User talk:Doncram/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

all clear

All previous discussions archived. Among current watchlist is open Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings. Perhaps build Talk:U.S. Post Office/NameComparisons? --doncram (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also keep adding CT NRHP pics for the current contest at wp:Connecticut. --doncram (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And again....

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna shut up now. Lvklock (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I lied. Lvklock (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Journal Record Building

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny this DYK should come through while some are raking me over the coals at wp:ANI, for having worked on Masonic buildings articles. This particular building is also known as the India Temple Shrine Building. The DYK is courtesy of Orlady, really, who did almost all the development and shared credit generously to me. Thanks! Also of interest are 4 other Masonic buildings in Oklahoma, to three of which i added NRHP document links, following Orlady's example with the India Temple Shrine one. --doncram (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey, if you aren't too busy, do you mind looking at Fort Nassau (North River) and see if you can come with a policy decision at the talk page regarding the proper formatting of the article name. We have two divergent "world-views" and only three editors (including myself) so consensus looks unlikely though everyone is very friendly.Camelbinky (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hunter House Publishers

A tag has been placed on Hunter House Publishers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Argh. It was deleted, too. I just recreated it. It's easily notable. When stuff like this happens, I happen to think the person nominating an article for deletion is wrong for doing it, not right for forcing another editor to do something more. It causes unnecessary disruption, wasted time and effort. YMMV. --doncram (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Masonic buildings

I have high hopes of getting the List of Masonic buildings situation resolved amicably. To avoid inciting additional enmity toward the article, I think it would be an excellent idea for you to refrain from adding new entries unless you have solid verification (i.e., more than a name on a list) that the building was really built, owned, and/or extensively used by a Masonic organization -- and not something unrelated, such as the building occupied by Irving Masonic's dry good store or a place where Boy Scouts worked on their masonry merit badge. 'Nuf said. --Orlady (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is noted, but is unfair. You refer to my additions in this diff of 3 or 4 edits, now completed. There are no Boy Scout or other items in that. These are solid additions, already discussed at the Talk page and all possibly marginal ones screened out in that discussion. Thanks for noticing, I guess. I do in general appreciate your involvement in the mess there, but I don't appreciate the sarcasm and the drumbeat of personally-toned remarks you throw off in my direction. Also i don't see why you have to mention and canvas Polaron, Station1, Dudemanfellabra (who you note have no related involvement) to bring them into the wp:ANI discussion. Seems like bad faith canvassing on your part, trying to drag the discussion down. You commented at my Talk page; i am commenting back. --doncram (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you have verification that the buildings you have added to the list are truly associated with Freemasonry. Considering the vehemence of the opposition that the Freemasonry editors express toward this list of buildings, I think it is wise to avoid giving them any more ammunition at a time when I think there is a chance of achieving a good resolution. Furthermore, experience tells me that bizarre coincidences (such as the hypothetical existence of a person named Irving Masonic who gave his name to a building) have a way of cropping up when we least expect them (and when they can cause us the most problems).

As for the RFC at WP:ANI, at the time I commented the title of that RFC was "Doncram" and the scope was your conduct in general. Only later was it retitled to focus on Masonic buildings. Since the discussion was supposed to be of your conduct in general, that's what I commented on, and I mentioned the names of several other contributors with whom you have been at odds. Since I mentioned their names at WP:ANI, I was required to invite them there. And, BTW, I do think your recent behavior with respect to Hope Valley, Rhode Island and a couple of related places has been reprehensible -- and also that Polaron has behaved badly. --Orlady (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

10,001

"You have 10,001 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." A new high. Mostly historic sites and related list-articles. Mostly quiet pages with very little vandalism. Probably Erie Canal gets the most vandal-type edits from schoolkids presumably. Some churning on the approximately 3,000 dab pages i watch. --doncram (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Another one...

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

When asking others to comment on your own proposals, as you did on three project talk pages under headings "style guideline for disambiguation of places", requests should be neutrally worded. While your first sentence is perfectly acceptable, and is all that is needed, the next two sentences are inaccurate and subtly biased toward your viewpoint in my opinion. Please try to keep these requests neutral in the future. Station1 (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This refers to this edit at wp:HSITES and 2 others at wp:GEOGRAPHY and wp:NRHP. I gave explicit notice (and links) regarding my making these announcements at the MOSDAB talk page where I suggested the wording change, for Station1 or anyone else to check. They haven't led to any comments at the talk page, at all! I think that other editors are likely kind of mind-numbed at the boringness of the proposal, which is to make explicit the permission for editors to use sensible order, widely adopted already, in disambiguation pages about places. --doncram (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate your giving notice with links at the MOSDAB talk page about the announcements. Station1 (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sts P & P Church address

I'm a coords guy and have left some comments at Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_St._Louis_County,_Minnesota#Coordinate_error. You're obviously a NRHP guru and I'm hoping you can answer a question. In coord patrolling I come onto articles about NRHP and other similar government–listed places which have the coords given in the government filing accurately entered, but which do not point to the right place. I don't know whether the government used a different georeference system or (I more suspect) just dead–reckoned it from map sources and missed it, but I do know that the georeference system being used here at WP (WGS84) does not point to the right place if you enter those coordinates into a {{coord}} tag. Would you happen to know if there is a consensus here on whether those coordinates should be left alone to reflect the official record or should be upgraded to ones which actually work here? I'll look for your response here on your talk page. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick reply: NRHP coords used in articles are sometimes are way off due to outright typos in the version of the National Register's coordinates database that we have used. NRHP coords are often 100 yards or so off due to the 1975 geosystem coordinates change, the North American datum(?) change or something like that. Old NRHP applications show coordinates meticulously measured on old U.S. Geological Survey topo quadrant maps; the map system now used by Google maps and everyone else is now slightly different in most parts of the country; it is the same in Chicago, about 100 yards off in Connecticut, further off in other corners of the U.S. More info at wp:NRHPmos section on coordinates and much about coordinates in the system of webpages at wp:NRIS info issues. For the most part, we just want to fix the coordinates when people have better info, not laboriously report those corrections to the National Register. We do take more effort to report other types of factual errors, and to work with the National Register to fix them. I have to run, may reply more later. --doncram (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

	You've been given a cookie, because wow, it's one-stop shopping at the doncram supercenter! I'll look forward to anything you care to add. Thanks, thanks, thanks, and thanks again. Bon appétit, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
	Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

NRHP PR

one of the Casa Paoli pics contributed by Puerto Rico OPRHP photographer and writer Juan Llanes Santos

Hi doncram, at one point I remember reading you wrote that Llanes had given you permission to use the Casa Paole pics for the DYK nomination last October. I need to review that info for an unrelated matter. Would you kindly direct me to where you put that as my search so far hasn't turn it up. Thanks! Mercy11 (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Isnt the name Juan Llanes Santos? I think you won't find any arrangements for it online much. It was arranged by email correspondence. The photos were emailed to me, and, after some back and forth discussion, I uploaded them using the Creative Commons 3.0 license, which specifies that attribution should be given. That was the license best matching their wishes that i could figure out. Juan Llanes Santos was very cooperative and helpful. I believe he secured higher level permission to make the release. It boded well, i thought, for future contributions. I am sure I still have the email correspondence, and I could probably share excerpts at least. If interested in the emails, please email to me, using email-to-me box at my User page. Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that name is correct. At this point I don't to get in touch with him. Instead just to review you comments as you recorded them back then. You were euphoric (BTW, I mean that in a good sense!) about you contact and the results. As I recall you wrote to the effect you that permision had been obtained, etc.

BTW, I couldn't understand all of your message above, seems there are som etypos getting in the way. As a reference, the last time you and I touched bases I believe was HERE. But the comments you recorded about Juan Llanes Santos was, in my recollection, much later after that. Any help is appreciated for the length of your Contribs pages got the best of me!... Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think i mentioned it within the copyright issues discussion, at the potential copyvio noticeboard, regarding a number of NRHP photos (which resulted in permission for some of them being obtained, some not). Hnm...found it...i was referring to that within discussion at Q's Talk page, and i think also at the main Possibly unfree files discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 24#File:Church Nuestra Senora de la Concepcion y San Fernando of Toa Alta.JPG. --doncram (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-class and Peer Reviews Jul-Dec 2009

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

To be honest I am not sure why the review template is not displaying correctly here, the only thing I found off such as it were was the use of the word "template" in the display since its not actually needed, just the WPMILHIST alert part is required to display the table. Tweaking the text did not help any, neither did the use of the de-bunching templates;vmaybe you could ask Kirill Lokshin to take a look at it, he would probably know how to fix it. And you are right about the award - the idea here is to generate more participation in the review department since less than 10 of the milhist editors routinely account for more than 90% of the milhist review participants. More variety would be warmly welcomed. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It works now. It just needed the word "template" knocking out of the instruction :)  Roger Davies ^talk 04:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe it is now better in some way, i am not sure. But it does not seem to behave properly in the sense that it will not stay down, below other review-list-type boxes that I display on this Talk page. If it is not first in the order I try to impose, as now, it is jumping up above others and sitting at the center. If it is first in the order it does seem to sit to the right, though there is some other problem making the actual Talk stuff appear way low, after all of the boxes. I don't know, maybe there are programming complications due to my complex Talk page. --doncram (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Legg House

I expect that you've done the best thing, although I hope that we don't see another "Shelby House" issue happen; I simply observed that there were no other places on the Register named "Legg House", and there was no page at Legg House. I don't think it a good idea to disambiguate by geography when there's no disambiguation page, but now that the page is created, I have no complaints. You're wrong on one minor issue: I have no immediate plans to write about it, for Indiana's SHAARD system is far less helpful than Pennsylvania's CRGIS or a double volume work on Ohio listings that I found in print. I've borrowed a Monroe-and-surrounding-counties history book from the local library, although I've not yet looked through it a lot; hopefully I can get some material written, but I don't know how much. Right now, however, I'm on a different subject; check Francis Farm Petroglyphs Site, which will soon be blue. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambig question

Seeing as how you deal with disambig policies on more regular basis, I wonder if you might look at an article I ran across recently: Wheatland (Lancaster), an NHL and former home of President James Buchanan. Obviously the disambiguation is non-standard and should be moved to "Wheatland (Lancaster, Pennsylvania)", but I'm curious as whether WP:PRIMARYUSAGE might come in to play here instead, seeing as how it was a presidential home similiar to Mount Vernon or Monticello. Thoughts? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 23:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be more important than the combination of all other historic houses of that name, but it would not be more likely sought than the combination of all other "Wheatland" usages, because of the several city/town ones. That's pretty much how primaryusage works. So i'd recommend your first suggested option. Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, that is understandable. Howeber, the more I think about, the more I like "Wheatland (James Buchanan House)", similar to Oak Hill (James Monroe House), for much of the same reasons discussed in the RM (the alternate name of the house, as well as not acually being in a city). Thanks again. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 04:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

that sounds fine. --doncram (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Source link dead

I'm looking for a source from the NPS that states how many NHLs are in Albany, New York. The current source's (#178) link has died. Can you help? I'm brining this to FAC now. upstateNYer 22:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is about the nationwide NHL list. Hopefully my edits here in the Albany, New York article, 2 of the 3 edits captured in that diff, helped. The 2007 PDF document is no longer available, should be updated in all the NHL articles that cite the LIST07.pdf document. --doncram (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Warren lodge and NY grand lodge source

I will be going in to Grand Lodge next week (next Tuesday)... and will check the source for you then. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK... per your request, I have checked the source (Ossian Lang's "History of Freemasonry in New York State")... I could not find any mention of Warren Lodge (or its building) in it at all. If I understand correctly, Lang is cited in the NRHP nomination documents for the building... but I have no idea why he is cited, since he does not mention the building or the lodge.

