User talk:Patrmartin

Copyright violation at National Register of Historic Places listings in Brown County, Wisconsin

Your addition to National Register of Historic Places listings in Brown County, Wisconsin has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. 32.218.34.48 (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Register of Places

Look, that situation got overblown a bit. The issue was that it was a direct copy, which Wikipedia can get in trouble for really quickly. I'm a native of the area, I realize the history that's here, and I want to keep as much of it as possible here. Just keep in mind that since you have a close connection of the subject and are relatively new here (no disrespect intended) it may be a bit hard to keep a neutral point of view. Since you spent thousands of dollars researching the subject, there may be a conflict of interest at hand, so make sure to read those two policies. I'm not here to take your edits down, however. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that there is a question on a neutral point of view. Here is the way the process for the National Register works. First you need to submit a preliminary form the the Wisconsin Historical Society. There is an initial review. Then you need to hire a consultant to further research the property and prepare the presentation. Then Wisconsin Historical Society researches the project for a year to determine whether to proceed. A final presentation is created and presented to Wisconsin Historical Society Board. After the Wisconsin Historical Society Board approved the listing, another three months was spent rewriting and enhancing the presentation before it is submitted to the Department of the Interior. A person nominating a property either has to obtain a state grant or privately pay for the commission of the final presentation. We chose that latter. My original submission was much blander and more neutral than the presentation that was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society to the Department of the Interior. However, the language of the press release basically followed the language of the original submission.

My sister made a much more personal written statement to Wisconsin Historical Society Board which I think could be a point of view issue.

Also, I removed the street number. This is a private residence and we really do not want it listed on wikipedia. Street is source enough.

Patrmartin (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting on National Register of Historic Places listings in Brown County, Wisconsin

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Royal broil 03:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yelling at you. I want you to be aware of this line in the sand. I understand the need for privacy, but this is public knowledge. Royal broil 03:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did not mean to create problems. We probably should have requested that the address be suppressed when the nomination process began. While the street address is listed in the Federal Register, the Wisconsin Historical Society press releases on the listings did not include the street number. Yes, public, but not totally distributed. Since wikipedia is indexed everywhere, I just did not think it had to be that specific.Patrmartin (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Register is widely distributed, both in print and online. In any case, since West Whitney Street in Allouez appears to be only three blocks long, I wouldn't think hiding the house number would make much difference. Thank you sincerely for your work: on the actual house, the nomination, and here on Wikipedia. If there's anything we can help with on the article, let us know. Despite what you may be led to think, you don't have to keep it in draft space until it's perfect. Jonathunder (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The street is two blocks long. Numbers run from 100 to 209. That is why I did not think we needed the specific number to insure historical accuracy. However, the last person to undo my change, switched the address to 214 rather 204, but at this point, I do not much care. I really do not think that anyone here has any idea the amount of research and work that has been done to put a first class nomination together, the number of times the drafts had to be proofed, the number of articles that had to be retrieved from newspapers, the hours of revision that were done at all levels in the process, the three years that this whole thing took.Patrmartin (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the address. I know a great deal of hard work goes into a new NRHP nomination, which is one reason I sincerely thank you for your contributions. Jonathunder (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Albert C. & Ellen H. Neufeld House has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Albert C. & Ellen H. Neufeld House. Thanks! KJP1 (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Albert C. & Ellen H. Neufeld House has been accepted

Albert C. & Ellen H. Neufeld House, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert C. and Ellen H. Neufeld House

Hi, I see it's taken a bit of a battering. This can be disheartening, but the thing is to reflect on the editors' concerns and respond with, thoroughly sourced, alternatives. Personally, I think the wholesale removal of the material about the family was a bit overboard - they built it, in conjunction with the architect, and their personalities are interwoven with the house. I put quite a lot in about the owner of Cragside, and that did all right. Don't be discouraged, learn from the comments, and build on them to expand and improve the article. And source everything! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes it is. This is not an architectural entry. It is a National Register of Historic Places entry. The first in the the Wisconsin Historical Society press release was "Albert C. Neufeld was a prominent lumber merchant and investor and his wife, Ellen Hogan Neufeld’s family was also involved the lumber business in Northern Michigan and paper product manufacturing in Neenah, Wisconsin. The Neufeld House, constructed in 1941, is an exceptional example of the Georgian Revival style in Allouez." Then the house. The historical context was an important part of having the property listed on the National Register. Also many of the other properties on the National Register in Brown County are tied into the Neufeld family. They built the Moravian Church (previously listed). The Green Bay-De Pere Antiquarian Society was responsible for the preservation movement in Green Bay that led to establishment of Heritage Hill State Park. Seven of the fifty-four buildings in Brown County on the National Register are in Heritage Hill State Park. Therefore, the historical context is extremely important and it is in the Registration Form that is not yet available online. The historical context ties everything together.

Also, the person tagged it for the lack of citation for Jens Jensen. This really bothers me. I had that citation from the Wisconsin Historical Society website. The citation covered the total entry and therefore, I did not footnote right after Jensen. And this source was removed.

I also did a quick spot check of houses in Wisconsin on the National Register. I found at least 10 had information on the builders/owners of the property. So if my entry violated whatever, there are probably thousands of others that should also be scrubbed.

As far as other sources, I had thought that original newspaper articles from years ago were valid sources for the material on the Neufeld family. If I had wanted to be writing an entry on the Neufeld Martin family, the entry would have been 20 times as long and it all would have been well sourced from books and newspapers.Patrmartin (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick thoughts. Try not to get frustrated. Wikipedia's a great place, although it can be painful at times, and you've got an article accepted on a rather beautiful and important house. Then, look to expand the article over time, building on the comments you receive. I began working on the first article I was really interested in during 2007 and it made FA in 2012. Five years isn't so long! Next, most, although admittedly not all, editors on here do have the same goal - to build a better encyclopedia. Certainly, the best stuff I've done on here has all been collaborative. So, even if it's hard to see it sometimes, assume good faith and work with the comments you get. And lastly, enjoy it. KJP1 (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]