User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q1 2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

favor

Hi, I wonder if you could do a favor and help out in resolving some merger/split proposals in CT, NH, RI NRHP HD articles. With time and a good amount of communication, I and another editor who disagreed previously have made a lot of progress and achieved basic agreement for most types of nrhp hds which were originally all in contention. There remain a number of open merger/split proposals to address and close with decisions, and some other issues open as well or yet to be discussed, now with more moderation on both sides. The other editor and i agreed we would take it down several notches, and agree to abide by third party decisions. In particular we'd be happy if you would be willing to help mediate/arbitrate/judge: would you consider this? This relates to Talk:List of RHPs in CT, Talk:List of RHPs in VT, at Talk:List of RHPs in RI, and at individual NRHP HD articles and town/village/hamlet articles referenced from those. It does not all need to be rehashed. What we'd appreciate is your being willing to be an invited discussion leader and then closer in merger/split proposals in selected specific cases, I suppose to be decided on the merits of information about the extent of geographical and historical overlap in those cases. What I myself have argued is that two separate articles should be allowed, at least until adequate information is developed, and then a merger proposal could go either way. Additional information has developed in some cases now and some would probably be ready for a closing-type decision, perhaps following one more flurry of moderate discussion. Would you be willing to help, in a limited way, in resolving some of these, in that kind of role? doncram (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be willing to help out. I've watched portions of this from the sideline, and hope that we can move on from here. Am I to understand that a merge to the parent town/village/hamlet would be appropriate when the HD and the settlement more or less coincide? Acroterion (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Good. Approximately yes.
There are some cases where the NRHP HD borders are pretty much defined as a village's limits, i.e. where both are defined and are the same. There I think we all agree a merge is usually okay. However even then there could be reason for an editor developing NRHP HD material to want to choose to have a separate NRHP HD article (e.g. if the village article goes on and on about non-historic stuff or different history than is exemplified in the artifacts that compose the current HD, and/or if an editor wants to describe in detail many contributing properties which would go beyond what is appropriate in a general village type article). For such cases, there was discussion and some agreement that putting a new template in the Talk page which conveyed/encouraged the option (like that if someone wanted to develop a detailed NRHP HD article they would be welcome to do so, perhaps with pointers to a developed example or two) would be suitable and okay. Such a template could go a long way to settling many cases where borders are not known.
About cases where borders of a non-incorporated hamlet are not defined, including cases where the existence and notability of a neighborhood or hamlet is solely or mostly documented by the NRHP HD listing itself, it is not so clear. There is tacit agreement that having an NRHP HD-named article, with neighborhood or hamlet name redirecting to that, is okay in many cases, between Polaron and myself, I think, but that is complicated by others' entry into some of those cases. There are also many types of cases where there previously was contention between Polaron and myself where there would not now be contention at all between the two of us, including town green HDs and town center HDs, but where others' entry also may complicate. Between P and me, on cases where the borders are clearly different, I think there is agreement that the articles should be / can be different. doncram (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Are there any existing examples of this sort of article in the wild yet? Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Of which sort? Do you mean where there are same boundaries, both known? I checked the "Resolved issues" archive for List of RHPs in CT, and find none there. In the RFC at Talk:List of RHPs in CT Daniel Case pointed to Chautauqua Institute, i pointed to St. Elmo Historic District (St. Elmo, Colorado). There is discussion there by Daniel Case and Polaron that even if a Borough is coterminous with a NRHP HD, there should/could be separate articles, because there is current government stuff to cover in the borough article, and mention specifically of Litchfield Borough vs Litchfield Historic District being coterminous but to have different articles.