I also checked to see if he mentions any of the other buildings (or the lodges associated with the buildings) on the list... same result. Sorry that this was a dead end. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This relates to Talk:List of Masonic buildings and Warren Masonic Lodge No. 32. In particular this is about the Lang source cited in this NRHP document in the Warren building article. I assume then that Lang was cited in the document only for general information about New York State-level history of masonry from 1782-1807 (covered on page 6 of that document). Thanks, sincerely, for trying to find if Lang covered specific Masonic buildings. I appreciate your trying and your following up. --doncram (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem... let me know if you wish me to check any other Masonic sources. While we do have our disagreements over the List of Masonic Buildings, I am more than willing to help look for sources that might help build articles on the buildings listed. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

your pal

Hey, it's me, your pal lvklock. Thought I'd check in and see if you need me to disingenuously chime in on anything. You know I'm not bright enough to form my own opinions, so I can only go around echoing yours. Of course, I proved that by actually missing the fact that a comment on some silly controversy was actually over a year old....imagine it not occuring to someone that the same argument might have been going on for that long! Anyway, you just let me know where you want me to comment next and what you want me to say, because you can't speak well enough for yourself, and I can't think up anything to say on my own. Lvklock (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL :) --doncram (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, check your email again. Lvklock (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

New email, old topic and new email, new topic. Lvklock (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Again. Lvklock (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Prospect Hill (New Haven)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Prospect Hill (New Haven). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: Both 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"unblock|Time limit expired"

More than 48 hours has gone by, since the message of "22:22, 7 September 2010 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) blocked Doncram (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours". Would someone please unblock this? --doncram (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you can't edit? The block was supposed to expire automatically. I tried to unblock you manually, and got the message that you are not currently blocked. --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

When i posted that, i could not edit: i was cutting and pasting from the message i got when i tried to edit. Now i can. Thanks for whatever you did to fix it. --doncram (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That was me -- I lifted the autoblock, and then got distracted by a barking dog. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Casa Paoli

Please note the nomination at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 September 8 for Casa Paoli. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Help. I am currently blocked for 24 hours or so from now, and cannot respond there. The issue is that the article text follows the NRHP nomination document too closely and it should be re-written. I am sure i did not myself copy that text verbatim, but an article co-author may well have assumed the text was in the public domain. It is not. The nom author Juan Santos should not be being bothered about this. The author did cooperate very nicely in releasing the photos that are included in the article. It is, frankly, a bit embarassing for the person to be being contacted again now. I personally do not want for anyone to request release of the document text, and since he was asked to release the photos (which he did in correspondence to me, and I posted them to commons under suitable license for him), he may misunderstand that is what would be asked now. There's no need to bother the guy! I would be glad to do a rewrite to avoid plagiarism / appearance thereof. Could someone possibly please do me a favor and mention this offer at the copyright problems discussion? --doncram (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I went to do this and actually hit an ec with Orlady doing the same thing. Anyway, it was passed along as you requested. Lvklock (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, Please note that you apparently failed to realize I had been involved in discussions with the copyvio administrator when you reverted to a much older version that didn't include all the facts. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: Please see this note of approval from the copyvio admin for the version I just installed replacing your recent edit. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Connecticut Autumn 2010 Photo Contest

As a member of WikiProject Connecticut, you are invited to participate in the WikiProject Connecticut AUTUMN 2010 Photo Contest! Rules: You must take the picture yourself; adding public domain pictures (i.e. postcards from pre-1923 that are on a website) will NOT count. The picture cannot already exist on Wikipedia, in Commons, etc. The picture must be of something notable for a CT rated article and be of decent quality. You may not add more than 5 pictures to any one article during the contest. All photos must be uploaded and added to their articles. If it wasn't added to the article and titled, it doesn't count. All submissions must be made after 12:00 UTC (8:00 AM EST) on September 15th, 2010 and no later than 23:59 UTC (7:59 PM EST) on October 31st, 2010. Everyone who adds 15 pictures will earn a barnstar, and the editor who adds the most pictures will earn a special unique barnstar! To enter the contest, click here. Thanks for your attention and good luck! –Grondemar 04:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

YMCA list

Sounds and looks good to me. Is there anything further that you think needs to be done before removing the list of buildings from the dab page, or did you just want to wait a few days to make sure no drama erupted from the new list? Propaniac (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not object to the list article, but a person visiting that article might reasonably ask "What is a YMCA building"? Without a lead section to provide a context, I think it is likely to be challenged. --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Voting

Not sure if you're aware of it, but you may wish to go and vote here --ALR (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Commented there. --doncram (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring noticeboard

Another report filed against you by an editor here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This time, correctly, the result was the other editor was blocked. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

white house links

Hi, on the white house DAB page, you added a bunch of links like:

• White House (Helena, Arkansas), listed on the NRHP in Phillips County, Arkansas

and I'm not really sure what the value of these is. If there is a thought that lots of them might soon be populated with substantial material, great. Otherwise, why make all these non-links? 0¹⁸ (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Commented twice at Talk:White House (disambiguation). --doncram (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

St. Paul's Church (Marble, Colorado)

Hello again. I have no intention of forcing you to look at the, perhaps now dreaded, St. Paul's Church page for the thousandth time. Rather I would be very appreciative for some advise on the potential moving of St. Paul's Church (Marble, Colorado) to Marble Community Church, which I have now discovered is the church's present name (as per the church website, see here). Though this would normally be a completely uncontroversial move as per WP:COMMONNAME, I'm not at all familiar with NRHP procedures, and the building is a NRHP listing under the name St. Paul's Church. What name takes precedence? Thanks, France3470 (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the St. Paul's Church dab page provides several examples in Virginia and Pennsylvania of church articles at names other than their NRHP listing name. The NRHP listing name is chosen with some care and is a good contender for an article name, but the most common usage trumps that. NRHP editors would prefer that the NRHP listing name be mentioned in bold in the lede along with any other alternative names, and that the NRHP listing name appear in a NRHP infobox if one is present (to show this is the article covering the given NRHP topic off of the Wikipedia and National Park Service and other copies of NRHP lists. The current article does not document any usage by the other name yet, i notice, but if you add that then there should be no problem with a move. You can use the wp:RM service to make sure if there might be any other contention. Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's very helpful. I suppose I was just being a bit paranoid; I was, as you reminded me, quite aware that there are plenty of other instances where the NRHP listing doesn't always match the article title. Perhaps the notion that it might not be called St. Paul's Church anymore had me thrown for a loop; sometimes it feels like the only articles I create have St. Paul's church in the title. (: Thanks for your help. Have a lovely day. -France3470 (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Masonic Temple (East Liverpool, Ohio)

Masonic Temple / Godwin-Knowles House, photo'd by Nyttend

I'm completely reworking this article: the property was eventually listed under the name of "Godwin-Knowles House", to which title I've moved it. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This regards edits at National Register of Historic Places listings in Columbiana County, Ohio. Thanks for figuring that out. And, the pic you took inserted by me here, is worth a thousand words. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Re your comment at the list talk page — if you check Elkman, you'll see that it has an alternate name of "Masonic Temple". Why don't you just check nrhp.com when you find something that appears not to be listed? They commonly give alternate names; a search for "Masonic" at their Columbiana County list returns just one hit, and it's an alternate name for the G-K House. Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I was benefiting from local knowledge; I learned when I visited the site a year and a half ago that it was owned by the Masons. I searched nrhp.com just as confirmation, rather than checking it to see if it might have some vague sort of information. No complaints that you didn't have the local knowledge :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Also — house is now at T:TDYK. Nyttend (talk)

It's now a nice article, thanks for developing it, and for sharing the DYK (not necessary, but nice). :) --doncram (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Vicinity

Nationwide, we've always omitted the "vicinity" bits from this column. If it be erroneous to omit the "vicinity" from locations not in specific communities, it is vastly more erroneous to omit it for any listing not in a specific community, but I do not see you proposing that the National Park Service has erred in saying that the Ed Beiderman Fish Camp (Yukon–Koyukuk Census Area, Alaska) is in Eagle, eighty air miles away. There is no community named "Perkinsville vicinity, Oklahoma"; moreover, qualifiers are needless because of the descriptions and the coordinates. Moreover, I marvel that you find adherence to this easily clarified situation mandatory while advocating "correction" to actual listing names: the inclusion or removal of "vicinity" will neither confuse the reader nor fail to remain true to the essential aspects of the National Park Service listings, but the addition of qualifiers to names distorts this most essential aspect of this list. I weary of your insistence on applying new standards in the place of time-hallowed conventions and of your resulting complaints of a mode suited only to those rebuking an individual who attempts to overturn such a convention. Nyttend (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Reversion reason?

I just read about the new cat for Greek Revival architecture in Connecticut, so I went to Tariffville Historic District and see that you beat me to it :)

However, your edit also reverted my last edit. Was that unintentional? If not, can you explain?--SPhilbrickT 15:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It was unintentional, completely, and has been restored by me at the article. I think i browsed back through the previous changes to see what was up with the article, then edited the wrong version. Sorry! --doncram (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I hoped it was that simple. --SPhilbrickT 18:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on the article. I joked to someone who helped me with the image, that I needed to improve the text to come up to the level of the image. Looks like you've done it for me. I started looking for a citation for your citation needed sentence. After not finding one, I went the other direction. The THD is 93 acres or .14 square miles, while Tariffville is .6 square miles so the THD is only one quarter of the total area. My guess is that someone meant that the TFD is most of the developed part of Tariffville, which seems correct, but it OR without a cite, and that sounds like a tough cite to find, so I've changed the sentence to something that seems self-evident, while retaining the link to Tariffville.--SPhilbrickT 12:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Added a pic to Horace Belden School and Central Grammar School

Hope that was quick enough :) --SPhilbrickT 20:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, 28 minutes] is not bad. :) Thanks! --doncram (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Simsbury Center (CDP), Connecticut

Capt. Jacob Pettibone House pic by SPhilbrick

On a different, but related subject, I see there is an article Simsbury Center (CDP), Connecticut. I was thinking about what image would be good. I have a picture of the Captain Jacob Pettibone House (c.1790) which is smack in the middle of that area. I was surprised to see it is not a separate entry in NRHP. I suppose it is part of the NRHP as part of the historic district, but some of the other locations have their own entry.

