Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 21

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Doncram in topic Banned user Jvolkblum and New Rochelle, NY articles
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Infobox map alternative

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I wish I could take credit, but someone else discovered this neat feature. You can have the state map break out a smaller county map, with the location in the county! If you have coords in the infobox, that is. Dunno if this works for all states and counties, but it works at least for Volusia County in Florida, so I figure it must work for others. An example can be seen at The Casements. Cheers! --Ebyabe (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't work for all counties.. in fact that is actually one of only two counties it works for. New maps can be made for any county though. See here for a list of all location maps that are available inside the USA. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Twin Oaks Plantation

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I tried to find this building in the NRIS but could not do so. Could one please verify? --Matthiasb (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's listed as the Captain Nathan Carpenter House. --sanfranman59 (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Status of the date for lists transition

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have gone and compiled a list of the states whose NRHP lists still use the that state's separate date template instead of the combined template. I've been fixing them as I've come across them (usually while adding new listings). I figure wait until all the templates are replaced and then have them deleted. I've added links for Ohio's and Texas' templates as they don't follow the same naming pattern as the rest. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 21:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nine new NHLs

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

BaronLarf updated List of NHLs in WI to add new NHL Aldo Leopold Shack and Farm, with reference to a Kempthorne press release on Jan 16 announcing 9 NHLs in 9 states. So also needing updates are:

I addressed that by creating separate article for Ludlow Tent Colony Site, and opening a discussion for possible merger with Ludlow Monument. Done for our purposes here now. doncram (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This reference composed by BaronLarf could be added where relevant: <ref name="DOI">{{cite web|url=http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/011609c.html|title=KInterior Secretary Kempthorne Designates 9 National Historic Landmarks in 9 States |date=2009-01-16|publisher=Department of the Interior}}</ref>. doncram (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on the one in Philly, but is it possible to try and come up with a shorter name for the article title? The NHL nom form uses "Richards and Goddard Buildings", which could work. Although, I note that sometimes both buildings are referred to as only the "Richards Medical Research Building".--​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 03:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
About the name, sure, I say go with a shorter name for the article. It can be debated/moved later what is the common name for the NHL, like when a NHL Summary webpage is put up by the NPS, which I bet will not use the super-long name here either. DTB's finding the NHL nom form in PDF prompted me to do that for the CO one i was working on. Should be found and added to each indiv article. At NHL webpages, i can't find a news announcement about them all, though, does anyone have a link? For the CO one i found the PDF at NHL by google search though. doncram (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Went with what seemed like the more common name. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 18:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

NHL nom doc added for:

  • AZ one / CA one / CO one / CT one / FL one / IL one / MN one / PA one / WI one
For cut and paste in other articles, example NHL NOM reference for the CT one: The nomination states its significance as... <ref name="nhlnomdraft">{{citation|title={{PDFlink|[http://www.nps.gov/nhl/Fall08Nominations/Alsop%20Final.pdf National Historic Landmark Nomination (draft): Richard Alsop IV House / Davison Art Center]|32 KB}}|date=December, 2007 |author=Janice P. Cunningham and James A. Jacobs |publisher=National Park Service}} and {{PDFlink|[http://www.nps.gov/nhl/Fall08Nominations/Alsop%20Photos.pdf accompanying Photos ''Accompanying 3 diagrams and 12 photos, exterior and interior, from 2000'']|32 KB}}</ref> Again i can only find these docs at NPS by google search, easily enough. doncram (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Architect: Unknown and Architecture: No Style Listed

Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

Nyttend and I had a talk page conversation about the Henry Barnard House, specifically about the two fields in the infobox for Architect and Architecture. Elkmans infobox generator faithfully reproduces what's in the NRIS database, but as we're all painfully aware, it's not the friendliest or most accurate database. Personally, when I've created or significantly edited NRHP/NHL articles, I've removed the Unknown architect and the "No Style Listed" architecture style. I leave the field names, but remove these specific values which causes the lines to not appear in the infobox, which imho, improves the articles. I encourage anyone to find and add better values (such as the architect or style) from alternative sources.

Nyttend correctly points out that we have a *lot* of articles with these specific values still in there and uniformity in this area would benefit the project. So, I'd like to ask the question whether we should keep these particular values for this field if they are in the database, or if we should consider technical/policy means to remove them. To be clear, if there are *other* values here, such as a name or style, we're not talking about that. Comments? Thanks dm (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If the style or architect is unknown I always leave it blank. Your comments about accuracy in that database are correct, and often other sources have this information. Sometimes the architect is unknown, but unless there is no style there can't really be an "unknown" style, even if the NRIS database doesn't list one. Mainly, I think when we leave those values in as no style listed or unknown, it discourages people from adding it, or looking for it, in other words, it discourages improvement, because it is such an assertion of purported fact. --IvoShandor (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the infobox generator so it won't say "architect=Unknown" or "architecture=No Style Listed". I've often blanked these fields myself when I've created infoboxes about properties whose architect or architecture aren't listed, so I figured I might as well treat it like a bug and fix it. I'm sure there are a lot of properties for whom the architect isn't known -- in fact, for something like Savanna Portage, there isn't an architect. Taos Pueblo is nearly 1000 years old and I don't think they had an architect drawing blueprints. As far as no architectural style being listed, often those properties could be classified as vernacular architecture, or perhaps some style that isn't listed in the NRIS's list of categories. How do you classify something like Benewah Milk Bottle? Or the Intercity Bridge, whose listing in the NRIS says "Other", but it's really an open-spandrel reinforced concrete deck arch bridge. I think listing "Architect: Unknown" and "Architecture: No Style Listed" don't really provide any benefit to the casual reader, so my vote is to take them out. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, a site like the milk bottle could fall into a category of architecture, novelty architecture, or folly, depending on how you classify it, the bridges, as you have shown, have their own "styles" or types. Anyway, yeah, doing away with it is good. --IvoShandor (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
As I told Dmadeo, I myself have no opinion either way, except that we ought to try to be consistent one way or the other. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've also been in the habit of removing the Unknown architect and the "No Style Listed" from all of the articles that I've created as I didn't feel it was helpful since often the architect was known and recorded somewhere and the architecture was often a vernacular interpretation of, or combination of, high styles. Altairisfartalk 00:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
While checking into the database schema, I noticed that there's a field on the property main table named "descothr", which provides a description of the architecture if nothing else is listed. For example, Benewah Milk Bottle has an alternate architecture description of "Novelty architecture". I've updated the infobox generator to list this other description. That might help in many cases where the architectural style is listed as "Other". However, there are still a lot of properties where there's no style listed and nothing in the "descothr" field, so I'll leave the "architecture=" field blank for them. Henry Barnard House doesn't have anything listed. (And speaking of house names, I'm adding a {{DEFAULTSORT}} tag for houses named after people, so they'll sort into categories as last name first.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
As always, Elkman's awesomeness overwhelms the project. --IvoShandor (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, consensus seems to be building, what do we do with it?