Of a second type, where unincorporated hamlet without clear borders might or might not be same as an NRHP HD, there are many open issue ones, among those listed individually at Talk:List of RHPs in CT and NH and RI. The resolved items archive has just one, Stafford Hollow, Connecticut (undefined hamlet assumed to correspond more or less to historic district), where I agreed for that one to go at non-NRHP HD name. Actually I am not so sure that merger should have been forced, but it was far superior to initial merger target, and the discussion had been confusing. Not sure how much identifying of examples of types is helpful. The open issue ones have discussion sections open. Perhaps could browse and try to identify some possibly-easier-to-settle ones? doncram (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess my real question was "do you have an example of a successfully resolved disputed merge?" I'll have a look around through some of the places you've mentioned tomorrow to familiarize myself with the discussions.Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
There are lots of examples now where former disputes were quietly resolved, some being cases where an article recently created at "X", the name of a nonincorporated hamlet/village, was moved to "X HD", and assent has been suggested by further edits. I asked here if we could try going through one county, and i suggest doing New London Cty, which has the virtue of having relatively little past discussion. You could directly perform any agreed-upon deletions of redirects, too, avoiding need for a batch of redirects at RFD. If it's ok, could do the discussion at the Cty's Talk page. doncram (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
As a statement of my personal preference, which appears to be in line with consensus, any HD that substantially coincides with the settlement should redirect/be merged to the place; i.e., Podunk HD should point to Podunk, Connecticut. The difficulty (consensus-wise) is in determining whether the coincidence is correct without having local knowledge. I will warn that I have not done much in the way of history merges, so I'll proceed cautiously, as it's hard to undo a complex merge. I'll study the topics listed at Talk:List of RHPs in CT and propose a couple to start with. Before I do anything I'll check in with Polaron and Orlady. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Subdivision 1

Lucky you, Acroterion. There are a quite a few articles, article pairs, and redirects that were the subject of varying degrees of contention, and now await closure -- or at least review of a closure that was done by one of the parties. IMO, it makes sense to conclude these existing discussions before starting to tackle any whole new lists of articles. Here are some of the candidates for you to start looking at:
Not done yet because of factor-of-ten discrepancy between listed HD and asserted are in discussion. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks like a merge candidate to me as a village core essentially identical to the HD. Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Left as is. Bedraggled can be fixed, the geography of the islands is distinct from the HD, if only a little bit. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Peace Dale, Rhode Island and Peace Dale Historic District were the subject of a lot of reverts and currently exist as two articles displaying merge templates, but people quit engaging in the various discussions (on the Rhode Island NRHP talk page and both article talk pages) a while back.
  • Looks like a village core merge. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Merged from last pre-redirect version of the HD article, mostly just infoboxes. It's clear they're the same place. I see little difference between this kind of article and, say, a lighthouse, where the NRHP data defers to the parent topic, in this case, the village. I think the infobox is valuable, as it provides concise data, but in this setting the Big Map of Rhode Island is obtrusive, so pulled it out. I've placed a notice on the talk page of the redirect. Acroterion (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Without getting into specifics yet, these examples appear to represent a fair cross-section of the simpler issues. I understand Doncram's concerns regarding future development with contributing structure listings and so on. However, there are very few HDs where every single structure is worthy of inclusion here. Within the small-town boundaries we've set for this matter, few HDs will have more than a dozen to two dozen major contributing structures, and the most significant of those might warrant their own CP articles anyway. I very much doubt we'll end up with excessively lengthy articles in any time horizon within reason, considering that the unincorporated villages and small CDPs simply won't generate enough verifiable content to threaten to rival Philadelphia, and HDs aren't the only candidates for daughter articles if that turns out to be the case. We can have, if the need arises, History of Podunk, Cuisine of Podunk, Great Fire of Podunk and so on. We can't anticipate all events.