I'm thinking that it might be a good image for that page. What do you think?--SPhilbrickT 20:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, i see that Simsbury Center Historic District was caught up in past general contention i guess, and anyhow that it was redirected to the CDP article. I commented at the Talk page of the CDP article and restarted it as a separate article. The photo sounds like a great addition to the HD article. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Better: just 25 minutes from my comment here, to pic being added to article! :) --doncram (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Canton viaduct

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that I should leave unsourced and incorrect information about Masonic practices in an article because the original author might get upset? Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

To keep discussion together, I copied above and replied at User talk:Blueboar#Canton Viaduct, as shown in this version of that Talk page. I'll watch there and reply there. --doncram (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram... given your concerns, I will go a bit slower and cut back my edits into bite sized pieces... 1) I have changed one paragraph to better reflect a source and 2) added back the 2 dubious tags. I will wait a while (at least a few days) before making further edits to give the article creator a chance to respond. FYI, it is considered bad form to remove {{dubious}} tags while they are under discussion. I would appreciate your leaving them in the article. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

new reply to your comment on my talk page. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

NOTE... I have asked for admin mediation on this at WP:AN Blueboar (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Terry's Plain Historic District

If you wanted to start the article on Terry's Plain Historic District, I have a few pictures - the Militia Training Grounds, LUCIUS G. GOODRICH HOUSE c.1830, 133 Terry's Plain Road, First Home and first Ferry sign. In many cases, the best story lines correspond to buildings that no longer exists - the first school, the first ferry and the first home. In those cases I have signs, which are definitely not as good as actually buildings, but better than nothing. If you don't get to it, I may get to it later, but you have more experience with what's his name's tool. I haven't uploaded any of these pics yet. I don't know you well yet, so just to be clear, I'm not asking you to do anything, but this seemed like something you were good at doing, so if you want to go for it, if you don't have time, I may try.--SPhilbrickT 21:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I wanted to double check my picture at 81 Terry's Plain to the picture on the NRHP website, to make sure I got the right house, but I can't seem to download the pictures. I've tried multiple times, several of which crashed my browser, so I'd like to know if there is a problem with the file, or if I just need to keep trying.--SPhilbrickT 21:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to oblige by starting the article. Started. You may be trying at the National Park Service's "Focus" website to download the individual photograph, instead, but I find that the accompanying photos as a set in one PDF file are properly viewable, as now linked from the article. The NPS Focus website provides the same photos individually as in the PDF photo sets; i just look at the latter. Hmm, the photo captions on pages 23-24 of text document include mention of pic of one at 83 Terry's Plain Road, and others, but i don't see 81 mentioned. --doncram (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I was using this site, but not trying to download a single photograph )I don't know how to do that) but to download the second pdf, which is typically a collection of photos. I see the link at the article, yes, that's the one I was trying, I can tell because at least once it started downloading, and I recognize the first photo. I just tried using the nrhp focus site. It stalled at 2.21 MB, but I was able to download the whole file using the link in the article. Odd, but I won't worry about it now.--SPhilbrickT 00:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I double-checked. I meant to take a pic of the Goodrich house, but I took a pic of the Terry place on Goodrich Road. I'll have to go back.SPhilbrickT 01:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Godwin-Knowles House

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Masonic temples

Curious about your opinion — when a building is listed on the NR as "Masonic Temple" but has since been converted into something else, do you think that the article should typically be named "Masonic Temple" or the new name? I photographed Masonic Temple (Franklin, Indiana) today; it's now the Johnson County Museum of History. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks for sharing on the DYK, showing above for me, that came through from your work.

Glad to see you find the connection here, which should make it possible to improve the stub article, at least with an external link as you provide. Another editor created that article, not me, but I am in general for places being given wikipedia names that are the most common name for a place (though reflecting alternate names and NRHP name if different). Have not investigated here but sounds like the Johnson County Museum name or Johnson County Museum (Franklin, Indiana) likely would be better name. Thanks for finding, as i am interested in seeing the Category:Masonic buildings articles be developed. --doncram (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. There is a Johnson County Museum in Kansas, here, which also seems Wikipedia-notable, so there should be a dab created. --doncram (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram... on this I think we fully agree (a pleasant occurrence). :>) When a building has been renamed, the article should be entitled by the new name. Alternatives or previous names can be mentioned in the lede.

I have a follow up... Without getting into the issue of whether a change in usage should or should not disqualify a building for List of Masonic buildings (i.e. continuing the assumption that "former masonic buildings" should be included in that list)... what are your thoughts as to which name to use in that list? ... by their NRHP name or by the new name? I would opt for the new name. Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was easy to find the connection, since they have a sign out front :-) Thanks for the reply; I noticed that you didn't write it, but it was similar enough to the ones you've produced that I assumed you'd be interested in the question. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Request — would you please move the article to your preferred target? I don't want to bother uploading a picture with a link to the article, only to have to change the link because the article was moved, so I'll wait until the article has been moved before uploading. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted earlier at Talk:Masonic Temple (Franklin, Indiana) to provide what I hoped was a clear presentation. Namely, i would defer to someone who is actually developing an article about the museum. I am not going to develop an article about the museum. In absence of an article about the museum, it seems best to keep the article about the building there at Masonic Temple (Franklin, Indiana). It may well get moved or redirected later. I hope that's helpful.

On a point unrelated to Franklin, Indiana, but perhaps relating to general tone, please see Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Marin County, California. --doncram (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe being even more clear is needed: if you want to move it, go ahead. I won't object. --doncram (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have done so. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your opinions at the talk page; I've responded there. Unless you or I request the nomination form by email, we're not likely to have any significant information on it; the only Johnson County form I've found online is this one, for the downtown historic district. Indiana's NR web presence is quite poor, being worse than Ohio's, and I've found nothing in Indiana like the Dictionary of Ohio Historic Places that's enabled me to put tons of work into Ohio listings. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

New NRHP listings?

That's a great start on the Neef House in Omaha. Where can I find other listings of new NRHP sites? • Freechild'sup? 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, glad you're commenting/noticing. This regards new article on Henry B. Neef House in Omaha, Nebraska, which is the newest National Park Service featured property of the week. I just started an article on it and am leaving it "under construction" for now. One difference for these feature-of-the-week ones is that the NPS provides scanned copies of NRHP nomination document right away, while for others in some states it takes a while and for others in other states they have never provided them on-line. Featured properties are listed by NPS here and by Wikipedia editors at National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts. There's also a Frederick W. Neef House NRHP-listed in Denver (currently a red-link) which may or may not be related at all.

There is some info compiled by me and others at wp:NRHPhelp, but I would like to more specifically respond to your question. Could you clarify your question: are you interested in other Nebraska ones? or newest NRHP-listed ones nation-wide? --doncram (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, removal of the under construction tag means you think it is done or you don't want me to keep constructing there? --doncram (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A request

Please check with me before you move or refactor a talk page comment I make. Most of the time, I probably will not mind, but sometimes I will... so it is polite to ask first. I promise to do the same with your comments. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't notice

Please see

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places#.22Address_restricted.22_and_pictures

I've volunteered you for something.

Also, you are indeed an Odd Fellow, but perhaps only in your dedication to the project!

Smallbones (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Late 19th and Early 20th Century American Movements architecture

See Talk:Late 19th and Early 20th Century American Movements architecture for a suggestion. PamD (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Suggestion adopted; see Architectural style (National Register of Historic Places). --doncram (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Address restricted

Following on our conversation of a couple weeks ago about Wikipedia's potential for inappropriately releasing information that could endanger NRHP "address restricted" sites, I have attempted to implement a couple of the principles we discussed in an article. What I did was take the 2 "address restricted" sites in National Register of Historic Places listings in Wasco County, Oregon and break them into a separate table with some explanatory lead-in prose, but without the columns for image or address. Ideally, I hope the prose will both explain to readers what's going on and help suppress the impulse in editors to disclose undue details. Anyhow, have a look at what I did and let me know if you think this approach is an improvement on where we are. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ipoellet, I think what you've done is really well done, and a huge improvement, a great solution for those pressures. The general topic is under discussion at wt:NRHP again now, which i think you don't follow closely, specifically at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#"Address restricted" and pictures. I hope you will not mind my copying your posting from here to there now, to add to that more general discussion. --doncram (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Past the 3 revert line

You are now past the WP:3rr line at Washington Hall and I am reporting your edit warring. You don't have to like my edits, but continual reverting is not the answer. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

here is the report. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BLP IMDB-only refimprove

Template:BLP IMDB-only refimprove has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Sons of Haiti for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Sons of Haiti, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sons of Haiti until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir, might I respectfully request that you refer to us as "Masons" or "Freemasons", rather than "Masonites"? I don't know if that term has any particular meaning, but it rubs me just as wrongly as "The Democrat Party". Thank you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@Doncram, Masonite is something altogether different; nothing to do with either masonry or Masonry. Acroterion _(talk) 14:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I would think "Masonite" would be descriptive like "Mason" + "ism", to denote believers in. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That would presume that "Mason" was something we believe in. We're members of Freemasonry -- we're believers in whatever church we belong to (which is not our Lodge). Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I just threw in three more citations into the article and did (a little) clarification. Hopefully this helps to turn the tide. Markvs88 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping! Don't put too much into it for my sake, though. I believe the organization is notable but am not going to devote a lot to developing it now myself. I think it is possible that the article will be deleted, in which case edits are lost. I added some info to the AFD discussion itself, as that will be saved and can be used towards re-starting the article later, if it is deleted now. Again, thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It's up to 6 sources now, I think it might/should make it. We'll see, I'm not going nuts over it or anything. Markvs88 (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see that it's carrying the kind of sourcing that establishes notability. Why don't you take it over to the WP:ARS and see if they can find better sourcing than we've been able to? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

English Heritage

Hopefully you spotted my response " English Heritage's Images of England 27 Pembridge Gardens is Grade II listed (see entry) listed on 7 November 1984. That site is no longer maintained so I checked its entry on Listed Buildings Online which has the same data but no photo."— Rod ^talk 14:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Brooklin IOOF Hall

This one I can get a picture of myself without needing to search Google -- assuming I can get my lazy butt down there some weekend. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced information

Please don't do this again. That's disruption to make a point, and could be blockable. Thank you for self-reverting, but I'm concerned you might be getting a bit too close to the subject *looks innocent*. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes i did reverse my own edit there. As you will have seen, in part because i gave clear notice, I also did open 2 AFDs to broaden the discussion of the AFD on Sons of Haiti article. I am not in general interested in such articles about organizations, but I think that 2 examples of similar Masonic / fraternal organizations, one completely unsourced and one with just Bessel source, seem relevant to consider at the same time, to broaden the perspective. I appreciate your constructive involvement, but I do happen to consider the AFD on Sons of Haiti to have been premature and unnecessary. We'll see how those go. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with those two AfDs -- if they're notable, we'll find the references and turn them into a clear keep. If not, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. I disagree with you about the Sons of Haiti nom, though -- I still don't see the kinds of references that would convince me I'm wrong. Much of the article is hanging on inferences, rather than refs that clearly draw connections. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Replacing dab links

I saw you replaced a dab link with a direct link in Southington, Connecticut, thanks, probably something I should have checked. I started checking the others, and replaced the redirect of Farmington Canal-New Haven and Northampton Canal to the direct link to Farmington Canal. After doing so, I vaguely recalled that perhaps that is a bad idea, because it means that if someone creates and article more focused on the Farmington Canal-New Haven and Northampton Canal, the redirect will automatically turn into a direct link to the new article. Just want to make sure my thinking is correct - we should replace dabs, but not redirects, is that right?--SPhilbrickT 17:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No harm done, i am sure, by whatever. In general we do want to replace any dablinks (links to dabs), although that is not urgent, it just saves readers a step getting to the right article. I agree that links to redirects do not need to be replaced by direct links, but replacing them doesn't hurt either. If/when an article at the redirect name is created, there will be edits to make in other places, and the creator of the new article should maybe look at "What links here" of the redirect target article, in order to change some incoming links there to point to the new article instead. Really no biggie about any of this. Good new articles will eventually get linked to. Thanks for caring! Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my trailing spaces - I've been around long enough to know better. Somehow, the text-to-columns routine I used added a space - not sure why, but I'll watch for it next time. While I'm here, I added a ref to the NRHP listing to the first item in the Southington,_Connecticut#On_the_National_Register_of_Historic_Places list, but not to the others. Looks tedious to add a ref to each one - do you have thoughts on best practices? I was also hoping to find a citation wizard that would create a proper citation for NRHP sites - do you know of one? Or do you just create them semi-manually (using the cite wizard)?

