|
@Doncram: I'm sorry you feel this way. May I ask why you have a section on this page about me and some of my work, or the purpose of these notes? I understand we've disagreed in the past about "sub stubs", redirects, etc, but some of your gripes are from actions done years ago, and I'd prefer you not say I have a "mental block", if you're open to removing. I'm also not sure I understand why some of the articles are mentioned when I didn't even create the stubs (the list with Dr. A. E. and Phila Jane Rockey House, for example). IMO, this feels like you're tracking things I've done "wrong" but is not really representative of my net positive contribution to this project. Any chance you're willing to convert this section into a list of tasks, and not something focused on me specifically? I am a fan of your work and appreciate tapping you as a resource on occasion, especially re: NRHP content, but I'm a little disappointed by some of your comments here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
- Hi, you may have a good point or two here, and I may be convinced to remove some or all of whatever i have in this sandbox relating to you. But....
- Dr. A. E. and Phila Jane Rockey House was created by me, i think as part of trying to respond to your requests for new articles, i.e. your stating it as a redlink at whatever was that U.S.-wide contest list-page. Which I viewed as not helpful. I haven't checked, but I doubt that I misrepresent anything about this in the page here. (Addendum after checking, I absolutely did not misrepresent anything there, about this house and related articles. --Doncram (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC))Reply
- It's not all ancient history though. The ancient history informs the ongoing, current events.
- There was this August 2018 uncovering of a deceptive redirect having been created way back in 2010 by AB: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 66#South Portland Historic District. Which included unhelpful participation IMHO, and led to:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Portland Historic District, where I experienced your participation as unhelpful. I said there "I'm not impressed with the "expansion", which comes across to me as possibly passive/aggressive or deliberately insulting, as if trying to add just a minimum which is hoped to be enough to confound this AFD proceeding, and absolutely not show any real effort. As has been pointed out by others here, the minimal effort is unhelpful in confounding coverage of the district. I note it doesn't even link to the South Portland, Portland, Oregon article. An editor trying to add value would have sorted out where coverage is appropriate and would have adjusted related articles. I myself have created many short stub articles, but I think we can all see the difference between trying and not trying."
- I did notice you created stub articles for a series of NRHP topics, when "Many new listings" topic at wt:NRHP was opened. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 67#Many new listings. If I recall correctly, I observed your actions did not help in the task requested, i.e. to add the items to appropriate county list-articles, i.e. you left the work for others. And they did not create any further information than the work done by others, they were just stubs with name and NRHP listing date and reference number. These include
- This is exactly the kind of stuff you did a zillion times in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc. As covered in that AFD about 27 Idaho sites (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert and Fay Havens House in 2017). Which you "won" in that the article was kept, but then you did nothing to develop any of the articles at all. There was support for you not doing that kind of stuff, and you got away with it because those articles were a few years old. But it (again) provided you clear feedback not to do that. And yet you have done nothing to address/improve the past substubs, and you have created more. Would you like to respond about this? What are your intentions about your creating substub articles about NRHP topics, or not, going forward? --Doncram (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
- I hope you don't mind, I've converted some of the bullets into numbers for easier reference. Regarding #1, I'm not sure why this is a note about me. What's wrong with adding a list of missing NRHP Wikipedia articles to the list of suggested articles to create as part of the 50,000 Challenge (Wikipedia:The 50,000 Challenge/Pacific Northwest)? There are many lists of red links on project pages. I just don't see how this is problematic on my part. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
- Also, I'm not really sure what's so bad about the South Portland Historic District history. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
- Anything else to say on #1? I did not even create this article... ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Re: "current redirects which should be deleted, all created as minimal stubs by User:Electro twisted wizard and most or all redirected by User:Fram" -- Can this be removed? I'm not sure how this applies to me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
- I dunno, i have to take more of look at this stuff. But the stuff not about you is not about you.
- I don't really want to bargain with you, as if I am threatening you, but would you agree to deletion of the Idaho ministub articles covered in the AFD? Those 25 (all in National Register of Historic Places listings in Jerome County, Idaho) are the only "NRIS-only" articles in Idaho. They show up in wp:NRHPPROGRESS report. That was really obfuscatory, what happened in the AFD. I would like to create those articles myself, but honestly I really really do not want to start with your stubs that in fact have less than appear on the NRHP county list-article. Otherwise I do have to think about how to proceed differently than running AFDs about places which I myself agree are Wikipedia-notable; it seems complicated for regular AFD participants to grok the editorial issue. Administrators, when galled about similar stuff, sometimes just delete the stubs that offend them, I have noticed, by the way.
- I don't suppose it would work to ask you to develop those decently? --Doncram (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
- User:Another Believer, hmm, i thot i was just brought here by this page showing up in my watchlist of recent edits, but there have not been any recent edits. Well it still is open, maybe it could be productive to talk about this. --Doncram (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Weird to see notes about me and my contributions in this way. I'm willing to engage in discussions, there's no need to take notes about me. If there are any notes about me here which are no longer necessary, do you mind removing? Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
|