Daniel Case's Hudson Valley articles do represent a good model for dealing with contributing properties; I should know, I've seen enough of them in the past couple of weeks as I've gone through the article rating backlog. None of them are all that long, and any CP worth more than a paragraph might have its own article eventually. Nearly every HD has non-contributing structures, sometimes many, and I see little difference between those intrusions and a (modest) fringe of newer development that is almost guaranteed in any place but, say, Waterford, Virginia where the county keeps the lid screwed down tight (and there's one we'll have to confront eventually). A contrary example is Shepherdstown, West Virginia, where the HD and the town are very closely related, but where the town's extent is significantly greater than the HD (our article's statement not withstanding, the town has suburbs now). Depending on the information available in that case, we might falsely believe that the HD should be merged with the town. We also have to realize that boundaries of towns change, and that annexations or development may eventually require a split. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Additional comments... None of these examples involve official, legally constituted places. These are unofficial villages/sections/neighborhoods within legally established New England towns (actually, about 3 of them cross town lines and are in more than one town). Thus, there are no legal boundaries to contend with, although a few of these places are treated as CDPs by the Census Bureau and a couple of them are postal "cities" with zip codes. All of these except Southport and Stony Creek-Thimble Islands were industrial villages, which generally are listed on the National Register not for being collections of individually significant buildings, but rather for the historical significance of the village as a coherent whole. Typically, the historic district for an industrial village might include one or more factories, worker housing (usually owned by the company, and typically built according to a few common designs), the village streets and the village's overall layout, and some company-established community facilities. Some of these industrial villages do also contain the home of the factory owner and other architecturally notable buildings (among the places on this list, Peace Dale stands out as having several significant buildings -- all built by or in connection with the family that owned most of the village). --Orlady (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Understood. I want to make my views on the general subject clear, in advance of any actions on my part. In the absence of statutory boundaries, there shouldn't be much controversy, since the industrial village tends to be, by definition, the HD. It gets murkier in the circumstances I laid out, and I'm personally guilty of creating some articles that could be merge candidates - see Thurmond, West Virginia/Thurmond Historic District, an obvious merge candidate, and Jay Em, Wyoming/Jay Em Historic District, which is not necessarily a candidate, as the essentially vacant historic core is apparently surrounded by more recent development (which might amount to a dozen houses). Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Subdivision 2

Adding still more smoldering situations needing to be resolved:

  • Hartford (village), Vermont and Hartford Village Historic District. This pair is currently merged at Hartford (village), Vermont, which was its state when a cease-fire occurred in the ongoing edit war. However, that article still displays a "merge" template and there were some contents in the HD article that didn't make it over to the merged version. (I inserted the infobox and corrected the acreage of the HD, but the HD article had a longer list of the names and addresses of included properties.) --Orlady (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ludlow Village Historic District (Ludlow, Vermont) and Ludlow (village), Vermont. This pair is currently split , again due to its state at the time of the cease-fire. There are no longer any merge templates, and there has been no recent discussion that I know of. The articles gave the historic district acreage as 90 acres, but that's wrong -- NRIS says 9 acres (I corrected the village article, but since Doncram created the HD article and was the last person to touch it, I guess I'd better keep my hands off the HD article). --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • North Bennington, Vermont and North Bennington Historic District - I'm adding these because they need attention, mostly the HD article (which I think I had better not touch since Doncram is the only substantive contributor. Not only is this another merge-vs.-split battleground (I think they should be merged, as there is no meaningful content in the HD article), but the area of the HD is wrong (NRIS says 112 acres, not the 1,120 acre number in the article) and the HD article inaccurately describes the village of North Bennington as an unincorporated community (it is an incorporated village). --Orlady (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Newbury (village), Vermont and Newbury Village Historic District - These are currently in a merged state at Newbury (village), Vermont after a split-merge-split-merge-etc. edit war, but some content seems to have been lost when the merger was done. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC) ADDED: In this case, the historic district is a fairly small fraction of the village land area, but the HD has 93 buildings and the total population of the village is only 396. Although not all of the 93 buildings are houses, I venture to guess that about half of the village population lives in the HD. --Orlady (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I corrected the acreages for the Ludlow Village and North Bennington HDs. --Orlady (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Progress