I'm not heavily invested in whether the villages are listed or not in the NRHP list, but I'll note a tiny argument in favor of leaving them in—I was attending the UConn championship dinner in Southington, so thought I've try to get a couple pics while I was there. I typed 184 Marion Southington into my GPS, and it couldn't find it. I tried again with Plantsville, and it found it. So the village identifier definitely helped me find it. I suspect people with better GPS devices won't have the same problem, but I did.--SPhilbrickT 21:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

About the references first. I am trying to fix them up for the Luman Andrews House article. It turns out to be one of 25 properties covered in a Multiple Property Study Multiple Property Submission study (please see wp:MPS for a big list of most of those) and it does not have a normal NRHP individual nomination document. What is available is a Connecticut Historic Resources Inventory form instead. I have drafted a reference as follows, at the article, for now, but I am not succeeding in downloading/reading the photos document on this PC, so it is not done.

<ref name="CHRI_LumanAndrewsHouse">{{cite web|url=http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/88003095.pdf|title=Connecticut Historic Resources Inventory: Luman Andrews House|publisher=National Park Service|accessdate=9 October 2010|author=Elizabeth C. Kopek}} and [http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/88003095.pdf ''Accompanying __ photos, exterior and interior, from 19__'']</ref>

And here is reference drafted for the MPS:

<ref name=mps>{{cite web|url=http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/64000086.pdf |title=Colonial Houses of Southington Thematic Resources |author=Gregory Andrews and Doris Sherrow |publisher=National Park Service|accessdate=10 October 2010|date=June 1, 1988}}</ref>

Also, to form new regular references, i paste in a draft reference which i cut and paste from a crib sheet userpage of mine, into which i add the refnum in 2 places (as part of URLs). Sorry this is not a complete response yet. --doncram (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I have a crib sheet with some sample refs, so I can do that as well. I just love the Citation Wizard, where you can type in an ISBN and it generates a ref, so wondered if there was something similar for NRHP reference number. I'm guessing if there were, you'd know about it :)--SPhilbrickT 13:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I finished developing the references at Luman Andrews House article now. My cribsheet is at User:Doncram/NHLtemplate. Feel free to copy whatever is useful from there, for yours. Here's the blank reference i adapt for usual NRHP documents:

<ref name="nrhpinv3">{{cite web|url=http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/__.pdf |title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: __ |date=, 19 |author=____ |publisher=National Park Service}} and [http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/.pdf ''Accompanying ____ photos, exterior and interior, from 19___ (see photo captions page __ of text document)'']</ref>

and here's the Connecticut Historic Resources inventory reference i just added to my cribsheet for my use going forward:

<ref name="CHRI___">{{cite web|url=http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/__.pdf|title=Connecticut Historic Resources Inventory: __|publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author=__|date=__|accessdate=__}} and [http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/__.pdf ''Accompanying ___ photos, exterior and interior, from 19__'']</ref>

I have not tried that Citation Wizard yet. Thanks for providing a link, i will check it out. Right, i am sure there is no NRHP-specific one, and without familiarity yet with the Wizard tool i have no idea whether it would be possible to modify or copy that to deal with NRHP references. Some stuff about reference formats is at wp:NRHPmos and at wp:NRHPhelp.

About Plantsville or other neighborhoods of Southington, I am not aware of decent info about what any neighborhoods are, so I do think its best to avoid lacing the NRHP list-article about Southington with multiple links / mentions of this seems-to-me unimportant information/assertions. Some of this could be discussed perhaps at Talk:Plantsville, Connecticut? I will say it is v. unclear to me what many "neighborhoods" or "sections" are, including about Plantsville, given no decent development about basics of such in their articles (i observe boundary descriptions and maps based on sources are usually not present, and usually no links to any source defining boundaries). It's an open question whether Plantsville Historic District should now be separate, for example, as it is unclear what is area of Plantsville and what is area of the HD, and whether there are multiple other NRHP places outside the HD but in the neighborhood. Questions of merger vs. split for this pairing and many others were discussed in a long, huge mediated discussion. The notice at Talk:Plantsville Historic District reflects a compromise. I am not eager to engage in endless discussion of neighborhoods; in general i am wishing to develop about historic sites in Wikipedia and to help others be able to do same in a non-contentious, friendly environment; neighborhood assertions seem like unnecessary distraction and contention to me, mostly. --doncram (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Clyde Lucas for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Clyde Lucas, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Lucas (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

The way the template is written, it deemphasizes the alternative reason for contacting you, that you had contributed in some way in the past to the article. You are invited to discuss the proposed deletion on that ground. Thanks!Monkeyzpop (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not recall any contribution by me to that article, and I could not find any in its edit history. Maybe I had contributed to a previous version of the article that was previously deleted. The recent version, anyhow, was since deleted and replaced by a new version, with a new edit history. --doncram (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing on Sons of Haiti, Grand Lodge of Idaho, and elsewhere. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Feh. I think the block is unfair. This regards my last edit at Grand Lodge of Idaho], in which i removed a sentence i had myself composed, and removed a tag which had been added to the end of that sentence by Blueboar. The removal was fully explained, discussed out at the Talk page, and I do not think it constitutes edit warring. If the tag were to have been re-added to the remaining sentence in the paragraph, i woulda let it stand, as it was being clarified subsequently was clarified at the Talk that B did mean to challenge the entire paragraph, but that did not happen but that did not happen until after both Blueboar and I were blocked. Also this is about Sons of Haiti and Talk:Sons of Haiti, where another editor and I have mostly agreed with each other, and disagree with Blueboar. I don't know what is meant by "elsewhere" and what is meant by "disruptive editing", which is vague. I dunno whether that refers to my pointed responses to Blueboar's comments at several Talk pages, including User talk:SarekOfVulcan#Yet another conflict with Doncram where i actually had just asked for comment on a behavior. Did you mean my comment there was disruptive? Seems like i am participating in, furthering discussion of problematic behavior, and that a block is not then the appropriate action. Don't take this as a full request to unblock, but, SarekOfVulcan, I would appreciate if you would clarify. Obviously I have disagreements with Blueboar on several topics, but I do believe i have basically been very clear and fair enough. Could you comment specifically on the general point of removing info from articles under AFD, which is one of the main behaviors going on in B's edits in those two articles you cite. --doncram (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Try an {{adminhelp}} request if you don't want to do a full unblock. For tolerably obvious reasons, I'd rather not opine on whose edits were more appropriate on those two articles. However, in my opinion, both of you have clearly crossed the line into disruptive editing -- if not in one particular location, definitely over the range of pages you've both been editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, discussion started at WP:AN#Doncram/Blueboar to see if further steps need to be taken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding; i hadn't at first realized you blocked Blueboar, too; i'll consider the guidelines regarding disruptive editing some. I do perceive the big picture is that Blueboar is vastly engaging in disruptive editing, and has been doing so for a long time in many areas probably, but he overwhelms others and fails to "get" the feedback. What has been happening in recent months is that he has been operating on disambiguation pages and the List of Masonic buildings articles where i had some involvement, and has literally opened more than 100 useless discussion sections and numerous useless noticeboard reports and AFDs. What is different from B's previous experience is that I have been persistently objecting and pointing out the nonsense, and seeking assistance, and mostly getting it. In the engagement over several months i was respectful at first but have steadily lost respect, and perhaps have worn down too far that way. Others have gotten exasperated too. I saw a note somewhere defining disruptive editing to include various characteristics, one of which was showing disrespect for another editor. At this point it is hard for me not to do that. I don't find that policy statement right now, it was somewhere other than Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

About the Sons of Haiti editing, I thought the status was essentially as described atWikipedia:Disruptive editing as "* Tendentious editor continues reverting", for which the advice is: "* Assuming that it's one editor against many at this point, continue reverting the tendentious editor. If s/he exceeds three reverts in a 24-hour period, file a report at WP:3RR (but be careful you don't do excessive reverts yourself!). However, one tendentious editor cannot maintain problematic content in the face of multiple other editors reverting his/her edits." It was 2 editors against one, with many other editors too sick of the tendentious editor to keep involved, with the two being me and a fresh editor who had not been previously involved; it was not some evil "tag teaming" as it has been perhaps suggested at wp:AN.

I may just accept this block for 48 hours, as i don't currently feel especially apologetic. I will contemplate more about what disruptive editing may mean, though, and how it could apply to my editing. --doncram (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of Idaho and Edit War and relevance tag discussion

It seems from reading the talk page, that the entire paragraph's relevance was disputed, thus the tag was still relevant. That aside, I suspect an actual conversation (between the two of you, with others involved perhaps) may have helped - I dont see much actual conversation on the talk page. The next step before the edit war, would have been an RfC. When you two get back from break, perhaps that's the way to go? I know it's easy to get enthusiastic about our edits and contributions, no matter how long we've been here; but let's get the community involved to help come up with a consensus. Maybe they will find all of one of your points correct, all of the other editor's points correct, or a combination thereof.

On a related note, I am directing Blueboar here, as this comment/my opinion is really relevant to both of you and not directed at any one of you specifically. I'd be willing to act as a mediator if you both think it will serve some useful purpose - let me know, and if so, I'll read up on everything in the article and linked to it so I can contribute in that fashion in a productive manner. Sometimes an outside set of eyes are all that's needed. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in a lot new discussion about the articles, as i am currently blocked and don't want to seem to be evading the block. So I'll avoid bringing up new information, but review a bit here to inform RobertMfromLI more, to respond to RobertMfromLI's interest in assisting in some solution. I would appreciate assistance, basically. It's not just about one or two articles though: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#behavior issues for more background. To address one point of confusion, RobertMfromLI, responding to your statement "I am kind of curious though why the article was brought to AfD by an editor who is making edits in attempt to improve it. It's either non-notable ("Notability not established.") and no matter of edits will change that - or it's notable and should not have been brought to AfD for the reasons it was. So, on that matter I am confused....". I explained already at User talk:SarekOfVulcan#Yet another conflict with Doncram what happened: editor Tinosa responded to the AFD by seeking to improve the article by adding an infobox with its source, conveying that one place was NRHP-listed; I did Tinosa a favor by furthering that try for him, replacing the inappropriate-in-my-view infobox by better statement about all 3 NRHP-listed buildings. That was a favor towards the pro-Keep position; it was not enough to make me want to change my Delete position. I had in fact clearly stated the relationship of those buildings to the Grand Lodge was not clear. It was not a conflict of interest for me to help the opposite position somewhat, and I would not necessarily continue with a Delete view if the article improved further. However I objected there and at the Sons of Haiti article to Blueboar's repeated removal of positive material, which was furthering his Delete vote in the corresponding AFDs, which does seem like a kind of conflict of interest. It is policy (see wp:AFD) that an article may be improved during AFD, but it is confusing and unhelpful if a delete voter is tearing the article down, IMO. I opened discussion on that behavior at SarekOfVulcan's Talk in one of my last edits before SarekOfVulcan blocked me. That was an attempt for "actual conversation" with others to be involved.