Without stopping the conversation, lets assume the consensus is to remove the text as described. What techniques should we look into? With the number of infoboxes out there, I'm thinking it's probably best to use a bot. Anyone here have experience building one? dm (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter? There seem to be bots around that do this kind of thing, simply removing lines of text that aren't needed — since we've decided exactly what we want to have removed, we could easily post at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't we add code to {{infobox NRHP}} so that it doesn't show the style if the parameter is "no style listed"? I'd do it if it weren't protected. --NE2 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
{{infobox nrhp2}} is not protected, but there's a lot of articles using it... dm (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the conversation below

I don't always remove the "Architect: Unknown" and "Architecture: No Style Listed" fields in stubs that i create. It does carry information value: it clarifies that the given NRHP is probably not listed for its architecture, and the architect is unknown to the NPS, and the architecture is probably nondescript. I do delete those fields when it seems they are Not Applicable, e.g. for an archeological site or other site, object, or structure where Architect does not seem to apply. So, in stubs that i have created and chosen to leave those fields displaying for the info value they do convey, I would prefer that the infobox code NOT override what is displayed. About whether the Elkman generator should drop such info in new infoboxes, I guess i would lean against dropping it, although I see the problem with "Unknown" sometimes meaning there was an unknown architect, vs. it is not applicable. Neat about Elkman adding other architectural info to the generator. doncram (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Doncram: In some articles the "unknown architecture" information is irrelevant and should be deleted. In other cases, however, it's meaningful and should be retained. Unfortunately, this means that it's not a good idea to suppress display of this information or to have a bot go through and delete it... --Orlady (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a case by case thing, but there is no way that unknown should ever stay if there is a source that knows. It shouldn't be automatically added, if it is truly unknown it should be added by hand. The idea that it gives people information depends upon the reader knowing something about the NRHP, to the average reader the "no style listed" or "unknown" has only one meaning, that is unknown. --IvoShandor (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with IvoShandor, If sometimes it means something and sometimes it doesnt, I'd argue it doesn't actually mean anything. Leaving it blank has the same meaning to a user, that we dont know who or what it is. dm (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Alaska NRHPs list, and category issue

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Nyttend has done a great job developing List of RHPs in AK, including use of a new navigation template and his decision to break out each borough and CDP to separate list-articles, no matter how small. Then, he added a nice map showing the location of the borough in Alaska. Works very well.

I notice the category in use appears to be Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alaska, rather than preferred Category:National Register of Historic Places listings in Alaska. Can someone who does category renames address that? doncram (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment :-) I should note that I've not done CDPs specially; a census-designated place is a much smaller area than a census area: a census area is the size of a borough (like a county in other states), and doesn't appear in other states, while CDPs are located in virtually every state and are the size of a municipality in other states (a census area is a county-equivalent, while a CDP you might say is a "city-equivalent"). I don't believe that the category is a problem: each state's listing in Category:National Register of Historic Places by state is "Category:National Register of Historic Places in _____".
One request, by the way — some of the maps aren't good due to recent changes: unlike all other states, Alaska continues to create boroughs. Two (Wrangell and Skagway) have been created since the county maps were made, so they don't have their own maps, and I've used dot-maps; because they've been carved out of census areas, these two census areas are now smaller. Can anyone make or edit .svg files? If so, please let me know, and I'll explain what I'd like to see to make these lists better.
Finally, I should note that the every-list breakout wasn't my idea: I saw Dtbohrer do it for Pennsylvania first
Thanks again :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
...and I got idea from New York and California ;-) If no one else is able to, I can edit SVG's, I just would need to know what the boundaries for the boroughs look like. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 05:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Nyttend regarding the category name. The standard nomenclature we arrived upon for categories is Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alaska, while state-level list articles are given names in the form National Register of Historic Places listings in Alaska. --Orlady (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Huh??? What was all the acrimony about in the whole discussion about titles of the list-articles? I don't generally care about or follow category discusssions, but i thot this was resolved to follow the same model as the list-article titles. It makes no sense to me, if you/whoever have gone a different direction for categories, after all that. doncram (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Doncram, those long and complex discussions dealt with naming of several different types of lists and several different types of categories. Be assured that the names of the Alaska list and the Alaska category both fully conform with the names chosen in the discussions of names for lists and categories. --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In the CFD, someone suggested "CAT:NRHP listings in _____", but I noted (apparently others agreed) that such a name would leave out anything that wasn't a listing, such as lists or MPSs. Nyttend (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Harrumph! Well doesnt that beat all! For the 15,000 to 20,000 NRHP individual articles that we now have, the category name rather clearly suggests that they can be individually be called National Register of Historic Places in wherever, but there was all that acrimony that we could not describe the list articles as being about Registered Historic Places, because that was just so inaccurate. Like we were all so shoddy for referring to them as places!!!! doncram (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the point was that we don't say "The _____ House and _____ Building are National Register of Historic Places in ____", but that the category is for everything in a state related to the NRHP. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Manhattan from 14th to 59th Streets