While it may look like nothing much has happened, I've been reading through all the talkpages from June and July as Real Life has permitted (which means odd moments here and there). Acroterion (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Thank you for your intervention. I've replied on my talk page. --Orlady (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I also thank you for your intervention, it's an appropriate way forward for each of the editors in question. dm (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I thank you too--Pubdog (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to the tone and substance and function of this remark. I've refrained from responding there so far, but I think something needs to be said in response there and/or to the person who commented. Would you please take a look at that? doncram (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? I see no cause for outrage at politely-expressed disagreement. The term "principal community" seems a bit strained, and might be best avoided here at WP. It probably was invented by an intern. You are free to not respond to it, of course, and that's what I advise if the comment irks you. Acroterion (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Please understand I don't want to advocate further here or there about whether the term "principal community" should be used in a bunch of articles. I had made a comment along those lines which was an aside, obviously not needing further discussion or resolution in the context of the topic of discussion. Rather, I object to the argumentative nature of the comment, and I bring it up to you as you have enjoined Orlady and me not to engage in argument. You may choose not to interpret her comment as polite, but in the context of a long history, it is hard not to see some disrespect and sarcasm. It was a loaded, personally directed comment. In factual terms, her statement was a) negative, b) unnecessary in the context of the discussion, c) it was very specifically commenting on me, and d) in fact included two specific unnecessary enjoinders/suggestions to me. (The first is the enjoinder of her telling me not to do something specific. The second is the suggestion that I "could footnote that page as a reference citation for the sentence that says 'Podunk is a village in the town of Smalltown'. Consider this an aside: let me just note here that the second suggestion does not work. The source does not identify any of the princial communities it lists as villages; it would support statements like I had suggested but not this. I don't want to read too much into it, but why is Orlady making a suggestion that she should know is invalid? It seems unhelpful and possibly tongue-in-cheek.) I think those qualities are enough to term the comment as argumentative, and I am asking for some notice of that. I would enjoin her: if she can't say something positive, and if it's not crucial to the discussion at hand, that she should not interject comments about me or to me. doncram (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I deeply regret that my statement has offended Doncram. It was not obvious to me that this comment did not need further discussion or resolution in the context of the topic of discussion. It appeared to me that he was proposing standard language to be added to several articles. I did not think this standard language was appropriate, so I expressed that opinion, explained my reasons, and offered an alternative (i.e., citing the list as a a reference).
I suppose that it was wrong of me to address my comments in the second-person, but if I had tried to write them in an impersonal manner, I think the result would have come across as both unclear and sarcastic. Please believe that I did not intend my remarks as a personal statement on Doncram.
I agree with Doncram that the cited list does not indicate that the named place is a "village" (a term that has no legal meaning in Connecticut), but it does indicate what town it's in, so it could be legitimately be cited (as partial support) in connection with the type of sentence I suggested. --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
As long as everybody agrees to tread carefully on eggshells, then we might call this closed. Acroterion (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that while the DECD page does not call them "villages" but "communities", the same list republished by the Hartford Courant in this article does call these places as "villages". Also, this "list of principal communities" is actually significant in the sense that these are the places that show up on the official state highway map. Villages not on the list of principal communities are not indicated on the official state map. --Polaron | Talk 18:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[EC] Interesting. The Hartford Courant headline does call them "villages," but the article does not (it says they are "villages, communities, or simply 'sections' within their borders that often don’t appear on official maps but are named, known and loved by people who live in them"). --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
