-interested editors being involved would help. doncram (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. I put a call out to the Long Island group you mentioned. Anything further you can do to help save this article would be appreciate. As I hope you can see, I'm working to further develop and protect the whole body of work related to Oyster Bay. Inoysterbay (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it matters so much if this one were to get deleted, as, per discussion, it can be covered in another list article, and that might possibly be more appropriate. I'd more like to see the List of Town of Oyster Bay Landmarks, which i like that you started, developed. I'm watching the AfD and those articles now. Thanks to others for commenting in the AfD. doncram (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson College

Hi. Regarding your move of Jefferson College (Mississippi).. there is no other Jefferson College in Mississippi. There's a 2 year Jefferson College in Missouri, but there are no others in Mississippi. Therefore, you should undo the move. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It was my mistake in the move description. I had misunderstood the 2 year college was in Missouri rather than Mississippi, which i noticed afterward while further editing Jefferson College disambiguation. However, I still prefer the (City, State) style disambiguation for the Mississippi one. Will comment further at Talk:Jefferson College (Washington, Mississippi). Thanks. doncram (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes

Thanks for the good wishes on my RfA, Doncram. I also hope for the best -- and I'm still afraid of letting my fingers get too close to the links that say "block" and "delete." --Orlady (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, you also have to try to have fun with those, i suppose. :) Actually i am not close to areas like your good work on non-accredited schools, where i gather there is naturally a lot of opportunity for use of those tools. I do think the exposure of those schools to careful scrutiny is a good thing, that your past work has accomplished. I expect you'll do well, anyhow, wherever/however you choose to contribute now. doncram (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Allentown Historic District (Buffalo, New York)

I apologize, I am back in Chicago and realize that the sign I took a picture of for Allentown Historic District (Buffalo, New York) is not within the designated Historic District.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap

I have started using OpenStreetMap, which was mentioned in signposts a week and a half ago. I have produced about a half dozen maps including those used in Delaware Avenue Historic District, Allentown Historic District (Buffalo, New York), Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard, and Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive. Have you tried it? I just use Microsoft Paint to add lines to the maps it yields.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think the template could be changed to accomodate an extra local level map?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This is really cool. It's great for the district articles. Lvklock (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

UKhahlamba / Drakensberg Park

Nice stub for one of the UNESCO WHS's that didn't have one. Did you just copy an infobox from another article and fill the stuff in from the WHS website? Lvklock (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that is all i've done, so far. Well i also copied in some text from Drakensberg article, but that seems more about an entire mountain range, not just about the rock art and smaller area in the World Heritage Site. Thanks for noticing! doncram (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Santa Monica historic sites list, more

Thanks for the encouragement. I needed it after getting into my first dispute over at Ranchos of California where I am working on eventually having an entry for every (about 800) rancho in California. I am still finding my way around - I still haven't figured simple things like where to reply to a message on my talk page. Emargie (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Mississippi county NRHP lists

Unless I am missing something, aren't these all redundant considering they are listed in a parent list? For example, do we need National Register of Historic Places listings in Leflore County, Mississippi when it's already in National Register of Historic Places listings in Mississippi? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I split the Leflore county one and others out of the state-wide list. They no longer appear within the statewide list. This is a consequence of expanding into table format; the state-wide list has to be split or it would greatly exceed 100 Kb file size, the upper bound recommended. I choose to follow others' examples with other state lists and split out the larger counties into separate articles. doncram (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Thanks for helping me understand why. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 00:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Geo-stubs

Hi Doncram - good to see a few new geo-stubs for places in Mississippi. Just a quick heads-up that it'll save some work further down the line if you could mark any new ones you make with {{Mississippi-geo-stub}} rather than just {{geo-stub}}. All countries and lots of subnational regions (including all US states) have their own geo-stubs, all in the form StateName-geo-stub. Cheers, and keep up the good work! :) Grutness...wha? 00:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thanks for noticing and advising me! doncram (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

states

NP. Glad to help. Any time. Lvklock (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Acepharma