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks to some great work by many including Jim.Henderson, the midtown section of Manhattan is fully photographed. Now we just need to get some articles created to backfill the redlinks. dm (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance and monitoring issues

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

We're building a huge structure of NRHP lists and individual articles, but I am concerned that we have created a monster, too big for our current WikiProject membership to actually monitor. I consider it a disservice to wikipedia readers, and especially to new would-be editors in various locales, if there are orphan-like list-articles and individual articles that no one has on a watchlist. If there is no wp:NRHP or other editor watching, the system of list-articles is like one of those giant, lost fishing nets at sea, which go on attracting interest to no avail. Someone needs to watch, to respond to inquiries and edits.

Therefore, I currently oppose splitting out any more state lists into separate list-articles for each county! I did note in a discussion above that split-out of List of RHPs in Alaska into separate list-articles for each borough, even ones having just 2 listings, was done well. It was done nicely there, and those boroughs each are huge areas. And this was also just done to List of RHPs in AZ. Can we set up some signup system so that any and all list-articles, at least, are watched? And put a moratorium on splitting out list-articles, until there are watchers? doncram (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been using a way to monitor changes to large groups of related articles without putting them on my watchlist. It uses a form Special:Recentchanges called Special:Recentchangeslinked and is able to show all changes to articles in a given category. I use it extensively in one of my subpages. This method seems a bit easier than watching many pages and then trying to figure out who is watching what. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
That looks like a nice tool, useful for someone who is trying to monitor all the individual NRHP articles in a state, which would appear in one category. For example, very useful if someone were to try to monitor Massachusetts, which has been stubbed out almost all the way, but no one is watching its 4,000 or so separate NRHP articles. It doesn't provide the level of watching that a watchlist does though. If you noticed one local article change or if you noticed a change to a list-article by an emergent new editor, you could use that tool to investigate if there have been other edits in the local area. I think the state list-articles and any separated out county or other list-articles ought to actively be on one or more wp:NRHP members' watchlists. Some areas, like Florida and New York and Minnesota, are pretty well covered by watchers. But for other areas, could we set up a signup system, say to cover the list-articles in a given region for a year, starting July 4? doncram (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
We could always use both sysems. Let people decide whether their going to add the articles to their watchlist or to add a link and monitor all the articles in a given category. I figure it doesn't matter how, just as long as someone keeps an eye on them. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 22:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
That's what matters but my guess is many don't have the time to commit to watching multi-thousands of articles, I don't even have every NRHP article I have created on my watchlist, I do what I can, but am limited. These aren't exactly high profile articles, for the most part, and do not see rates of vandalism as high as more visible content does. Just some thoughts, feel free to decide their relevance to you (anyone), personally--IvoShandor (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I have most of the list pages on my watch list. While I certainly can't claim to monitoring each and every edit to them, it seems to me that the majority of edits are made by regular contributors to this project. When I see a user name that I don't recognize, I often check out the edits and sometimes leave comments for the contributor. I am opposed to stopping the work I've been doing in creating table-ized lists. First of all, I'm in the middle of Virginia right now and certainly don't wish to leave the job half done. Secondly, I think that the tables provide an incredible resource for history buffs who wish to visit the sites in a given geographic area. I have personally found the ability to easily create maps and driving directions invaluable. As far as I know, this feature is not available anywhere else ... certainly not in one place. Finally, I think the tables attract Wikipedians to this project. It's not at all unusual to see editors adding photos and descriptions to tables I've recently created. At least some of these editors may not have otherwise contributed to our project and it may occasionally be a springboard to taking on additional work for the project (e.g., creating new articles about individual sites).
That said, I think there may be merit in the idea of having interested parties volunteer to closely monitor selected states. Do we have enough people here who would be willing to fill this role to give us coverage of all 50 states, DC and the territories? If we're going to go this route, we may want to come up with a basic set of tasks to do in constructing the tables. A few months back, I itemized the things that I do when creating tables. Perhaps we could cull from that list a minimum standard? --sanfranman59 (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, the moratorium i was suggesting was to halt splitting out counties, not to stop table-izing within existing list-articles (except, I guess, to keep file-sizes down). Like for Texas, with its 247 counties, all table-ized now, I prefer that it is in relatively few alphabetical chunks that can be watchlisted. If all the 1 and 2 NRHP counties are split out into separate list articles, then it becomes impractical to watch, hence when new editors show up there is no one to notice. I guess i am preferring the alphabetical chunks of counties, and not splitting out further until there are photos and descriptions that start to make the file-size a problem. (I'd further prefer to split the counties into Northwest Texas and other big regions, rather than alphabetical sets of counties all over Texas, but that's another matter.) To revise then, let me suggest not splitting out small counties unless there is extensive development by a local person adding photos, etc. And, yes, maybe there is a minimum standard for list-articles, but the table-izing has been done mostly by a few regulars. Nv8200p split out Texas, though, and i don't know if Nv8200p followed all the steps being taken by Sanfranman59, Nyttend, Dtbohrer, and me recently. Has anyone else checked what Nv8200p has done? doncram (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinions solicited for a 16-part DYK submission

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

One of our regular contributors, Doug Coldwell, has recently submitted a 16-article hook for DYK, regarding an historic site which contains a number of different buildings and places of interest. Questions have been raised about whether or not the buildings within this historic park merit their own articles, or whether the articles should be merged into a larger article covering all the buildings on the site.