That is true because those three terms are interchangeable for the most part. Different towns appear to have different usage preferences but they all mean the same thing. --Polaron | Talk 19:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a minor point, but I don't think it's purely a matter of usage preference. At least a few of the areas on the list (I am speaking of places with which I am personally familiar) never were "villages" in the generic sense of that word, but instead are suburban residential areas first established during the 20th century. Whether they are "sections" or "districts" is a matter of local preference, but they aren't villages. --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, "principal communities" seems too much like like officialese to use in the article, but as long as we're aware of the term's significance in terms of the state's distinctions between mere locales and communities of some higher standing, that can perhaps help in sorting out the issues.. Acroterion (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We have a point of order type question. I explained at Talk:Noank and at Talk:Poquetanuck that i would create pairs of alternative articles to further the merger vs. split proposal discussion. I did so for Poquetanuck, and Polaron has reverted my editing of an alternative Poquetanuck Village Historic District article, with edit summary "undo -- still under discussion without resolution". This needs some kind of ruling by you as a mediator/arbitrator. I submit that it undermines discussion for there to be just the joint article as an example. (By the way, at the Noank article I asked for "permission" on September 3 before proceeding to start a pair of alternative articles, and refrained from doing so upon Polaron's objection. I now want to proceed there, as I stated at Talk:Noank. For Poquetanuck i did not ask previously or now. In order for merger discussion to proceed, some judgment now on your part is needed. doncram (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice your posting that you will be on wikibreak. Before you go, perhaps there is no more time to resolve any of the CT NRHP stuff. But if anything, I wonder if you could make a ruling-type judgment on the Poquetanuck article (I guess i would want you to accept my specific proposal there, as I think it is the only one on the table which would address the current article and future development). Perhaps you could indicate there whether you are willing to make a ruling now or not, anyhow.
You might also want to take a look at Orlady's comment and my response expressing objection to it here, within an AFD discussion about the Downtown Hartford article. I want to take your advice to me to heart, about how to respond to Orlady, but it is not easy to get it right. I recall you termed some previous edits of mine as an "escalation", and I don't want to escalate. I think you've advised me not to argue directly with her. But I think it is appropriate and necessary for me to respond to her directly arguing against me, at least to point out if she has made false and personal statements about me. I don't know if you will appreciate this, but I did and will try to moderate my own comments there, and not get into false and personal statements about her. doncram (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll have a look over the current state of affairs tomorrow and indicate my feelings on the matter - whether we call it a "ruling" or a statement of opinion is to be determined. I'll have a look at matters concerning your other comments as well. I'd like to tidy up this one issue, at least, but my time for the rest of the week is limited. Acroterion (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
For my part, I perceived that this comment of Doncram's at Talk:Poquetanuck was a big step toward personalizing the content discussion as a discussion between Doncram and me. As for the AfD that Doncram started a little while later, I thought about it for a long time, and finally concluded that I had little choice other than to respond to it -- and that I would not be providing a full and meaningful comment if I failed to point out some "unusual" aspects of the AfD proposal. I hope I will not see any additional provocative acts. --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how Orlady can perceive my asking her to make a specific proposal in that edit was "personalizing" although it was meant to be challenging, in the best possible way. I was asking her to please state clearly what she wanted in a way that would allow a final decision to be made, in the context of a merger/split proposal discussion. Perhaps my subsequent edits creating explicitly labelled Proposal A and B there, and back-and-forth with Polaron, clarify what I meant was different than whatever Orlady perceived? Hopefully that is the case. I am sorry that Orlady perceived my request to her to be too direct to be comfortable. doncram (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Acroterion, I teed up two alternative proposals for Poquetanuck situation, Proposal A and B at Talk:Poquetanuck, both involving having just one