Quick correction: I did not block Acepharma (talk · contribs), a checkuser did - along with several other sock accounts. It was a bit troubling to see that you had already found this user, and even mentioned a connection to Jvolkblum. I wouldn't have needed to delete all the sock's articles if you had raised your suspicion before it went wild creating them all. But if you prefer it this way, that's fine too. Wknight94 talk 20:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't prefer it this way. I was mildly hoping and suggesting to you by my earlier note at User talk:Acepharma that you would let the Acepharma account go, as it was showing entirely good behavior as far as I was/am aware of. I would prefer some solution to the continuing mess that would allow this editor, who I assume is same as Cali_whoever, and not necessarily the same as Jvolkblum or "Person G", to contribute productively to wikipedia. Following your direct suggestions to do so, not too long ago I opened a wp:an discussion with a comprehensive proposal, which was shut down rather immediately. You are aware of that. I think that proposal could have worked, but it was not really considered. There have been many subsequent developments, all of which you are aware of. doncram (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It's the same person as Jvolkblum. I am 100% sure. Wknight94 talk 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
That's very nice that you have that 100% certainty. I don't have that certainty. When O and you and others have stated your certainty on various matters, it has sometimes turned out that y'all have been incorrect. It would have cut short a lot of questions thougth, if checkusers would have made an effort to investigate whether User:Cali and others were the same as Jvolkblum or not, and if you would have supported that, rather than disregarding the possibility. I don't know if i am ready to get in argument here on my Talk page with you about all of this again now. Is there an appropriate forum in which you would like to participate constructively to discuss resolution of the Jvolkblum mess. If so point it out. If there is not, then further discussion is useless. doncram (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Loudonville, New York

I dont want to confront or start another argument with Hippo43 but can you take a look at the info I put into Loudonville that Hippo keeps removing. It is my personal opinion that he is removing the info because it may make him "look bad" in that it is a legitimate newspaper source that mentions that some people use Loudonville PO boxes as their addresses even if they live outside the mailing area just because it makes their business seem "higher class" and legitimizes what some of us said at Siena College that PERHAPS the college wanted to promote the name L. for its own benefit. But anyways, I just wanted a second opinion, if you think the info I put in really doesnt belong then I'll go along, but if you dont think so I still dont know what to do because I'm not going to get into another convo with that guy! I'll ask an admin to look at it too because this isnt the first time since the Siena College ruckus that Hippo has removed info I've put into an article claiming "the info isnt relevant".Camelbinky (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an intractable situation. Hippo is being unpleasant, even wp:uncivil with that last edit comment. I think the contribution you made, with its source, is indeed very relevant for the article, although perhaps not in the demographics section (which, by the way, also has a non-demographics, non-supported assertion about relative property values). However, i don't want to get further embroiled there with Hippo, and i took it off my watchlist. I started working on the list of articles you had requested at wt:capdis, hoping to help you get out of it too. Why not work on Rapp Road Community Historic District for DYK, instead. doncram (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I have worked on RRCHD as well, it just bothers me that he pushed me out of Siena College, then out of Administrative Divisions of New York (again undoing edits of mine saying they werent relevant even when properly cited). Where does it end? What stops him from doing the same at the many articles I work on? I'm not going to comment to him or continue the debate, I just wanted to know if the info I put was relevant. I did post the same comment to Daniel Case and if he wants to step in that's up to him, but you are right, I should drop it. Just keep an eye out if he migrates to other articles, I believe he does it to get a rise out of people and if we ignore him on this he'll try again somewhere else.Camelbinky (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The half barnstar!

The Half Barnstar
We may not agree on everything, but your insistence on standing up for what is important to you, and your refusal to accept mediocrity, is one of the things that makes Wikipedia better (and helped make PhotoCatBot a better bot!) For your spirited argument on photo requests and WikiProject NRHP, I award you the Left Half of the Half Barnstar. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Half Barnstar
I award you, doncram, the right half of this barnstar for your excellent combined efforts with Camelbinky for work on Capital District-related articles as of late. Keep up the good work. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 06:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

DAB as orphan

Of course you're right that DAB should be orphans, I was sleepy, sorry for the bother. Kevin Rector (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at DoriSmith's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Requesting forms by mail

Do I understand rightly that I don't have to pay for copies of nomination forms requested from http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/about.htm#contactus? I just sent an email to request three forms, but I can't remember if a fee will be required. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar recognition

The WikiProject Barnstar
Your efforts at WP:NRHP and WP:HSITES have been heroic. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Church disambig