On another specific point, i removed the tag on the sentence in the Grand Lodge of Idaho article when its scope meant was not clear on the Talk page; it became clear later that Blueboar disputed the entire paragraph. But, as I said before that was clarified, anyhow, the whole point was/is obvious, that the sentence about 3 buildings being NRHP-listed does not clearly relate to the Grand Lodge of Idaho, with or without it being tagged. I continue to believe that Blueboar should have pointed out his complaints at the AFD, and should not be engaging in removing stuff from the article under AFD. Tagging is less drastic; unnecessarily negative tags are unhelpful but some negative tagging, if explained, does have to be allowed, i agree.

In general I would be interested in general solutions to what has become a non-collegial situation, and in general I would welcome a fresh pair of eyes as RobertMfromLI offers. --doncram (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, then if Blueboar agrees as well, tomorrow we can hopefully all work to constructively working on the article (or deeming it unsalvagable). Thanks for the delete rationale. On a side note though, as SoV indicated, I think both of your blocks had more to do with the edit war than anything else. By the time an attempt at "actual discussion" was made, it was too late (IMHO) as an edit war had already ensued - which of course takes two (or more) people to start. And of course, that is not meant as anything derogatory against either of you - as I said before, it can be sometimes easy to step over that line when two or more editors truly feel their contributions are worthwhile. Add to that, in this "text only and delayed with conversation gaps" medium, it can often be easy to misconstrue others' efforts and become more... enthusiastic about what's going on.

Not trying to speak for SarekofVulcan, but this, IMHO, is where I think the problem arises (block/unblock/etc). An edit war ensued, a minor block was issued, and the unblock requests dont seem to address that issue (the actual issue that created the block). You may be in the right on this. Blueboar may be in the right on this. Or maybe you both have valid points about the article and it's edits... but, that's not the issue at hand. Before WP:3RR or WP:WAR, an RfC should have been started - especially if the discussion tagging was thought to be too negative for the article. Again, my opinion on this is, since there is a dispute about the content, there are only two roads to travel - the tag (to elicit other editors to contribute to a consensus) or an RfC (to achieve the same ends)... the third "option" obviously didn't work. ;-) But again, most of us who've edited for a while have come close to or crossed that line... so... let's move on from there with better steps to resolve this.

So... blocks and edit war aside... maybe we can work on saving the article (or work collaboratively to determine it's not worth saving) starting tomorrow. And then see how those things stand on the other articles you mention. Perhaps setting up some sort of unofficial task force would help?

Final note on the AfD, it seems you both agree there - that was the part that perplexed me. But we can all discuss this tomorrow.

And thank you for accepting my offer. And apologies for spelling out the obvious for both of you - I tend to be overly verbose at times - but it hopefully explains the situation at hand (as I see it) in detail. Aand thanks for the use of your talk page to discuss this with both of you. I'll be around when you two are ready to revisit the issues with these articles. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 16:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked you. See my note at WP:AN. Rd232 ^talk 13:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In fact i was composing an Unblock request, which was getting towards same bottom-line as i see your comment there, the need for an RFC/U.

For the record, notes from my drafted unblock request, with some possibly useful links (not finished, I would have reduced and refined it):

I request to be unblocked on basis of first of two types of unblocking requests, namely "as the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy)." Note i have requested clarification above by SarekofVulcan, the blocking administrator, and that administrator declined to provide clarifications here. SarekofVulcan did open Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram/Blueboar, with opening statement "Since Doncram (talk · contribs) and Blueboar (talk · contribs) don't seem to be able to edit collegially at this point, as shown in the recent history of Sons of Haiti, Grand Lodge of Idaho, and their associated AfDs, I've blocked both of them for 48 hours." Editor Uncle G commented there that he regretted that cutting off constructive discussion at User talk:SarekOfVulcan#Yet another conflict with Doncram. Editor ALR commented there that SarekOfVulcan seemed "a bit too close to this whole issue yourself at the moment and I think this response was disproportionate with respect to both".

Please see also Talk:Canton Viaduct#Operative Freemasons? where, IMO, I patiently dealt with Blueboar and SarekOfVulcan also participated. Related to that, see {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blueboar&oldid=388375329#canton_viaduct_article this version of Blueboar's talk] for my request and discussion about Canton Viaduct, before Blueboar blanked the page.

I believe that Blueboar is disruptive to an unreasonable degree. I believe I have dealt with him patiently and politely, generally, with some expressions of frustration at times. I think the way forward is (a) Open discussions at Blueboar's Talk page (done several times) (b) Discuss Blueboar's behavior at WikiProject Freemasonry (done, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#behavior issues). (c) Next step is probably a RFC/U on this user (where my interactions would also be reviewed).

And SarekOfVulcan has involved constructively, for the most part. SarekOfVulcan blocked Blueboar for edit warring at Washington Hall (Seattle, Washington), a related article. This version of Blueboar's Talk shows block, unblock request, and response, before Blueboar deleted all that.

I reviewed the blocking policy, specifically Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption, and myself do not see that it applies. I considered especially whether "persistent gross incivility" applies, and do not believe that it does. (Would develop more, but am stopping, have been unblocked).

--doncram (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, "persistent gross incivility" definitely did not play into my decision to block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|An administrator has decided to unblock, but i find i am still blocked elsewhere, with message "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address." --doncram (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)}}

On it, give me a second to find the right page...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's fixed, thanks. --doncram (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at Talk:Grand_Lodge_of_Idaho.
Message added 21:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks!

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

Mediation...

Hi Doncram, Blueboar has also agreed to me being the unofficial mediator. I've set up a page here as a central location for any discussion that should not be on an article's talk page or as a location to work out any content disputes not appropriate for the article(s)' talk pages. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Doncram. I guess that this mediation effort supersedes the request that you made on my talk page. I'm not sure how much third parties (like me) should be involved with mediations. However, I should acknowledge somewhere (and this page is as good a place to start as any) that I've frequently found "common cause" with your position in the contentious interactions with Blueboar and the other Freemasonry editors, but I think Blueboar is "in the right" on some items, such as Sons of Haiti. I perceive that both of you are motivated by a sincere commitment to principles (perhaps even "causes") that you hold dear, and I think it might be helpful for the two of you to try to "get acquainted" with each other (and your motivations) on that mediation page, without focusing on specific articles and perceived past misdeeds. If I'm guessing correctly about what's important to the two of you in connection with the contentious articles, I suggest that you could tell about the NRHP, what makes it interesting, the information resources that exist, and the practical challenges in documenting listed properties. Meanwhile, my hunch is that Blueboar would want to tell about the misconceptions that exist regarding Freemasonry and the challenges he has encountered in working to keep Wikipedia from disseminating misinformation. That type of conversation might create a good foundation for productive discussion of the issues that have emerged over articles like Sons of Haiti and Canton Viaduct. Just a thought. --Orlady (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fall City lodge

How about starting the page at the correct location, instead of being WP:POINTy? http://www.fallcitylodge.com/ --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=2376 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Fall_City%2C_WA_-_Masonic_Hall_02.jpg --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003199400_farmhouseside15m.html --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.kingcounty.gov/sites/exec/bred/~/media/exec/bred/HPdocuments/King_County_Landmarks.ashx --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Useful info for Talk:Falls City Masonic Hall. I suggest discussing there, per my edit summary suggesting discussion there, where it most relevant to have the discussion history. The guideline wp:POINTY is about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you look at my posting already at the Talk page of the article, and if you were more familiar with how I and others of the WikiProject NRHP were dealing constructively with the complications of typos in the NRIS database, you would not judge my edit in this List of Masonic buildings article as wp:POINTY. In fact your edit just changing a redlink causes complications/inconsistency elsewhere, as the corresponding NRHP list-article for King County was not gonna be updated by you, i suspect. Creating the article and having clear discussion at its Talk page, plus treatment in WP:NRHP's info collection system for cases like this, is efficient/effective way to proceed. If a correction is needed, that is done by a move which leaves redirect from NRIS name behind, preserves links, is findable by wikipedia readers who arrive searching for place of the typo name (as many copies of the possibly wrong name exist at multiple other websites that fundamentally rely upon NRIS). You're too quick to judge me. --doncram (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

*shrug* Considering that you showed no interest in creating the article until I corrected the name, I'm not sure "too quick" is an accurate assessment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way my priors on whether the naming would obviously be an error or not, is informed by my awareness of a Falls Village / Fall Village elsewhere, if i am recalling correctly (about Falls Village Historic District in Connecticut).

I do give you credit for noticing a likely typo in name. But you didn't read and/or don't understand what i wrote above, for why creating article makes sense, becomes a sort of priority, once a name typo is identified. I don't know if you know that a redirect from a bad name to a good name that is a redlink cannot be created; that will be deleted promptly by bot processes. In this case you seem to be wanting to judge me negatively, sorry the facts wouldn't bear you out if you/others understood this kind of situation better. At this point you are seeming unhelpful. Thanks again, anyhow, for identifying the typo and also for the links. If you don't post the links to the Talk page or develop them in the article, I will get around to doing that within a few days, and i'll make the wp:NRIS info issues report, too. --doncram (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Hill Standpipe

Hey, if you're in the mood to do a bit of reading, there's lots of good material in http://www.maineasce.org/downloads/History_Heritage/Thomas.State_Historic_Civil_Engineering_Landmark_Designation_Application.pdf that could be used to expand Thomas Hill Standpipe. I added some back when I found the ref, but there are a couple of news articles included that could be usefully mined for more information. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Washington cats

Category:National Register of Historic Places in Washington got CfDed a while back -- the proper category is apparently Category:National Register of Historic Places in Washington (U.S. state). Fixing them now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I had noticed a couple new articles i created were showing the bad category, and was looking for what the right one to use, but didn't get back to fix them. I'll post a note to Elkman re: possibly changing that in the NRHP generator, towards reducing future problems that way. Thanks for addressing. --doncram (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oddfellows Seattle

Yeah, it's the one -- go north of it on Street View, and scan up to see the roof. It's pretty distinctive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Bacon !

Oh won't you please consider joining WP:WikiProject Bacon? :)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon has been created, and you are cordially invited to join, and list yourself as a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon#Participants!
• You may also feel free to add the userbox - {{User Bacon}} - to your userpage, to indicate your participation in the WikiProject.
• The Wikipedia:Bacon WikiCup is also ongoing, more info about that at User:SuperHamster/Bacon Challenge 2011, and User:SuperHamster/Bacon WikiCup 2011.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question

On the chance that you aren't monitoring my talk page, thanks again for pointing out the problem with the signs. That's a real pain, as I find it helpful to include the signs for several reasons. I recall a long discussion at WP about how to properly cite signs; I thought some were suggesting posting an image, but maybe my recollection is flawed.

As an off-topic rant, I can't believe how hard it is to request removal. I spent a half hour searching for templates and instructions,a nd still don't think I did it right. It should be easier.