article. The general situation there is that everyone believes the village and HD are similar, but there is no acceptable-in-my-view way to state that in mainspace, as no one has collected an appropriate source. You could pick either A or B, to end edit warring there. Also I just suggested a closing proposal at Talk:Noank, for having two articles, given the different situation there. I do understand that you don't have much time, but IMO the Noank situation is now ready to close. I could be wrong, but i think there is not disagreement there. (Also, I don't know how fully aware of this you are, but Polaron has been extending or contracting edit warring in other town/village vs. NRHP HD article situations, according to his view of what is fair relative to a cease-fire a while back. Despite the Noank, Poquetanuck, Quaker Hill, and Norwichtown situations being under explicit discussion, Polaron considered my creating the Noank HD article as part of the discussion to be a violation of the cease-fire, and it would help matters I suppose if this one was settled by your judgment. I think Polaron might or at least should then ratchet back, by one, the unrelated edits away from cease-fire. Actually i think he is off, in his favor, in the current count relative to cease-fire, because some of the page protections you put in froze extra punitive changes in place. Anyhow, if Noank is settled I will ask him to update back towards original cease-fire lines, and by that to reinforce the cease-fire.) doncram (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please put a block on Mashantucket Pequot Reservation Archeological District and on Mashantucket Pequot Reservation (which should be a redirect to Mashantucket Pequot Tribe)? I think there is some confusion about where the tribe's reservation should be covered vs. where the archeological sites relating to the tribe should be covered, and I think this would best be discussed on one Talk page or another. There was a requested move at Talk:Mashantucket Pequot Reservation Archeological District, which was closed, but P is battling to force something different than what would be consistent with that decision. Polaron is changing redirects to be inconsistent with the District and Tribe articles, and now also O is interjecting herself (BTW i think O is being misled at least at first by P's changing the redirect target). doncram (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing going on on either article that would cause protection to be needed or to be within policy. Protection is not to be used to resolve a dispute or to enforce one version over another. (By the way, you're referring to protection: a "block" prevents a specific editor, IP or IP range from editing at all, a different kettle of fish). Acroterion (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes i meant protection, thanks. What's going on in edit history of Mashantucket Pequot Reservation, when i look at it, is that P and I are both at 3RR now for today. Probably same at Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation redirect, too. In general i believe P is very careful to keep count and avoid 4RR, but I imagine it will reopen again tomorrow. I don't get what protection is for if not to prevent edit warring and incoherent discussion by edit summaries, in lieu of more constructive discussion at Talk pages. doncram (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I've grown accustomed to you and Polaron playing article ping-pong. In any case, I've asked him to leave it alone (and expect you to do likewise), as the talk page reflects an independent finding of no consensus. My time for reading through all this is still limited, and will be for a while. Acroterion (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, well, I notice now that Polaron has embarked on creating redirects and forcing mergers or whatever all over now, in Hawaii, Tennessee, North Carolina, everywhere. I guess in retribution to my commenting on his pattern of behavior at wt:NRHP. This is out of control now, which is his point I suppose. doncram (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
He's not been active since before I left my comment, so I'm leaving things as they stand for now. If I get a few minutes later this evening, I'll try to have a look at the situation. Acroterion (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Watertown, Ohio

Curious your opinion on Watertown, Ohio and the Watertown HD — two weeks ago I added NRHP data to the community article (created in February 2007) for the never-created HD, saying that the entire community was included; one hour later, Doncram revised it. My reading of the boundaries and my view of the community on Google Satellite indicate to me that the entire community is included; otherwise I wouldn't have added what I did. Conversely, his point is that perhaps not the entire community is included. Would you do something here? Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently his concern is with the "presumably." I think editors have to go with what they can in good conscience derive from the material available to them without wandering into OR; it's not a clear-cut boundary. When the entire NPS Focus site is up and running, I think a lot of this back-and-forth will be resolvable by reference to the usual map found at the end of most noms. Until then it's all shadowboxing and a needless expenditure of editorial patience.
