Talk:Crawford-Gilpin House

DYK eligibility problems

Here is copy of my comment at Template Talk:DYK, about why i judge this article to be inadequate. I suggest that discussion happen here, rather than there.

Per previous discussions on this Template talk page and at wt:DYK, this article on yet another NRHP suffers from poor referencing and other deficiencies. It is arguably plagiarized, in that the DYK nominator is claiming credit for his DYK medal collection, and yet not giving credit to the author of the main source: the author is not even named in the article. Given the DYK nominator's previous statements of commitments not to respond to new or previous comments on referencing or other matters, and given no one else has stepped in to fix up the references or other deficiencies, I recommend this be withdrawn, cancelled, stricken out. At any rate i am putting a cleanup tag in the article and will replace the tag if the nominator removes it. Discussion perhaps best at Talk page of the article or wt:DYK. doncram (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, further, the DYK nominator, Bedford, has reverted my tagging the article with the mild cleanup tag "refstyle", and I am am reverting that. If he chooses to escalate an edit war, that should further disqualify this article. I noted, with distaste, that Bedford ran a tagging and edit war to eliminate from DYK contention an article that he disliked, Grand Lodge of West Virginia, despite it having been improved and never having any serious problem. This mild "refstyle" tag would be easily addressed by editing the references in the article, and I would prefer if Bedford would just make the improvements instead of edit warring. doncram (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you grow up? Are you the master of the sockpuppets that have occasionally harangued me the past two months? You are juvenile and unworthy of serious consideration.--Bedford ^Pray 01:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have commented honestly and mildly about your articles in recent weeks, after working with you on occasion for many months on fixing up your articles. Fixing them up for you to take credit has grown stale for me, and I think for others. Also, I do not like how you have been abusive and bullying to me and others, particularly new DYK participants. As here, making accusations and irrelevant arguments.

About the sockpuppetry, i have not and will not ever do that. I do not now watch your talk page, but in the past i did, because of your own policy to reply to comments only on your own talk page. I noticed that you were indeed attacked there and do not think that is right. However, your abusive style with me and with others that I have seen, makes me suspect you may have abused others even more, perhaps leading to such anonomous attacks. Also your User page is written in a high-profile way that may attract, perhaps, such attacks from non-editors. doncram (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Followup: Bedford, rather than spending a few minutes to improve the references, reverted the "refstyle" cleanup tag 3 times, and i added it again. So he and i have both reverted 3 times, and he and i both are aware of the 3RR rule. I note, that the DYK hook relies upon a source which is biased: the NRHP nomination, which in this case (unusual) was actually written by the current owners of the property, who have a financial and other interest in making a story about the house. The DYK hook by Bedford accepts and perhaps even exagerates the story. It is HIGHLY RELEVANT for the reference to be more clearly identified and explained. In this article it should probably be noted that the nomination document is actually written by the owners who have a vested interest in the place being "interesting". Yet, in other posts in other Talk pages for other articles, and in response to questions at Template talk:DYK, Bedford has committed to not responding to mild requests to improve and clarify his referencing. doncram (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As you are only doing this in order to vandalize it so I am screwed from a DYK award for this article, I do not have to respect 3RR for this article, as 3rR does not apply to removing vandalism If you were doing this to anyone else, I would have no choice but to block you.--Bedford ^Pray 03:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now Bedford has violated 3RR. That is bull that you should label your 4th revert, in violation of 3RR, as "reverting vandalism". I have legitimate cause to label this article as poorly referenced, even plagiarized by a narrow definition of that term. In discussion at wt:DYK (and in Template talk:DYK on various articles) I believe that more have chimed in with support of my views than of yours. I am not a mere vandal. I have reported your 3RR violation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. doncram (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and style issues

The writing is awkward: "the house would be owned by others"? It uses "compliment" when "complement" is meant. The DYK nominator has noted, with respect to similar articles based on NRHP nomination documents, that he is writing quickly and sometimes late at night so he often makes errors. There perhaps are more grammar and style issues. doncram (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Another wording comment: The sentence which follows is another one perhaps written late at night. I personally don't think that every article written with 1500 characters and proposed with a 200 character or shorter hook should be accepted at DYK. This article is really not very good, and the nominator does not need the feedback that DYK display on the main page would provide. In fact, he explicitly rejects feedback. Anyhow, the following sentence is another ungrammatical one:

James Crawford, who had served the community of Martinsville as justice of the peace and built the first brick church in the town, had owned the property the house would be built since 1837; he was a "wheelhorse" who helped lead the local Whig Party into Competitiveness against the majority Democrat Party of Morgan County.

signing doncram (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)