Since the NRHP is something of a specialist area, I thought it might be an idea to canvas opinion here. The current discussion at DYK is here. Gatoclass (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked at some, and they should have their own articles only if they're separately listed on the Register or a case can be made for their notability independent of their inclusion in the park. Not all are, AFAICT. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Delisted property guidelines

Latest comment: 15 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion

After a brief search, I didn't find any consistency in application nor a guideline for what should happen to articles that cover now delisted properties. There is a list to add them to but unless it was a NHL there does not seem to be cat, so those on the list that were only NRHP are still in the regular NRHP cat, and many still have the NRHP infobox. Is there a guideline of some sorts for dealing with this, and if not, shouldn't there be one? My brief proposal would be something like this:

  • Edit the infobox to include a field for "delisted", and get a infobox guru to then make it alter the title of the infobox to add "Former" to the text at the top of the infobox when the "delisted" field is used.
  • Create a cat for former NRHP, though not sure if there would be a need to break it down by state.
  • Then outline what is to be done, including (going by what I found in the archives here) moving the listing from the state/county listing to a separate section in that listing, and adding the entry to the aforementioned delisted list.

Hopefully this project can take on this minor issue. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the well-put suggestions. Yikes, i see that it was i who created List of delisted National Register of Historic Places properties, in October 2008, many moons ago. Since creating that, it has become more clear to me that there are lots and lots and lots of NRHP delistings, perhaps too many to list there. Creating nation-wide categores for NHL delistings and for NRHP delistings is certainly appropriate, i think. Actually i think there are so many NRHP delistings that state-specific categories for NRHP delistings is probably merited, but I would be happy to leave the decision to subdivide a nation-wide category to categorization specialists. Should the nation-wide categories be: "Category: Delisted National Register of Historic Places properties and districts" and "Category: De-designated United States National Historic Landmarks"? I'd be very glad if someone would create the relevant categories.
And yes, absolutely, a guideline for dealing with delistings should be included in wp:NRHPMOS, including recommendation to list in a separate section/(move delistings to a separate section) in state/county NRHP lists of RHPs. Yes, also, a variation upon the NRHP and NRHP2 infobox templates should be created. Thanks for the suggestions! doncram (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we should have a separate infobox color and banner for these as well. Daniel Case (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Update: Created Category:Former National Register of Historic Places to mirror Category:Former National Historic Landmarks of the United States, but may need a re-name. Will check with the infobox project to see if one of them can update the NRHP infobox. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Creation of that category was a good initiative. As you note, however, the category will need to be renamed. A property that was formerly listed on the National Register of Historic Places is not a "former National Register of Historic Place", as the current name implies. I'd like to suggest Category:Former National Register of Historic Places listings
Whatever that category is called, when articles are added to it, please don't remove those articles from the NRHP categories for the geographic area in which the property is located. The fact that a property is no longer on the Register does not mean that it is no longer a place of interest in the city, county, or state where it is located. --Orlady (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually per WP:CAT it is inappropriate to have it in the NRHP category since it is no longer on the NRHP. It would be like keeping a dead Senator in the Category:Current members of the United States Senate cat. Once a property is de-listed it needs to be moved. Now, it should also be added to a local cat as you say, but on the article you reverted my edit on the article was already in a local cat, thus no need to add one. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess that you and I have different perceptions regarding the scope and purpose of the geography-specific NRHP categories. I see their subject matter as being the topic of NRHP listings (past, present, and possibly future) in the geographic unit, and you see it as being restricted only to current listings. Regardless, categorization of articles like Thomas J. Walker House (a stubby article about a demolished house) is hardly of significant consequence -- this is probably of interest only for Wikipedia contributors who use categories for navigation. It seems to me that the state NRHP category (or a county or local category, if such should be created in the future) continues to be a relevant navigational link for that article. Even though the house no longer exists, the article still has historical relevance to the topic of the NRHP listings in Tennessee, and Category:National Register of Historic Places in Tennessee is not restricted to "current" NRHP listings. Since the article is in Category:Tennessee Registered Historic Place stubs, I suppose it could be argued that it never also deserved to be in Category:National Register of Historic Places in Tennessee, but (as a user who uses categories to navigate), if I'm looking for articles in a category, I find it annoying to have to look in both the main category and the stub category. --Orlady (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That's okay. We here can edit the NRHP and/or NRHP2 infoboxes. It just takes some motivation, and a couple decisions: what color for the delisted properties in the infobox header? One shade of light gray, being somber, was already used for National Memorials in our color key. Maybe no color? Also, need a field for delisting date. Also need a . Will try applying a temporary NRHP3 version on delisted property Odalen Lutherske Kirke. Check it tomorrow and comment pls. doncram (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I know anyone can make the edit (except its edit protected), but it was more of the technical know-how with getting the template to add "Former" to the title and change the color if the delisted field for either NHL or NRHP was used. If you have the know how, go for it. I suggested silver for the color. If you are also an admin, I wrote the code for the fields if you want to update that too? Aboutmovies (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We have 2 templates in use; the NRHP template which is the default implemented by Elkman's tool, and the NRHP2 template which handles variations such as including a map as well as a photo. We've used the NRHP3 template as a testing ground for changes to be implemented into the NRHP2 infobox. Okay, i just tried editing the current NRHP3 infobox and applying it on delisted property Odalen Lutherske Kirke. There's no obvious way to turn off the NRHP blue color or to change the top two fields, at least not to me. For a new delisted banner, below, I tried applying color "Gray", which turns out pretty dark for me. Date "delisted=" field works okay. But there are some other obvious glitches which need to be fixed (I wonder if dudemanfellabra could help here again). And feedback about what specifically is really wanted is needed. Aboutmovies, feel free to experiment with the NRHP3 infobox if u like. doncram (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the one error, then made some cosmetic changes, wording. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Doncram asked me how many properties have been removed from the National Register. I checked the database, and there are 1508 properties that have been removed from the National Register (i.e. their status is 'RN'). In Minnesota alone, there are 116 properties that have been removed. I'm not sure it would be practical to create lists for each state, or to include them in each county, but we could create articles about the more notable properties that were removed, as appropriate. Here are a few examples from Minnesota:
There are a lot of others, of course. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that some are notable enough, for example Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3 was removed after its destruction following a 1996 flood, but as it is also listed on the Historic American Engineering Record, there is enough info on it that I plan to take the article to FAC soon. I also wrote and got a copy of its NRHP file from the NPS, including material on the delisting. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I just edit Template:Infobox nrhp2 to include the code that was asked for. The syntax for delisted NRHPs is "delisted = date_delisted" (i.e. January 9, 2009). For dedesignated NHLs, the syntax is "dedesignated_nhl = date_dedesignated". When one or both of these parameters is defined, the background color of the NRHP and/or the NHL bar respectively turns to grey (#ddd) and "Former" is added to the text in the bar. An example can be found at User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Dudemanfellabra's sandbox example looks really great to me, and i appreciate that you implemented it all the way into NRHP2. Thanks Aboutmovies and Dudeman for improving upon my starter programming effort. If the ddd grey color and this format is okay, I'll get around to documenting it in wp:NRHPMOS. It should be tested in Edwin H. Armstrong House (a demolished, delisted and de-designated former NY NHL) and in William Lowndes Yancey Law Office (an altered and de-designated but not delisted AL NHL), and then I would use those as demo examples.
About what the guidelines should say about covering delisted sites, I think that NRHP county list-articles should include secondary tables of delisted properties, now with the ddd grey color I guess. But i would put those tables in with each entry just being text, rather than creating red-links; I think it is generally not a priority to encourage creation of articles about no-longer-existing places. Of course I am supporting covering delisted properties with modified infoboxes in cases where the property is sufficiently notable or otherwise interesting for someone to make the effort to create an article, and then the actual article should be bluelinked from the county list-article. doncram (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I added former listings to some of the county lists in PA some time ago (Lycoming County, McKean County, for example, also have articles for the delisted sites). They don't have the grey color yet, but its good start. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 20:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
For use in coloring those tables, i just created "template:NRHP-delisted color". Use {{NRHP-delisted color}} the same way that NHL color and other NRHP colors are used. It implements the ddd grey color now. doncram (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Any reason why we couldn't we add the delisted color the smae way that the list of bridges on the NRHP in PA does it (by tinting the row). --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 00:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, nice how one invocation of "bgcolor=e7e7e7" on each of the lower rows of the PA bridges table changes the color for the whole row. The color call is done on the row divider row, so it is "|-bgcolor=e7e7e7" rather than "|-" between two NRHP items. Can that approach work for coloring the header row of a table with just one color call, before there are any row dividers? I don't know where the color call would be placed, to affect the whole header row. In all of our NRHP tables including even the PA bridges table, the header row is colored by individually coloring each cell in the row.
But, actually I prefer the separate table in the Lycoming County. I think the PA bridges table is presented inaccurately as being a list of NRHP bridges, while in fact the table includes non-NRHP former bridges, too, at the bottom. At a minimum the introductory presentation should describe that. For most county tables, there will be no former NRHPs; having a separate table for the delisted ones saves naming/describing the main county table differently for different counties. Also I have always liked the leading numbering/count column that appears in the Lycoming table, while the PA bridges table doesn't have that. With a numbering/count column present, it suffices to color that lead column, u don't need to color the whole row, although which is better in a mixed table may be a matter of personal taste. doncram (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I like the separate table too. I also thought that keeping the row number with the NRHP color would serve as a way to show what the site was listed as (what happens if, say, a historic district is delisted as well). --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see that would be another way to do it. Not sure whether there would be many counties or other lists where there is a mix of types delisted, where that would be relatively more advantageous, and then whether it would be clearer or not than some other way of presenting. Perhaps it could be tested in a mixed table at the List of delisting NRHP properties, though I am not myself wanting to actively develop that list-article right now. Anyhow, I will try to remember the idea to consider in future situations, and it will now go into the NRHP talk archive, too. Thanks! doncram (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) As noted in another thread, Florence Mills House was just de-designated and provides a good use of the delisted and dedesignated infobox features. I know this place was de-designated and believe it was delisted too, so tried the NRHP2 infobox. The current NRHP2 infobox programming and/or my call to it fails somewhat, in that it fails to show the original NHL listing date. Also it shows a grey banner for Former NRHP listing, but does not show a banner for Former NHL. I believe this one deserves both banners. doncram (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Banned user Jvolkblum and New Rochelle, NY articles

Latest comment: 15 years ago39 comments10 people in discussion

(discussion section title was: "NRHP articles being removed by user". Section title was renamed by, i think, Elkman, mid-discussion. doncram (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