Template:Church disambig has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There has been some more substantial discussion there, including some alternative proposal(s) which i don't entirely understand. It would be helpful if you would comment further and/or ask questions with me about what are the alternatives. Offhand, if there is some way to incorporate church disambig into the overall disambig template, being an option or subcategory or something, i am not necessarily opposed to that. Anyhow, please stay involved in the discussion. Cheers, doncram (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not necessarily too opposed to that either. I don't see how it helps but as long as it stays in some form, I don't feel like fighting over it much. --Carlaude (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Coord grouping

Thank you. That was very helpful; never knew you could do that. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 13:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK's

Have you checked out some of the info I put in to expand Albany Union Station? I dont know if the deadline has expired on putting a DYK on that article or if anything in it really merits a DYK but I just thought you might want to consider it. I've never done a DYK so I'm not so sure about what the criteria is.Camelbinky (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

NC NRHP lists

Hi Don ... I'm working my way through North Carolina a county at a time. I know the number of properties in each county because I have a spreadsheet with all of the NC listings. Some of the counts in the table may be off by 1 or 2, but they should be pretty accurate. --sanfranman59 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Might be time to either shrink the barnstars or put in a separate page for them

You've earned a lot of them! dm (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


New NRHP article

FYI this new NRHP article: Grand Gulf Military State Park (Mississippi). Please help flesh it out if you know of anything worth adding. Also, the coordinates.. they need adjusting. I initially used the coordinates from National Register of Historic Places listings in Claiborne County, Mississippi but that didn't put GGMSP anywhere near the Mississippi River or anywhere in Claiborne County on the location image map in the infobox. So I tried adjusting them myself. I got GGMSP on the river but it's not in Claiborne County. Thanks. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind about the coordinates, I fixed it. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

F. M. Howell and Company

I just started this stub and added a picture gallery. I can't decide what pic should go in the infobox. Take a look and see what you think. Lvklock (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is gonna be a long night. Sitting in the ER with my mother. Have you had a chance to look at this? Lvklock (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Lvklock (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Detroit

Basically what's going on is twofold: (1) Andrew is advocating having some of the images at sizes other than 100px, while I'm saying that it's not necessary and perhaps detracts from the page a little. We both see this as a minor issue. (2) Inclusion of a line in the table as follows:

Site name Image Date listed Location Proximate Major Street Summary
999 NRHP Properties in Highland Park Various locations near Woodward Ave., between Tuxedo/Tennyson St. and Mc Nichols Rd. Woodward 13000 Highland Park is an enclave within the city of Detroit, centered on Woodward Avenue. The NRHP properties in Highland Park, including the National Historic Landmark Highland Park Ford Plant, are located on or near Woodward.

I'm strongly opposing this, as this isn't an actual listing, and as Andrew agrees, it's not in Detroit, so I believe that it shouldn't be included in a Detroit-only list. Andrew's response is basically "we shouldn't base this list exclusively on political boundaries; it's an enclave, so it is geographically within Detroit and should count as part of Detroit for the purposes of this list". I've strongly opposed that, since these lists are always done by political boundaries. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

On e.g. Valencia

Hi, meeting again. I understand you are working with NHRP-lists. I am about to backread some more talks about this shortly, starting from Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation we know and the talks and their archives. But already before I dive into it, I would suggest you try a holdback on relating pages to NHRP (like Valencia today). The abbreviation itself might be very unknown outside U.S. (I really could not link to it at first, both mentally and e-wise). But more important: a thing being on that list is just a property of the thing. It is not a defining or signifying property. So maybe I might suggest shortly that the abbreviation is used not in these situations. -22:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and the big previous discussion is what I will read (saw the title in archive, not studied it; this is the thing I mentioned). And the Valencia page did spell out the abbreviation fully - I stumble out there in the daylight. Remaining (and main) point: being on the NRHP may be not the main property of a thing. The blue link with # Valencia (Ridgeway, South Carolina) could be geographical: Ridgeway, South Carolina. -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I replied also at User talk:DePiep#Valencia. About using just "NRHP", i agree that should often be spelled out as "U.S. National Register of Historic Places", especially on dab pages like Valencia which is mostly about non-U.S. places. It might be spelled out in just the first usage, on some other dab pages. I think it was originally not spelled out on the Valencia page, but I did spell it out in my update there. But, about the blue link with Valencia (Ridgeway, South Carolina), the NRHP list-article is entirely fine, but the Ridgeway, South Carolina article is currently unacceptable as it does not itself have the Valencia (Ridgeway, South Carolina) link. Happy to continue. doncram (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I read your reply there. I re-replied here (starting 'I understand'). So no misunderstanding. (enough for today.) -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, also, the previous blue link I had put in was to List of RHPs in SC, which does not actually give the Valencia (Ridgeway, South Carolina) link. The part of the SC list which gives the link is National Register of Historic Places listings in Fairfield County, South Carolina. I further updated the Valencia dab page to link to that instead. doncram (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Historic church building