Back to my question: I'm thinking that a stone marker, such as this [1] does not fall under the same restrictions. What do you think?--SPhilbrickT 15:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I trust that this [2] is OK, becasue while it includes a sign, the sign is incidental to the overall image? (I took a picture of the sign itself, but requested deletion.)--SPhilbrickT 15:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind conversing either at 2 pages or just 1, but i am replying at User talk:Sphilbrick#photos of plaques. --doncram (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Whitehall

As agreed, I'm letting you know that Whitehall (disambiguation) requires a cleanup. Station1 (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.  Done I cleaned up the NRHP-listed ones and other similar ones, by starting articles for them or by refining the supporting bluelinks. --doncram (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion on lists

If the city or town is put in the address column and the statein a separate column, they will be sortable by state.Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, seems in response to my asking a question at wt:NRHP about the List of Elks buildings and similar. I see what you mean, but i was looking for the coding to set sortability within the column. Maybe it is the {{sort}} template, as in {{sort|1987-09-08|September 8, 1987}} used to make a date column properly sortable. And, in the lists, the lists can just be ordered by state then city, and reloading the list-article would resort to that order. It's not a big deal, anyhow. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

GSA building pages

I have started gathering up links to GSA pages on historically federal buildings here. I'm about a third of the way through, and this list contains links to GSA pages that have historical and architectural info on the buildings named. I was thinking of moving this to a WP:USCJ subpage, but very few of the buildings are actually courthouses, while a larger proportion are NRHP sites. What do you think should be done with it? bd2412 T 00:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling that. I think now that a Federal building is a significant object, is a valid subject for a list-article List of Federal buildings or Federal buildings or Federal Buildings. Currently there is a disambiguation page at Federal Building which can/should be converted to become the list-article. This is like for List of Odd Fellows buildings, List of American Legion buildings, List of YMCA buildings, and similar building lists, which are under development now, and which will replace or lead to substantial reduction of corresponding disambiguation pages. Likewise for U.S. Post Office (which has further complication of U.S. vs. US vs. United States RFC naming issues). In all of these, many/most of the so-far-accepted-as-Wikipedia-notable ones are NRHP-listed ones, so WikiProject NRHP banner is appropriate and notice to the wikiproject talk page wt:NRHP is relevant. Of the social fraternity ones, the only other wikiproject i find generally relevant is a WikiProject Organizations, which i've been adding to the list-articles but not to the individual building articles. (There's also WikiProject Freemasonry, which is obsessed with List of Masonic buildings, but whose members are not yet adding the individual building articles to their wikiproject.) --doncram (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I should note, then, that the GSA has pages for hundreds of other buildings that are blank but for a header (like this). I have not listed these, opting only to list the ones for which GSA has provided additional text. Now I am thinking of hiring a bot to just pull all the headers, so at least we have a complete list of properties that GSA thinks significant enough to list here at all. Can you estimate how many of the GSA buildings are also NRHP buildings? bd2412 T 15:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that reminds me of another Federal database of structures, that of the National Park Service for its inventory of all official structures in U.S. national parks and other federal properties administered by the NPS. I became familiar with it in commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodson Law Office and Jones Law Office; link for the official structures database entry on that building is here. It's a maintenance database which is public domain because it is on-line and U.S. government produced, but the consensus has been that every item in it is not notable, as it includes modern maintenance sheds, bathroom facilities, etc. I am thinking that "List of GSA-administered buildings" is NOT of interest to develop. Only the ones meeting significance under usual criteria like being NRHP-listed (NRHP-listing being proxy for reliable sources exist, assertion of notability exist, etc.). Where there is no text in that database, probably definitely no wikipedia-notability is present. Where there is some text, maybe. --doncram (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you think should be done with the list I am currently assembling, that contains links to GSA building pages with additional text? I'd rather not keep it in user space, since it may be of some general utility to various projects. bd2412 T 16:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

How about moving it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/GSA federal building links. Many of its items are NRHP-listed. Many Wikiproject NRHP editors are also interested in non-NRHP-listed railroad stations and other types of items that are not NRHP-listed. I would support it being mentioned at wt:NRHP as a checklist for article improvement/development. Perhaps it can be used as a workpage and have items in it crossed out as the information is used (just linked and/or copied or imported into an article). And I would be happy to add it as a suggested task force type project suggestion in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/to do (which makes the To Do template displayed at wt:NRHP). If you go ahead and move it and comment at wt:NRHP, I'll see and add to your comment there. --doncram (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would be in project talk space rather than just being in project space, but I'll go with that for now. It can aways be moved again if a better title becomes apparent. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - all looks good now. bd2412 T 18:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about material logically belonging in two places

I added some material about Daniel Hayes to the Simsbury, because the incident happened when he was a resident of Simsbury. However, that area is now Granby, and Granby celebrates him as one of their own. I'd like to expand the history of Granby at some time, but I'd like to start by copying the Hayes material to Granby (plus, I have a photograph of the Hayes gravestone in the Granby cemetery I'd like to add). What is protocol here? In the case of extended material, I think the rule is leave the extended material where it best belongs, add a summary to the ancillary article, plus a link indicating more material available elsewhere. However, in this case the material is too short to really summarize, plus, it isn't obvious which should be the main article and which should be the ancillary article. Any thoughts?--SPhilbrickT 14:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Splitting Chicago NRHPs

Please see Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Chicago#Break_up_this_page_alphabetically.3F_..._And_descriptions before starting on any split. I think I'll have the basic split done on my user pages by tonight, but maybe not renumbered or double checked. Smallbones (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of Masonic Buildings

I have left a similar note with Sarek... Would you please not edit war over inclusion or exclusion of Washington Hall at the List of Masonic buildings. Does it really matter if the building is listed right now, at this exact moment in time or not?... after all we easily re-add it if we reach a consensus that it belongs. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Chicago#Breaking_Up_is_Hard_to_Do

It is. Smallbones (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Elks

Doncram: I am a Past Exalted Ruler of the USA Elks. Please see my comments on Talk:Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks about the Canadian Elks. They are a different organization, inspired by but not affiliated with the BPOE of the USA. They need their own article. Please do not add the Elks of Canada (their official name) to the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks article. Thank you. Regards, --Manway (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice job on Elks of Canada. Great start. I'm sure we'll get it fleshed out sooner or later, but thank you for starting that. I've watchlisted it so maybe I can help a bit. See you around. Regards, --Manway (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Moo

Again, comment on edits, not editors, please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what specifically you are referring to. I have noticed you following my edits and reversing many of them, including on articles seemingly unrelated to your own past editing interests. Please avoid wp:wikihounding. You are certainly crowding me, even when u self-revert after seeing that i was in the middle of something sensible, as you did in edits at Elks of Canada just now. Your repetition of accusations of personal attacks and this about comments about editors, is mounting up towards being wp:wikihounding or your making unjustified personal attacks. You can just back off. --doncram (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, I can't help but notice that SarekOfVulcan's comments to you are remarkably similar to things I've said to you, and that your accusations against SarekOfVulcan are remarkably similar to accusations you've made against me and at least a few other users. Consider what might be causing this pattern (and, no, it's not a conspiracy against you). --Orlady (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I note the similarity, also, of SarekOfVulcan's behavior for a period, and your own for a period. It seems like a phase of too-close following, with some trying too hard to make changes. I notice others following my edits for periods and clearly adding value, and I like to see that. It's when the follower seems to be trying too hard, and actually hurting articles and causing unnecessary contention, that the following behavior can become irritating. --doncram (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Recreating miscapitalized category

Please don't recreate that again, use the existing category. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What does this refer to? To your emptying a category and then deleting it with explanation "deleting empty category"? Open a CFD to allow for editors to comment. --doncram (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact at least one of your speedy-deletions was with false assertion that the category was empty for 4 days, when there were member items that you yourself were changing. Seems like minor abuse of administrative tools. I opened Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 26#Moorish Revival architecture to get other comments. --doncram (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

After rereading WP:CSD#C1, I see that you're correct that I shouldn't have emptied and deleted the category immediately. I was mentally combining it with R3, redirects recently created by a typo. However, given the pre-existence of Category:Moorish revival architecture, that's where you should have been putting the items anyway, instead of creating a parallel structure. C2A, as far as I can tell, has no time limit, so I was doing the right thing for the wrong reason. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

NRIS

If you revert Blueboar's edits, please restore a working link. A straight revert would be disruptive. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition to Talk:List of Masonic buildings, as it had absolutely nothing to do with improvement of that article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Standard NRIS reference.

I will halt further changes for now, but not undo (yet), as I think the changes are an improvement and more in line with policy. I strongly suggest that we not get into an edit war over it... and instead discuss the citation at the NRHP WikiProject talk page, or by an RFC to see what the larger community thinks. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. As I noted in my comment at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, I do think your new approach is inferior to other alternatives already discussed. --doncram (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Endorsing this. The issue seems to be one of style applicable to all NRHP entries, not just the ones in this article. It's much better handled by raising initially at the NRHP WikiProject or other NRHP related page. The other good place is the Manual of Style talk page since this appears to be a style issue about how links will be shown. When you have a better idea of what issues come up and want to seek consensus, formulate a statement there and link to it briefly from 2 or 3 key NRHP talk pages ("RFC on NRHP links in citations HERE"). There is no benefit in debating this at pages whose only connection to the style issue is that they contain specific NRHP entries. The debate is about NRHP link style generally. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, Just a quick note... I want to thank you for the way you approached this with me (polite requests to hold off on further edits, suggestions to resolve the situation that take my concerns into account, and then discussion... instead of instant rejection of my concerns followed by edit warring). I find it a huge improvement. I hope it is the start of a new trend in our interactions. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

David Mallett, Jr., House

Hey, just dropping a line to let you know I've redirected David Mallett, Jr., House to David, Jr. Mallett House as it is a duplicate page. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that's good to notice and remove the duplication. I opened a requested move to move the older article to the corrected name, which I think should be "David Mallett, Jr., House". If you have any different opinion about what the corrected name should be, please say there. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and sure, that's fine. I was puzzled by the name when I created the article, but that's what the citations I'd found called it... Markvs88 (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

List of RHPs in Ontario County

Finally getting around to adding some pics from a trip nearly three years ago. Lvklock (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sending e-mail. Lvklock (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I replied at / see also User talk:SarekOfVulcan#about your templating. --doncram (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

BS

		The Original Barnstar
		Too often great editors like you are overlooked and not given the credit deserved for all their great contributions. So I am awarding you this barnstar to let you know I greatly appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, and please keep up the outstanding work!! CTJF83 chat 03:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of "House at"

Hi --- I'm creating stubs for the various houses on National Register of Historic Places listings in Oyster Bay (town), New York that begin "House at." They are being systematically moved by User:Puffin and User:Mr. Berty to remove the "House at" and have the article appear only with the address. Just wondering what the proper form is. TIA--Pubdog (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for intervening on that matter. Best wishes.--Pubdog (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note also the moves of 365 Main Street and 9 North Front Street. Are you able to revert those moves too? I don't think I'm able to do that. TIA--Pubdog (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of my request so quickly.--Pubdog (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Christoffel Vought House

Would you look at Christoffel Vought Farmstead and tell me which pic you'd put in county list. I like the one I have in the infobox better, it's more distinctive, but the other was orignially the front of the house. Lvklock (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

More E-mail. Lvklock (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

E-mail today. Lvklock (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Evening. E-mail. Lvklock (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at Talk:House at 103 Roslyn Avenue.
Message added 17:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: redlinks in dab pages

• • You're absolutely right and I can't think what was going through my mind at the time. Emeraude (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

unblanking uBLPs

Hi Doncram, I would like to avoid editwarring on this blanking business, would you mind stopping your mass reverting while I try and persuade the blankers to stop blanking whilst the issue is discussed? ϢereSpielChequers 17:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't respect the edit-warring style of the blanking, and happen to think it is best to just undo the blanking. However, i very much respect you and your efforts, so I will pause, given that you ask. --doncram (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I cam here to say the same thing. There are not too many articles blanked and there is nothing lost by letting that sit for a while until it gets worked out. This is probably going to blow up - and if you're rv'ing articles it's only going to drag you in (my first impulse was to do the same BTW) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doncram, much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 17:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I notice Category:Blanked unreferenced BLPs is empty now whether from references being added or unblankings done with no further change. Others were undoing the blankings too. I think that shows proper disregard for the unblanking stunt. This regards what is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Unsourced biographies of living persons#BLP mass blanking has begun. --doncram (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Disregard the stunt, but regard the idea. I don't think it's a bad idea to get the word out about URBLP. The very few of us that are working on this stuff can't do it alone. Gigs (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Masonic stuff in PA

I haven't followed the fraternal organizations lists for awhile. BTW, I'd consider myself an Odd Fellow, if they'd let me join :-) I've uploaded 2 pictures of separate buildings of the Hiram Lodge of the Masons in the Chestnut Hill Historic District (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

File:8425 Germantown Masons.JPG and

File:8219 Germantown 1859.JPG

A month of so ago I uploaded File:Masonic Temple Cburg.JPG

Let me know where you think these would best be placed.