An unfortunate situation is occurring in regards to the removal of NRHP articles (of good to very good quality) from wikipedia. Specifically, articles for the NRHP sites in New Rochelle , New York have all been removed based on questionable connections being made to a banned individual who is allegedly a sockpuppetteer. The articles include Wildcliff, Davenport House, Rochelle Park - Rochelle Heights Historic District, The Knickerbocker Press Building, The Pioneer Building, The Lispenard-Rodman-Davenport House. Anyone interested in lending a helpful hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.125.210.226 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Researching issue. Will advise. --Ebyabe (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wknight deleted the discussion and i just restored it.
I agree that the situation, which has involved an escalating war between the New Rochelle editor(s) and certain administrators and regular editors, is unfortunate. Consequences include that many articles which had some merit have been deleted, and one or more potentially constructive editors has been throttled, and that a lot of reviewer/admin time and effort is spent in fighting an escalating war. If the history of the accounts involved could be reviewed (difficult), I imagine that there is fault on the part of both the New Rochelle editor(s) (along the lines of ignoring wikipedia guidelines and policies, after warnings) and on the part of the reviewer/administrators involved (in terms of abrasiveness and sometimes unfair snap judgments). An account-based review would be difficult, because there were many accounts involved as the New Rochelle editor(s) created new ones to get around bans, fair or unfair. An article-based review is also difficult, as many of the articles involved have been deleted and only administrators have access to the deleted articles. I wonder if there is some way to call a truce and start over. doncram (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Why so cryptic? I'm not sure who you're even referring to. Do you know? Jvolkblum (talk · contribs) has created so many sockpuppets (over 250 including 200 since his community ban), that all of the editors you're referring to may actually be one person! As far as simple edit warring, by definition, a banned user cannot engage in an edit war. They're banned. If you're saying that you'd like to see the deleted articles, I'll say what I've always said: I'll be happy to provide them to any trusted editor who is interested in reviewing them and re-adding them - and taking responsibility for the content. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The IP user who started this discussion was clearly Jvolkblum. This banned sockpuppeteer is trying to take advantage of NRHP project participants by appealing to your project loyalty and suggesting that users like (but not limited to) Wknight94 and I have evil attentions. Please don't be duped by this person. It is not exactly easy to get banned at Wikipedia, and Jvolkblum worked long and hard to attack Wikipedia persistently enough to earn that dubious distinction. Some of the Jvolkblum content about historic properties does look OK on its face, but much of it has turned out to be egregious plagiarism and/or deliberate falsehoods. Wknight94 is understating the situation in giving the number of sockpuppets as "250+", as Jvolkblum also has edited from scores of anonymous IPs, including open proxies, blackberry IPs, and several ISPs. --Orlady (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Additional FYI: Jvolkblum sockpuppets also have been active at Commons, where their activity has included uploading numerous images related to historical topics for New Rochelle and other Westchester County communities. Many sockpuppets have been blocked on Commons and many of their images have been deleted, but the Commons community has not been as assertive about confronting this character as en-wikipedia. As a result, many of those sockpuppet-added images remain on Commons (in many instances, Commons has allowed images to remain when the sockpuppet's license claims could not be proven false). When adding Commons images to articles about Westchester County historical topics, please check the history of the image. If the uploader was a Jvolkblum sock (this usually can be determined from the block log at Commons, the block log for the same user name here, the lists of sockpuppets linked from the Jvolkblum user page here, and/or the sockpuppet cases and checkuser cases here), assume that there is a significant probability that the image is plagiarized and/or misidentified. --Orlady (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I was aware of the Jvolkblum stuff for quite some time and am not gonna be a dupe. Some of the articles affected and eventually deleted were created by me and/or developed somewhat by me. I don't want to review all the past history and to second-guess Orlady and WkNight's and others' decisions in the management of this situation. However, there are several good contributors in this wikiproject who started off with cut-and-pastes that had to be remedied. I don't know how this particular situation went bad, but I imagine it could have been a combination of the New Rochelle editor(s) inexperience at first and the potentially heavy-handed nature of the corrective actions taken by whomever was originally involved. I honestly don't know who was involved and what transpired originally. Again, I wonder if there could be some way out of the situation for everyone, along the lines of permitting one account for the editor and having one or two other NRHP editors review/supervise that account's contributions. The editor's note here at wt:NRHP can be viewed either as yet another provocation to be whacked down, or as an actual opening for something different to be worked out. doncram (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This is no innocent user, Doncram. I first got embroiled in this sockpuppet case after I ran across some serious messes in City School District of New Rochelle and New Rochelle High School, spent a lot of time trying to clean them up, discovered that a user (who I assumed was a clueless newbie) was recreating the messes faster than I could clean them up, and tried to be helpful to that user (User:FlanneryFamily). See the article page histories for March 9 and March 10, 2008, to see what I am talking about. Because I had the user on my watchlist, I was alerted a couple of weeks later when the user was accused of sockpuppetry, in what was then "only" Jvolkblum's second sockpuppetry case. It is now clear to me that this was no clueless newbie, but a determined malicious vandal who has devoted an incredible amount of time and energy to deliberately damaging Wikipedia. If you insist on feeding the vicious animals in the zoo, you are sure to get bitten (as many others of us have already been bitten) -- and you certainly will not endear yourself to the other users and admins who have spent countless hours dealing with the damage this person has done. --Orlady (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've seen this sockpuppet editing articles such the Thomas Paine Cottage. It clearly fit into what Orlady is describing as a lot of text which individually sounded like it *could* be right, but overall did not help the article and made it harder to read. Let alone be potentially factually incorrect (Example). Are any of the deleted articles worth recreating by hand from the usual sources? dm (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't look at the "Example" linked right away, I am a day later. But I was the person who started the Thomas Paine Cottage article, and it looks to me that Wknight's corrective edit is removing some stuff that I myself wrote which was very well-sourced by the NRHP inventory document that i linked. There is additional material deleted which may be the main target of the deletion. The material sounds factual and highly consistent with the NRHP inventory document version and is highly relevant for the article. If I added that material and it was deleted heavy-handedly, I would be pretty p.o.'d. On the other hand, it would be legitimate to discuss the material in detail in the Talk page for the article, and to call for more explicit sourcing. Consider the extensive, intelligent discussion that goes on in the development of many of wikipedia's better articles, for example the Joseph Priestley House article, one of few featured articles within wp:NRHP. I think it is appropriate for there to be a lot of back and forth discussion about what is the best material to use, what is the proper quoting, and so on. But who gets to judge what should be deleted without due consideration, though? And to judge that one contributor is the same as some other banned contributor? doncram (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Thomas Paine Cottage article, it