Sure, I did wonder if the architecture for that one merited a page. Good workandycjp (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly not listed

User:BFDhD recently added an "Idora Park Merry-Go-Round" to the Mahoning County, Ohio list; after searching, I could find it, so I removed it. It was soon restored (along with the removal of the Burt Building, listed last July), with the comment of "Burt isn't YET listed", and BFDhD gave me the reference number for the merry-go-round, #75001482. Plugging this into Elkman, I get a note of "This property may not actually be listed on the National Register - listing code is RN". It is listed on nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, and the Burt Building (due to being listed just last July) isn't, so I'm wondering if this user is going by that site in good faith. What does "RN" mean, do you know? If you get a chance, could you investigate this a little? Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Does "RN" mean removed, then? I'm not clear if (1) it definitely is, or (2) it's just a possibility. Thanks for your help! Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I currently don't know for sure. I just sent an email request to the National Register asking for explanation of the NR code and other codes, and also asking for the NRHP application documents for the Idora Park Merry-Go-Round. I'll let you know as soon as I receive either. doncram (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"RN" does indeed mean that a property has been removed from the National Register. I did a search on nps.gov to see if the removal was listed in their weekly updates, but it didn't find anything, so it was probably removed a long time ago. This story sort of indicates that the carousel was dismantled and a collector took the horses and restored them. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Wait, here's a little more information. Idora Park was listed on the National Register in 1993 (here's the infobox). Idora Park, Youngstown has some more of the history of the park, although if the church cleared all the buildings, I'm not sure why the property is still listed on the National Register. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I have not been acquainted with Elkman until now. As I noted below, my information comes directly from the OHPO office files and their own Web site. OHPO does indicate (falsely) that the Merry-go-Round was demolished, and once can search for demolished properties from their Web site, but . . . they do not list either Idora Park or the Merry-go-round as de-listed properties (for which one can do a separate type of search). On another note, I'm sure you've noticed that the demolition of a property does not automatically render it delisted on the NRHP.--BFDhD (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

PSI thought OHPO had a search function for delisted properties. They do not. Apologies!--BFDhD (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a follow-up. Do we have any information from NPS (other than that from Elkman) to confirm/deny delisting of the MGR? I've communicated with several individuals at OHPO to see if I can get to the bottom of this from them. I will let you know the final say from their office when I hear something. Until then, I think it deserves a footnote on the Mahoning County NR page, just to clarify matters. It seems that the owners of the MGR definitely think their property is still listed. . . .--BFDhD (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the National Register's own interface, at http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrname1.htm, shows only Idora Park, not the Idora Park Merry-Go-Round, being listed. I could believe that the owners think it is still listed, because it is hard to know what is in the register or not. I "believe" Elkman's info that the merry-go-round received listing status "RN" on October 29, 1985, but it is hard to point to that in a convincing way in a reference from the article. Contradictory (and erroneous) info, that the merry-go-round is listed on the National Register, and that it was listed October 29, 1985, appears at NRHP.COM and perhaps other places mirroring NRIS data. Another mirror site which focuses on buildings, Archiplanet, shows Idora Park (at http://www.archiplanet.org/wiki/Idora_Park) but not the merry-go-round.
Actually, i am not clear on any source for the other date, on where the February 6, 1975 listing date was obtained from. That's not shown in the Elkman infobox report available by plugging in the refnum into the regular infobox generator. (Elkman, if you are watching, did you get that by a custom inquiry, or was there a different source?) I also did put in a request about Idora Park Merry-Go-Round, asking for its NRHP documents, to the National Register in Washington, D.C. Will report if/when I get anything. Until we get a clear report from Ohio or national, it's fine by me for the article and for the county list-article to show uncertainty as to the merry-go-round's status. doncram (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I found the 1975 date in this PDF. The NPS has all of their past weekly updates, since NRHP began, posted on their weekly update page. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 16:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks DtB! Then, also, I should be able to find the October 29 1985 status change to "RN" described in the 1985 counterpart, NRHP listings, 1985 but I do not readily find it there. (Too bad these are not searchable PDFs, they should be rescanned to add that feature.) doncram (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Unforutunately, the NPS had a tendency to forget to add something to an update and would add it to another update, sometimes months after the delisting or listing took place. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 18:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How?