On a related matter, I'm finishing up my photographic work on Colonial Germantown Historic District and am wondering where else to go with it. Perhaps fill in all the notes boxes and try for a featured list? It's not the usual type of featured list however, and not a usual type of NRHP article.

Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodlawn Cemetery

Per agreement -- Woodlawn Cemetery requires cleanup. Station1 (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Sunnyslope. Station1 (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Okay, i think those are both done okay now. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Name Change

Doncram — SmallBones thinks that I should change the name of List of properties (Hartford City Courthouse Square Historic District) to List of properties in Hartford City Courthouse Square Historic District. I have no problem making the change, but I don't know how to do it. Is there a WikiHelp page for that? Do you agree with the idea to change the name? 2nd topic: I finished the Hartford City Courthouse Square Historic District page. TwoScars (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Owner objections

See Elkman; all of these properties are coded as DO. Nyttend (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, about the house in Muskingum County, Ohio — my Ohio work has relied on entries from the printed Dictionary of Ohio Historic Places, which includes entries on most (but not all) NR listings in the state as of the late 1990s. Unfortunately, the Harris House is one of the exceptions; I can't help with that. I've reworked the article to make it flow more smoothly. You lament the poor quality of the OHS profile — it's definitely not helpful. Aside from the photos (which aren't present for many listings), the only use I really have for OHS profiles are listing criteria (it's simpler than checking the site in the main database), level of significance, and construction materials. Another problem is that the site doesn't work all the time; for that reason I didn't use it as a reference for the house article, but I'll get around to it when I get the chance. Nyttend (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to say — if you're curious whether the Dictionary covers a listing, check the appropriate county subpage of User:Nyttend/Ohio NRHP; for all listings that weren't decent articles as of the last time I updated it, each subpage notes whether the listing is covered in the Dictionary or not, whether it's a tiny stub or nonexistent, and whether a photo is available. Please don't edit the page, of course, but if you feel like doing anything with Ohio listings, you might find it a useful list. Nyttend (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Governor's House (Peshawar)

Hi, do you have any sources which could be used to expand this? Because its obviously a notable building but I couldn't find much on the web about it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Governor's House (Peshawar) article, like also the Portuguese Governor’s Mansion, Pondicherry, is a bit thin so far. These are both items on Governor's House disambiguation page which i was fixing up. The Peshawar one was a link from Peshawar article. Since it is mentioned in many webpages like Lonely Planet, it appears it is a bit of a tourist attraction now. But i don't have any offline source about it. It just seems pretty clearly notable and worth having a stub that editors can develop. --doncram (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

‎List of Governors' mansions

Hi Doncram. Have you considered merging ‎List of Governors' mansions with List of official residences, and then redirecting the first list to the second? Might be a good idea. Thanks, Neutrality^talk 05:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no i was not yet aware of the List of official residences. Offhand, it seems a breakout from that world-wide list of at least the U.S. state governors' residences into a more detailed, tabled list-article would be helpful, but i need some time to think about it. Thanks for calling that to my attention. --doncram (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

changing talk pages

I noticed your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation and that you said you changed all the links, so I began looking at them with a view to commenting. I started to reply there but on second thought it's better to say it here. While it's fine to change the links from articles, changing other editors' comments on talk pages, such as here, here and especially here, should not be done without the original editors' approval. It makes it appear as if the editors had changed their own comments. I assume it was done in good faith, but it's not good practice imo. Station1 (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i see you reverted those 3 edits. I went back and inserted comments such as "N.B. There is no such thing as a "National Historic District" as a proper noun phrase. The currently linked phrase "National Historic District" is under discussion to be deleted. What is meant was perhaps "a historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places." Thanks. --doncram (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR Guidance

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on National Historic District. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Umm, that's about SarekOfVulcan twice removing a "Disputed" tag from an article that is clearly disputed. Please see the RFD in process, and my perfectly civil invitation at User talk:SarekOfVulcan#your removal of disputed tag (which you might not yet have seen) to discuss whether the article is disputed or not, and requesting him not to remove it. Bridgeplayer, what you are observing IMHO is in part some acting out, some continuation, by Orlady and SarekOfVulcan, of past disagreements. I have fully and civilly explained my view why the disambiguation page should be removed, in the discussion for that. It is not against the spirit (and i think not the letter) of wikipedia guidelines to contest the removal of a disputed tag, for an article that is clearly disputed and which is under a proper decision process (which i opened at the RFD) that will conclude eventually with a consensus decision. Or, do you wish to assert that the article is not disputed, too? Also, if you are warning me, please also extend the same warning to SarekOfVulcan, although both he and I are fully aware of 3RR policy. --doncram (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Omaha Landmarks

You should definitely see Omaha Landmarks and their template. No Park Avenue Apartments seem to be on the official city site [3].

Something similar - in National Register of Historic Places listings in Wilmington, Delaware there's a Dr. John Brown House listed on 7th Street. The Focus website, which is supposed to cover Delaware, has no listing for it, and the coords/location is off in the middle of a mudflat/trash dump, with 7th Street (or any other road) unlikely for that location. Perhaps we could use a subpage to WT:NRHP entitled "What's going on?" Smallbones (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind about John A. Brown - I just thought "But, I didn't ..." Coords are 39.735019°N 75.57173°W / 39.735019; -75.57173. PDF magically appeared at [4] but not on search site. Who knew? Smallbones (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Church disambiguation pages

Hi, maybe I have been a bit too bold in merging church dab pages. Indeed I was triggered to do this because of my involvement with Albanian churches. I think a user looking for a Trinity Church in some town may not know exactly which denomination it is, or whether it has cathedral status or not (local usage may differ from actual status). That was my main reason for merging them. Markussep ^Talk 13:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll contact you before I mess with church dabs again ;-) Now that you mentioned NRHP-listed places, I removed many links to lists of historical monuments because I don't think those belong in a dab page, see WP:MOSDAB. If the article about the church doesn't exist, a link to the town is more useful. Markussep ^Talk 15:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I moved that piped link from another page, I know we shouldn't use those in dab pages. Markussep ^Talk 15:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom/archive1

I've had a go at moving about the references so the column is now gone, what do you think? Nev1 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sachs Covered Bridge

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodburn

Woodburn needs a cleanup. Station1 (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodburn, Midlothian, Scotland

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Woodburn, Midlothian, Scotland, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://en.wikipedia.7val.com/wiki/Woodburn.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Silly bot!! There's no actual problem there. --doncram (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Quoted at ANI

Just letting you know that you were quoted at ANI here. un☯mi 12:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Odd Fellows-Rebekah Hall

Hi, Odd Fellows-Rebekah Hall and Odd Fellows-Rebekah Hall (Cornish, Maine) appear to be duplicates. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that. Addressed by redirecting first to second. First is a redirect that could possibly become a dab page. There's some way to tag "Redirect with possibilities" but i didn't look up how to do that specifically. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

NRHP Scott County, Iowa

If User:Farragutful and I finish creating all the articles, and add all (or all we can) of the pictures, and an improvement of the lead, will that be good enough for WP:FL? CTJF83 chat 19:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Replying at User talk:Ctjf83, tho happy to discuss either there or here. --doncram (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see u continuing at developing the NRHP Scott County, Iowa list-article. Can't answer ur question yet, as it would depend on how much improvement is done. I have commented in some Featured List candidacy reviews though, and this list-article seems like it has a ways to go first. There's no requirement that every entry in a list-article has to be a bluelink, but it does help to have all the articles started, like you are doing. And, I think writing out some short description of each place, for the column now labelled "Summary", would help the list-article. Probably a good intermediate step would be to request a wp:PR peer review for the list-article, once you've done some more improvement. Or u can put it up directly for wp:FLC, and get reviews there. I happen to think the peer review comments are often more friendly and helpful. Hope this helps! --doncram (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll work with the other user and then either do a PR or just bring it right to FLC, thanks, CTJF83 chat 20:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna try running an off-wiki program using the National Register's NRIS database, to draft material to add to some of the Scott County NRHP articles. In the next day or two, i'll comment at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Scott County, Iowa. --doncram (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That'll be great! Thank you! CTJF83 chat 20:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Zippin Pippin

Construction photograph from Green Bay, Wisconsin taken yesterday

The roller coaster is listed on the National Register out of Memphis, Tennessee as the Pippin Roller Coaster. It was purchased by the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin. I took a photograph yesterday and I uploaded the image shown. So how has this problem been addressed before with items on the National Register? I assume this has happened plenty of times before this. Does it get listed on two county lists? How are the categories addressed on Commons? I'll watch your talk page. It was a great day as I toured Heritage Hill State Park and photographed the dozen or so buildings there; six are listed on the National Register. I'm considering doing a massive DYK hook with the many buildings and park. We'll see what I can find. Royalbroil 20:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice work getting pics. Does the property actually span county borders? Then it should be included on both county-list articles, and included in their tallies. At the nation-level, there should a correcting notation made to avoid double-counting. Note the really long footnote itemizing similar situations, at bottom of United States National Register of Historic Places listings. That footnote is in fact THE place we keep track of such things. You must know the facts better though. If it is just an odd situation that a Wisconsin municipality happens to own property elsewhere, like how City of Los Angeles owns property out in Owens Valley where it gets water from, while the property itself is actually wholly outside the state, then it should just be listed where it is located, right? Hope this helps. Good luck with the DYK, sounds great to do. --doncram (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, i see it is a case of the NRHP-listed item being moved? We have many cases of NRHP-listed ships having been moved, in which case I usually show it in the location where it is now, and include mention below in the list-article of where it moved from, in a "Formerly listed" or similarly titled section. National Register of Historic Places listings in Central Chicago has section for two ships formerly located there, for example. In this case, what was NRHP-listed, the property (land and more) or the roller coaster as an object? Probably both, or a distinction was not made. Also sometimes when a covered bridge or other thing is moved, it ends up losing its NRHP-listed status, because of loss of integrity, tho i assume that this has not. Certainly it should be mentioned in both county list-articles. --doncram (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. Red-faced, when i look at a map: Yeah, Green Bay seems pretty far from Memphis! I was thrown off by your phrasing in photo caption, thot u meant "seen from". I should jolly well know where Green Bay is, and i have been to memphis where there were no cheeseheads in sight. :( --doncram (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you understand it now. Yes, the roller coaster is being moved hundreds of miles. Based on your response, we probably should wait until it is fully moved and officially opened in May. Maybe add it to Brown County, Wisconsin now but not listed as former in Memphis until May. Would you please take care of the tally to make sure that it is done right with no duplication? Royalbroil 02:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Farwell House

Just an fyi - there is a Farwell House and also a Farwell house article for some reason. IMO the article(s) should be combined with Farwell Barn, as they're on the same property and are of the same significance. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, and thanks! Yes i agree they should be merged, am merging to Farwell Barn, please feel free to help. Farwell house should be a redirect to Farwell House which should be a disambiguation page, IMO. Changed those. --doncram (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You're already on it, I've just retagged the talk pages though. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of historic districts...