appears from the history that some of Wknight's and my reversions have indeed removed a couple of factoids (mostly two street addresses) that were in your original version. The removal was first done by me in this diff, which was a rather thoroughgoing edit in which I researched the topic in cited sources, deleted content for which I could not find support, corrected statements that were inconsistent with the sources I had read, and removed a couple of items that I judged to be minor details not needed in an encyclopedia article. I judged the street addresses to be minor details; since you consider the addresses to be encyclopedic, I'm glad you re-added them. I did not consider it productive to individually review all of the several dozen edits in the page history and judge every content item based on who had originally added it. --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Many (but by no means all!) of the deleted articles are about encyclopedic topics. In most instances I think it would easier to write a new article from scratch than to use the deleted article as a starting point. All of the content in the deleted articles would need to be checked (because its veracity and sourcing is suspect) and rewritten (because it is likely to be plagiarized), and if you need to do that much research and writing, it's generally easier to start from a blank slate. --Orlady (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Orlady, i absolutely did not state or imply that the person or persons involved are innocent. I don't care to be warned by you about my having views that might make me unpopular with you. To be a bit flip, hasn't that ship already sailed?  :) I do recognize that you and others have indeed put in many hours dealing with the situation, and I honestly appreciate that you have. However, the current state of the situation is very poor. If you take the most negative view of the New Rochelle editor(s), then he/they are "winning" in some way by effectively preventing the development of articles in the New Rochelle area, and by using up your and others' time. I would like to hear others' views about the possibility of some solution allowing the user(s) to channel his/their energies constructively. I do not hold high expectation that any "second chance" would be successful, but I wonder if it would be worth trying. If not here, where is the forum for that kind of discussion? It would require having some channel in which the user could communicate, too. doncram (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) To Doncram, by all means, if you think a good deal of content you added has been deleted, please let me know. I'll definitely send it to you. And the correct forum for an unbanning proposal is WP:AN. It would be hard to achieve given that Jvolkblum him/herself has not even mentioned this possibility. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Doncram, if this person wanted to turn over a new leaf and become an honest contributor, I believe that s/he would have no difficulty doing so. This person has no difficulty registering new accounts (often several at one time) and clearly has the intellectual capacity and technical ability to be a good and productive Wikipedia contributor. In fact, several of the socks have evaded detection for extended periods because they started out with patterns of editing responsibily, but eventually blew their cover by engaging in the abusive practices that have become Jvolkblum's hallmark. At any given time (including now), I assume that Jvolkblum is operating multiple sockpuppets in Wikipedia that have not yet been detected. --Orlady (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the user would have to be allowed to edit some articles in his interest area without being being banned on sight for having similar interests to previously banned socks. Anyhow, if the user would like to discuss this with me, there is an email button on my talk page. doncram (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's generally silly to delete content because of who wrote it. Talk:Arch Coal#A note on the history of this article is an interesting read. Now, if it's of questionable accuracy, that would be a different issue. --NE2 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case, most of the content is almost always of questionable accuracy and/or provenance (i.e., it may be plagiarized), and some of the articles are about trivial topics of doubtful notability. For just one example of why this content is not to be trusted, just today I removed some content that one of the sockpuppets had added to New Rochelle, New York that was sourced to a book that I am 99% sure is nonexistent (invented by Jvolkblum as a source for the fact and quotation added to the article). :--Orlady (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The above comment by Moriarty09 was legitimately deleted by WkNight as being from a probable sock/banned user. However, i undeleted it to allow for this thread to continue. I think it is relevant here. I think the exchange illustrates the poor situation. Without breaking it down, in my view both Orlady and Moriarty09 must have made overstatements or misleading statements just now, and they seem not to trust/believe each other. But, whether the book and the relevant quote exists can absolutely be proven. Moriarty09, can you provide proof, please. For example, could you scan enough pages from the book and post them somewhere to be reviewed? doncram (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
You mean this? It's a Ph. D. thesis, and very possibly reliable (note that the linked discussion is about masters theses, which are much more questionable). --NE2 02:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
But, on the other hand, I can't readily find anything showing that "Now and Again" was in fact set in New Rochelle. It may be true, but it seems that it would show up on all the cookie-cutter trivia sites. --NE2 02:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I found at least one TV-fan website that indicated that the protagonist of the TV show had lived in New Rochelle before the events depicted in the show, and that this wife (a character in the show) still lived there. But I still have no clue why a PhD thesis about New Rochelle in the period 1945 to 1970 is supposed to be a reliable source about a 1999 TV show. --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record, this seems to be about the edit in the New Rochelle article: "In "search of an upscale, posh community", [[CBS]] chose New Rochelle as the setting for its science fiction television series ''[[Now and Again]]''. <ref>Title=''Division and diversity: Community transition in postwar America, 1945--1970. New Rochelle, New York, a case study''|Page= author=Guttman, Gail Kaplan, Ph.D.|Publisher= Columbia University|Date= 2001</ref>". The given reference footnote doesn't show that it is a Ph.D. dissertation; it is NE2's link that shows that. It makes sense that the New Rochelle library would probably have a copy. My expectation is that a Columbia University history department Ph.D. dissertation from 2001 is absolutely reliable about a fact like that. That's perhaps besides the point here, though. As Orlady stated before, the person in question is literate and should be capable of contributing productively, if he wants to. I think there also would need to be suitable conditions set up that would allow him to contribute without his edits being judged on a hair-trigger and immediately deleted. doncram (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Further for the record, it's been proven, the quote appears on page 12 of the dissertation. I have academic associations that sometimes work to get dissertations easily. If anyone wants a copy of the page sent by email attachment, email me. This does not show that Orlady's judgment to delete it was wrong; that judgment involved her cumulative view of a long process. I think it does show that Orlady's judgment on the falseness of the source in this one instance was wrong, and that the worst she thought of the person and stated above--that the person was completely fabricating--was mistaken. doncram (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure there are suitable conditions: s/he needs to be unbanned. Until s/he can convince anyone that the endless legion of socks will stop permanently, there's no chance of that happening. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, good, sounds like there is a possibility to discuss conditions. I am not sure whether one New Rochelle-area user can control all the other ones, if there are more than one, however. But, I will go read up on processes for proposing unbans, which you referred me to already, and I will try to formulate a proposal in the correct forum. Thank you for your guidance and your attention to this. doncram (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