Is there some central repository for dates of delistings? All this has made me wonder about the way we reference our delistings that aren't in Recent Listings pages; that's why, for example, when I tablised Iowa, I hid all the delisted properties rather than putting them into tables. I'm going to be leaving a similar comment for Dtbohrer, since s/he does a good deal of work with delistings. Nyttend (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My practice is to show delistings in separate tables, if/when I know about them, but not to go out of my way to discover them all and with no assertion that all the delisted properties in a state have been identified. Some states report their delistings. We could theoretically get a report of them all from NRIS, too. Elkman reported on the number of delisted properties in the last discussion about this at wt:NRHP. Should this discussion be there, too? It's been quiet there, but i certainly watch it, and its central and gets archived so we have a permanent record. doncram (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NHRP Ohio

Thanks for your contribution to my talk page. To answer your question, I am basing my information on the physical files at the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office (which I visited in person last week, in Columbus, Ohio) as well as the OHPO's Web site devoted to the NR (http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/ohpo/nr/index.aspx). I will address your other points on the various talk pages you suggested.--BFDhD (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Pennsylvania stubs

If you happen to run across any Pennsylvania NRHP articles that are needed to support the disambig pages you create, could you let me know? I will probably notice anyways and expand it (like William Montgomery House (Lancaster, Pennsylvania) just now), but I figure it would be faster/less work for you for me to start a good stub (oxymoron?), rather than a 2 sentence stub. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 01:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I added some to it, and it was decided to merge it into Downtown Pittsburgh. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Little confused

Do you mean that "Sacred Heart Cathedral and Cathedral School" has been changed now by the Register? I wasn't clear what you meant. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation of the info available is that the NRIS name for the place was Sacred Heart Cathedral and Cathedral School and then the NRIS name was changed, in the boundary increase listing, to Sacred Heart Cathedral, Sacred Heart School and Christian Brothers. So i put the article at the latter name. Should this be discussed at Talk:Sacred Heart Cathedral, Sacred Heart School and Christian Brothers? doncram (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I understand better, especially after reading Elkman's comments. No complaints; I was just a little confused. Nyttend (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ames Shovel Shop

Why did you move this page to Ames Shovel Shops? It's not the common name. I don't know what possessed you to do such a thing.--Marcbela (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

replied at User talk:Marcbela#Ames Shovel Shops vs. Ames Shovel Shop. doncram (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Castles

Thanks buddy I appreciate you expanding that. I created some quick stubs the other day to make Belarus-struct-stub viable. I only started articles I thought were notable. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

... for resolving the subpage name issue. Personally, I probably would have gone for [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Every thought that has ever passed through the mind of User:Proofreader77 relating to a particular disambiguation page, including poetic renditions thereof, transcribed directly without any intervening editing or reflection, and with copious subheadings]], but your title will work, too.  :-)