...would you like to start Great Fire of 1911 Historic District? There are lots of links to work with in Great Fire of 1911, except for the link to the NHRP information. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks Gigs! I love that! Too funny with its multiple bogus references. And, seriously thanks for some acknowledgment touching on a lot of work that i did. --doncram (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Brown County, Wisconsin

I am preparing Commonist to upload images taken at Heritage Hill State Park (as I indicated above) and I found one that I photographed which was listed by the park but not in the county article. I verified it on the county's current listing [5] and found another missing listing! Plus 4 other listings from Wikipedia are not currently listed which I marked in the Wikipedia article. Would please review what I did in the article (the 4 not on the current list) and reply below. Also, I know that the state total needs to be updated once this issue is cleared up. Does the state total somehow feed into the national total or does the national total need to be updated? Which article(s) contain the national total? I just added the Zippin Pippin to the Brown County list. Thanks for your help! Royalbroil 03:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Long reply, so replying at User talk:Royalbroil#Brown County NRHP listings. --doncram (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for starting the Henry S. Baird article relating to the Baird Law Firm. I expended the article a little-Thanks-RFD (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yet another interesting personage turned up when drafting NRHP articles. I drafted a DYK nom for that, too, at Template talk:Did you know#Henry S. Baird. Can you possibly please check that? It could be improved i am sure. --doncram (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I added more information about the political career of Henry S. Baird. Please let me know what you think-Thanks-RFD (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

architecture cats and dates in NRHP articles

Yea, I was thinking about asking you about these. I'm in the process of building constructed in by year categories and starting to populate them, so adding your project is more then I can deal with. I have categories for the 1900s and am working on the 1800s. I have been wondering what subcategories by year make sense. So you you have any ideas, that could help. Bridges were already split out and so far that is the only breakout. Apparently some of these dates are touchy with some editors, like the lighthouses. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

NRHP/NHL question

I'm about to do some work on Woolworth Building. I was wondering if the NHL status means there's another nomination form for NHL specifically? This NRHP nom is good, but it's not great, and I was wondering if there's another good, free source out there. upstateNYer 05:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that NRHP nom is short. I'll browse about a bit for you. But, i read recently in one of the better NRHP noms for 3 warehouse buildings that architect Cass Gilbert designed, that Cass Gilbert specifically bemoaned being possibly type-cast for having designed the Woolworth Building, which is fundamentally "merely" a skyscraper. The 3 are:

• Austin, Nichols and Company Warehouse, Brooklyn,
• U.S. Army Military Ocean Terminal, the Brooklyn Army Terminal that disembarked 85% of U.S. troops during the world war, and
• R.C. Williams Warehouse, Manhattan.

I hope you could read those 3 noms and find that perspective to add to the article, i.e. that Cass was perhaps proud of Woolworth but did a lot more and seemed almost to regret having done it, and that the skyscraper functional constraints formed its design a lot. I personally like the Woolworth building a lot, and enjoyed it in RL. --doncram (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Mansfield Training School and Hospital‎, etc.

Season's greetings to you, Doncram! I'm pleased to see continued positive developments in places like Mansfield Training School and Hospital‎ -- sooner or later, we'll get the mentally retarded and the mentally ill sorted out. I'm afraid to mention Smith House, though, as there's so much left to be done there.... --Orlady (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please

Please do not make spurious accusations about me or anyone else, especially on general talk pages, as you did at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Survey. You wrote that I cited "some supposed policy or guideline". I cited no policy or guideline. I referred to the "CT neighborhood naming convention", which like all U.S. neighborhood naming conventions, is undocumented. For example: "(moved The Flats, Woodbridge, Connecticut to The Flats (Woodbridge) over redirect: Per CT neighborhood naming convention. See Category:Neighborhoods in Connecticut.)" [6].

You also said these "edits" were disruptive. Why you think bringing consistency to the way CT neighborhoods are disambiguated is disruptive is beyond me, but you really should have kept your gripes to my talk page. Thanks. If you don't like the convention, I suggest a block move proposal at WP:RM. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Replying at User talk:Born2cycle#connecticut place moves about the Connecticut place moves.

About my comment being a spurious accusation, i dunno. You cited a "convention" which sounded like something more than it was, thank you for clarifying that. In context of the open RFC, to engage in an editing campaign on Connecticut neighborhoods seems disruptive to me. Maybe i am sensitive. It happens those are under pretty heavy off-and-on discussion, relating to merger vs. split decisions and about spurious redirects, which i think u wouldn't know about. I meant to just post to your talk page, but then i went to the naming convention page and saw that it was all your initiative there. I said what i thot. I'm not sure how i would/could update what i said there. But, i'll agree perhaps it woulda been better not to start there, and rather talk it out at your talk first. --Doncram (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've had nothing to do with CT place names ever, as far as I can recall. I certainly know nothing of about the discussions and spurious redirects to which you refer. I just noticed in someone's history a move to make a neighborhood name consistent "with the CT neighborhood naming convention", checked the category of CT neighborhood names, found three more, and corrected those too. Why you reverted one of them I'm not sure, but that puts it into contention and thus requires a WP:RM proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

---

(copied from WT:PLACES to here because it's off-topic there) --Born2cycle (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't make claims about what CT naming conventions are, they are in disorder and there has never been a good discussion and rationalization of them. In a requested move u just opened for the properly named neighborhood "Marion, Connecticut", u propose moving it to something else, another editor proposes moving to "Marion, Southington, Connecticut", etc. There is no good practice or consensus in CT to point to, to bring insight to this larger RFC. You might be able to ride in and make some disruption there, but don't claim there is a consensus there. --Doncram (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Don, I didn't say anything about consensus with regard to CT neighborhood naming. Once again, please be more careful about how you characterize what others say. This is twice within a few hours in which I carefully chose my words, and you interpreted them with a significantly different meaning. As to what the conventions are, I've been clear that I'm only going by how it looks at Category:Neighborhoods_in_Connecticut. It speaks for itself, supporting everything I've said. Don't blame the messenger. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Born2cycle, All right i'll reply here to your comment here. I don't appreciate the familiar tone and the chastising. I don't believe i mischaracterized anything. Your recent edits (and Polaron's recent edits) change how the Category appears, then you cite how the category appears to you as your justification for nation-wide changes. You are well aware of Polaron's position in the RFC discussion, as you are well aware (i note your recruiting him to be involved in the one requested move). That seems like disruption locally in Connecticut, to make your nation-wide point. There is an RFC open. The consensus doesn't look like it is going your way. Don't do that. You're meddling, not messengering, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Meddling? Interfering in or busying oneself unduly with something that is not one's concern? I don't know what you're trying to say, but be aware that the appropriate naming of these articles is as much my concern as it is anyone else's. Even people who live in CT, don't own the CT articles.

      I can understand how you got the impression that you got. But please try to see it from my perspective too. Knowing nothing of all this history, I saw a move with edit summary indicating a move to improve compliance. I looked at the relevant category of such articles and found only three out of approximately 75 articles -- 4% -- in that category that were out of compliance with this convention, and so I brought them into compliance too.

      Also, I only mentioned this in the RFC discussion about city naming when someone else brought up the closely related topic of township naming. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Yep, meddling seems a good term to describe launching page moves for places you don't know about. It's not prohibited, that is correct. Your statistics are falsely precise. When i looked at the category first, there were more articles, after you had renamed 3. Now there are 4 i count, with ", Connecticut" in name. There will be 17 more soon, when the pending Requested Move completes. I am not gonna keep replying here though, as i think we've shared enough, and what's said in other discussions stands perfectly well there. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Connecticut River Railroad Bridge

Hi Doncram. Thanks for expanding the Northeast Corridor railroad bridge articles. You might want to double check your creation of Connecticut River Railroad Bridge as it is the same bridge as the Amtrak Old Saybrook – Old Lyme Bridge. You list the latter name as the the one crossing the Niantic River (East Lyme-Waterford) in your additions, but that is certainly incorrect. Let me know if you need additional information. --Polaron | Talk 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Argh! Thanks for noticing my error in creating that article, and not seeing it was the same. All 8 of the moveable railway bridges look the same to me. I'll merge that material to the older article. And will start Niantic River Bridge as an article about the missing one of eight. It seems likely that "Niantic River Bridge" is an ambiguous term, so this new article might itself be moved. However i see no other article about a Niantic River bridge and this seems like the best name for now. If name is an issue, let's discuss at Talk:Niantic River Bridge. --Doncram (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The name Niantic River Bridge may apply to two bridges: the Amtrak bridge and the Route 156 bridge. Technically the Boston Post Road crosses the Niantic River but that has never been called the Niantic River Bridge. A better name is probably "Niantic River Railroad Bridge" to avoid confusion. --Polaron | Talk 20:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Article started. Sources seem to show it is named Niantic River Bridge so i am leaving at that for now, and no disambiguating phrase is needed, at least for now. Please do create an article about whatever Route 156 bridge, which could also be named that, and could be linked from this article. There wasn't even an article about Niantic River! So i started a stub for that too. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ned Ashton House

Thanks for disambiguating Edward L. Ashton (engineer). That was on my to-do list, since he definitely was not a soap opera star. Yes, I know you can get copies of the nomination papers for NRHP sites. I have a copy of the Ashton House papers in a file somewhere, but I haven't taken the time to dig them out of my files. There's quite a bit to say about the Ashton House that happened since it went on the NRHP -- the lower level was flooded within a few feet of the ceiling in the Iowa flood of 2008, but Ned Ashton anticipated this and the house suffered surprisingly little damage. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Shallcross

There was inquiry to me at Talk:Shallcross re Primary topic possible issue, for Shallcross being a dab as i created it, having moved Shallcross to Shallcross, Derbyshire. Discussed there.

Then regarding a train station template which had linked to Shallcross:

You ask in an edit summary whether anyone can fix this. In order to do so an editor would have to write an article on the station and replace the current redirect page with it. I may do it soon if time allows. Britmax (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Now it seems that What links to Shallcross is all cleaned up. So i think this is done. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln Motor Company Plant

As proposed, I've just created an article on the Lincoln Motor Company Plant. Take a look at it to make use it correctly reflects the NX designation. I suspect I didn't get the infobox designation correct. Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)