For folks who are not familiar with the guideline, WP:Ban says (in part):
Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons.
Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to. Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a {{db-g5}}, or its alternative name {{db-banned}}, to mark such a page. If the banned editor is the only contributor to the page or its talk page, speedy deletion is invariably correct. If other editors have unwittingly made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned user, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do.
--Orlady (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That policy is antithetical to the creation of an encyclopedia, and should be ignored, if the edits are good. We don't need to invoke it to revert or delete material that is questionable. --NE2 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The critical words are "if the edits are good." The edits need to be carefully checked to verify them. The general procedure outlined in the quoted policy is to revert first, and ask questions later. If another contributor wants to review and selectively restore deleted content, they may do so, but they take responsibility for the restored content, including verifying sources and avoiding copyvios. Wikipedia policy does not condone retaining content from a banned user who has given us many good reasons to doubt his or her veracity, merely because that content looks plausible. --Orlady (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your conclusions, assuming your facts are correct (I have not looked at any of the edits). But it has nothing to do with his being a banned editor, except insofar as he was banned for bad edits. --NE2 01:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking about creating all of the New Rochelle NRHP articles with bare-bones information, like the infobox, and then protecting them. Alternatively, I'm thinking about preemptively WP:SALTing them. Either way, we need to keep banned user Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from editing them. Which would be preferable? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure protection is even necessary. Checkuser has been excellent at catching his/her socks, as long as everyone keeps the articles on their watchlist. I have dozens on mine so far - deleted and otherwise. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
IMO, protection would be inappropriate for the New Rochelle NRHP articles, as it would prevent other people from coming forward to help expand them. Anyway, Wikipedia policy frowns upon long-term article protection. History indicates that Jvolkblum enjoys engaging Wikipedians in the game of whack-a-mole and will show up and edit regardless of what is done to discourage him/her -- for example, in the last 24 hours s/he has used a diverse variety of IPs (from multiple ISPs) to make just one or two edits, as well as editing under at least one registered user name. However, I would like to suggest that New Rochelle does not need anyone's sympathy -- the community is very well-represented by Wikipedia articles and content in those articles. If you want to take pity on a community, there are many U.S. communities that have interesting NRHP listings and that are far less wealthy than New Rochelle, both in terms of per capita income and Wikipedia contributor involvement. --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A possibility not yet allowed for in the previous enforcement on this case, as far as I know, is that there could be more than one user from the New Rochelle area who is caught up in this. I think it is possible that one or more somewhat innocent persons from the New Rochelle area would be erroneously caught up in the enforcement. I kind of have had the impression that all you had to do, to be labelled a sockpuppet, was to edit in a New Rochelle area article and not have an extensive prior editing history elsewhere. Then, if your edits were deleted and you were otherwise treated badly in your first wikipedia experiences, you might behave a bit indignantly and otherwise appear a lot like the true original culprit. It seems likely to me that it would be very difficult for any new wikipedia contributors to emerge from the New Rochelle area. Many editors start out editing their high school and town articles. In the record somewhere that I saw once are mentions that editing in wikipedia is a topic in some local New Rochelle bulletin boards or similar online forums. If I was a new editor, if my own edits were being deleted and I was being unfairly banned by someone's misjudgment that i was really some other previously banned user, then i think i might be inclined to fight back, perhaps by setting up more accounts and continuing to edit. There has to be some way to allow for a truce and a restart, IMO. doncram (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I can't think of one NRHP article that is worth this amount of bickering and attempts to assume good faith over a banned user or two. A check user would reveal any innocents. Start the articles over is my vote.--IvoShandor (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Example of why Jvolkblum is banned

I've found a nice example of how Jvolkblum got banned and why he should remain so. See Talk:Suburb/Archive 1#Copyvio and plagiarism. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote Thomas Paine Cottage

I've watched this thread for a while and had some free time today so I've substantially rewritten the article by going back to the original sources. Please feel free to take a look and further improve the article. dm (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_21&oldid=1140166045"