In the absence of more compelling evidence that Watertown HD and Watertown, Ohio are two different things, I think the default should be to leave the town/HD article alone. It can always be split if and when more material is available, but for now it seems desirable to keep them together and have one tolerably useful article instead of two stubs. I have no idea why a second infobox was needed. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI, at least some of Doncram's additions were accidental — nobody thinks that we need {{NRHP}} or {{Ohio-NRHP-stub}} twice, and I can't imagine anyone intentionally adding Category:National Register of Historic Places in Ohio twice :-) I expect that it was somewhat of acting faster than he should have, which is an error I find myself doing rather too frequently. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I've done the same things where the interface has lagged - sometimes to my own edits. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Curious — whom do you mean by "his" in your reply here? I can't decide whether you're telling others what I mean or referring to Doncram, who added the "presumably". Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

where

Unclear where there is to be a discussion of anything in particular. If one is to address New London County, please note Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 31#various New London County, CT, redirects as a starter, where i hope, knock on wood, there can be agreement for 7 cases. I suggest using at least the Talk:List of RHPs in CT to mention where there is an RFD-type discussion to happen, and it could be announced elsewhere too, so that others could be constructively involved. About the other New London ones which might be discussed, which I and/or Polaron identify as potentially controversial, I think there would need to be a "discovery" phase of discussion probably to uncover some facts. I would plan to, and hope others could also, refrain from arguing already about what is proper treatment for each of these, until some basic facts for each could be established. By my noting 4 potential issue ones, I meant that exactly as that: potential issues, where i might have predispositions that others could guess, but I do not have commitment to fight to the death or anything, and where I do not yet know what facts might easily be obtained. I would hope we all could have an open mind about these. doncram (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have the discussions on the talk pages of the individual villages, as those all more or less exist, announced at the list of CT RHPs. The "discovery"-then-discuss is what I had in mind. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation seems to be failing

I think you have the patience of a saint for getting involved in the Polaron/Doncram dispute, but I'm coming to the conclusion that they're continuing to fight. In User:Elkman/sandbox, I've documented just their revert wars of tonight. Apparently, they get to 3RR on one article, and then begin warring at another article.

Take a look at this series, too: San Ignacio, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Polaron edit 17:16, 5 October 2009
Doncram revert 1 22:29, 6 October 2009
Polaron revert 1
Doncram revert 2
Polaron revert 2, plus another edit thereafter
Doncram revert 3
Polaron revert 3
Doncram revert 4
Polaron revert 4
Doncram revert 5
Polaron revert 5 20:49, 7 October 2009

As the instructions for the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch say, "Five is right out!"

I thought I'd make you aware of this (as if you weren't already), but I'm also going to report this to WP:AN3. This crap has to stop. I shouldn't be letting this affect me, but this sort of edit warring is really making the project look bad. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'd not gone to any particular lengths the past couple of days to check on what they've been up to, as it's been a joyless undertaking. I appreciate your opinion of my patience, but it's been failing for some time now as it's clear that they have no intention of modifying their behavior. Protection is no answer when there are two determined parties at the focus of an edit war. I, likewise, intended to take this to AN3 if there was a recurrence. I'll look into it and offer my opinion there. Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ideas for resolving the open 3RR case

Hello Acroterion. I saw this case appear at the 3RR noticeboard: WP:AN3#User:Doncram and User:Polaron reported_by_User:Elkman_.28Result:_.29. Already I wrote to Orlady to get his opinion of a 1RR rule on the two participants regarding the disputed articles. But now, seeing your talk page, I notice that people are asking you for 'rulings.' Would you be willing to take on the role of 'arbitrator' of NRHP issues regarding Connecticut? It seems possible that the people named in the 3RR case might be willing to agree to that. At least some of the participants seem to trust your judgment. That is a possible way of closing the 3RR case (assuming you don't mind the new role). EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually that is what Polaron and I were asking for, for Acroterion to serve as an arbitrator making judgments on the disputed cases. I would still accept that and I have no reason to believe Polaron would not. It does seem to be important to close the disputed cases one way or another, semi-permanently until someone actually gets a NRHP document that would explicitly address the relationship between NRHP HD