Quick question

What is Wikipedia's policy on harassment? I feel that I am being unnecessarily targeted by a particular user (whose name I will not divulge here, but you work with him often) to cite my sources for just about every sentence I write or have written. He is inconsistent with practicing what he preaches (pestering me to add citations, yet claiming that his work is sufficient in itself without sourced information), I find his behavior to be borderline badgering (egging me on with snide passive-aggressive comments in the edit summaries, posting in a rude tone on my page), and I don't know what to do to make it stop. I'm not sure, but I get the feeling that he doesn't like me moving in on his perceived "territory," but that would just be silly. There is no "territory" here. I simply know a lot about a certain topic and would like to contribute that knowledge to Wikipedia. I'm worried that he might be trying to get me to leave Wikipedia altogether, but I believe that my contributions are really helpful and I further believe that Wikipedia's content should be as factual as possible. (At the very least, as consistent as possible: either citations are needed for all things, and when absent they should all be called out as "citation needed" until one is provided, or we don't need citations at all, which I think is anti-Wikipedia.) I would be fine with the communication with this user if he would just stop the passive aggression and leave the disparaging tone out of things, especially the edit summaries. I think, by all means, make edits and add [citation needed] where necessary, but this isn't a battle, and I don't want to engage in any sort of dispute. I just want to edit, correct where necessary, contribute what I can and move forward. What do you think I should do? I appreciate your comments and the even-handed approach I've observed you to have regarding just about everything. Thanks!--BFDhD (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your writing this note here should be sufficient. Whoever you're referring to should take note that you are making a point here. I think that what you are talking about doesn't rise anywhere near harassment, in the language of wikipedia policy terms, and that you would agree, but I think nonetheless you are making a legitimate point. It is about how you are feeling, how you are experiencing some interactions, and it would be wrong to say that what you feel/experience is not valid. I think that all that has gone on is that you and me and someone else are all very interested in some rather obscure matters, and perhaps over-enthusiastic. Perhaps, on this occasion the someone else might have been a little more pedantic than usual. Full disclosure: it is usually me (in fact almost always me) that is the most pedantic person present in discussions about NRHPs. I think there'd be no problem if we were meeting in person, this is all about missing visual cues. I will take it as feedback to me, anyhow, that if i am ever being perhaps pedantic in back-and-forth with someone else on wikipedia, if they ever give me any indication they are not enjoying the discussion and/or the pedanticity of it all, i will try to notice that, and then back off. We are all 3 just here to built an encyclopedia, and i think we are doing a good job. :) doncram (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it took me a few days to get back to you. Thank you so much for your understanding, and thanks for listening. You're absolutely right about the value of visual cues: this is one of the more frustrating elements of Wikipedia (though maybe it's better for those who might edit in their pajamas!), and I acknowledge that I may misread just as much as I may inadvertently mislead at times. I think we're all doing a good job, too, and I hope to continue working alongside you (and unnamed others) in solidarity! :) Cheers, BFDhD (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Headings in Boke issue REFERENCE page

Formally request you refrain from further modification of headings which are specifically designed to allow a quick summary of the issues and its use as a reference page (in several contexts).

I have read your concerns. I have responded to your concerns. I am grateful for your attention to this complex matter, but let us not spin our wheels over clear disagreements.

I do not expect much further discussion there. What it provides is a reference which allows specific concerns to be addressed more concisely, with reference to the longer "outline" of the context.

Please excuse abrupt tone. Attempting to be short, if not sweet. :) Cheers. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

okay, fine, no problem, will not make any other changes like that. i also think the whole discussion is pretty much over. doncram (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Trinity Church (Elmira, New York)

This is another one on my watchlist that has recent edits that are copypasted from elsewhere (http://www.trinitychurchelmira.org/). You are much clearer on copyvio/plagiarism stuff than I am. Take a look? Lvklock (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lvklock (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Why does it have the same ref numbered 3 & 4? Lvklock (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

just forwarding one more link to an article (entitled 'Then & Now: Glen Island') from a local website with reader comments relevant to wikipedia (<blacklisted site removed>).
--168.166.46.219 (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The above note was just deleted by User:Wknight94, and I am hereby restoring it. W's edit summary was "rm attempt to get around blacklist filter". I don't know what that means exactly. But, I did receive the above note, and i want to be the person who chooses to delete it or not on my Talk page. I received it, I already went to the link it suggests, and i didn't find that I had anything much to say about it, so I hadn't commented about it. Now i guess i'll check there again, but again may not have anything much to say. doncram (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
That web site is a favorite of banned User:Jvolkblum and one where he has commented several times with several different identities (yep, other sites get POV-pushing sockpuppets and Jvolkblum takes advantage there too). The editors there have campaigned so hard to get their links spammed here that they had to be added to the Spam-blacklist. Let it lie. Wknight94 talk 21:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I did not know there was such a thing as "MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist". So it is the link itself that is banned, it wasn't the IP address or whatever that brought u here. Anyhow, I already printed a PDF copy of the linked place for myself. Not much there. doncram (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
In my experience, links to that domain were added repeatedly by a batch of single-purpose accounts now listed as Suspected sockpuppets of Pollykreis, but it's immaterial which user was the source of that spamming, as the domain definitely was blacklisted due to spamming. However, I agree with Wknight94 that the comments on the Glen Island blog page do resemble the work of "Jvolkblum" -- and I recall this message from an account later linked to "Jvolkblum" egging me on to do something about Pollykreis. --Orlady (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doncram/Archive_8&oldid=1252116321"