and overlapping hamlet. I would argue that in the absence of clear info, the merger proposal should be denied. But actually flipping a coin to decide on whether to leave them split or merged, plus devising some appropriate statement for associated Talk pages, would be better than leaving them all open. doncram (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is essentially what Polaron and Doncram asked me to do about a month ago. Unfortunately, the request came at a time when I had a great deal going on in real life, and I was not able to devote as much time and attention as I, or Doncram and Polaron, might have wished, and I have spent more time scolding both of them for expanding on their differences than I could wish. I am willing to resume, but that is conditional on good behavior on the part of the involved parties, and on the understanding that my decisions are unlikely to satisfy either side (although I can certify that I will stay within Wikipedia policy, as I interpret it). I believe I have a good understanding of the issues and positions of the participants, and have given thought to the organization of a process that might keep everybody out of each others' way, which I'll explain later today when I have a little time. Acroterion (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
While I had originally envisioned an AfD-like setup in project space to be resolved in an AfD-like manner, the sheer volume of disputed or potentially disputed articles appears to be unmanageable in such a format, at least by me. It would also be inimical to a global, or at least a categorized solution. Instead, I propose a less formal structure. Doncram and Polaron (and any other interested parties) should set up a page in their individual userspace with a straight list of the articles they wish examined (including article creations, deletions, merges or splits), related articles together, and a brief (preferably one-word) summary of their proposed action. Virtually all of the articles involved are redlinks, redirects, three-sentence NRHP stubs, or three-paragraph village articles, and there is no reason to expend more words on the discussions than are to be found in the articles themselves. In any case, some tens of thousands of characters have already been written on the main positions. I'll compare the lists and do one of several things:
  • Resolve the action directly, with a summary rationale at closing, at a place in project space subordinate to the NRHP wikiproject.
  • Ask follow-up questions of the relevant editors, then make a closing action
  • Invite discussion on a given article talk page, on the condition that it focus strictly on the topic and avoid reflections on other editors or their agendas, then close at my discretion
Ideally, these lists will reveal that some patterns that may be applied on a broad scale without the need for extensive examination of individual cases. The chief issue is one of sourcing. There are opposing philosophies on the issue of redlinks that encourage article creation vs. redirects that might lead to at least the concerned locale. The problem with a redirect is that it's effectively an unsourced assertion that the places are congruent, and this is at the heart of much contention, and a longstanding gray area in Wikipedia in general that has been left to the discretion of individual editors. There is also the issue of distinct NRHP district stubs versus integration into a parent article where the two are effectively the same, abiding by the principal that there should be one article per subject. This is somewhat easier to deal with, and can be sourced in the article structure.
The problem, as noted by Orlady, is that this method necessarily confines discussion to a small circle of editors. As it is my belief that the NRHP project is already somewhat detached from the larger community, this is a concern, but I doubt that many other editors are greatly concerned with this debate, and I am as always willing to consider alternatives. There are partial solutions at WP:PM, and WP:RFD but they don't address the current issue comprehensively. The precedent for more arbitrary decisive action is the second ArbCom case on Macedonia, which effectively created referees to decide a much more complex, contentious matter by fiat, so a purely arbitrary decision process is not without precedent. Acroterion (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Acroterion for developing this. I heartily endorse this, and am willing to accept risk that you will decide against my wishes on many or all individual cases in CT arrayed out in a big table and decided all at once. I do request that a sensible talk page note describing or linking to the decision taken be created to communicate to future editors what they are blundering into, and clarifying that if they have better information and are doing actual work of article building they should be be empowered to take a different decision. But, what about the past cases for VT and NH, and the recent and ongoing expansion of the issue to MA, HI, TN, other states nation-wide? Is Polaron willing to agree to stop expanding the conflict, and to cease or to put his new ideas for mergers into a systematic review process like this. Also I request that Polaron and I and others interested state our views efficiently in one big table (perhaps divided into sections for the CT counties to lessen edit conflicts) in which there would be columns for characteristics of the case (perhaps including Polaron's 3 somewhat objective criteria in his unfinished proposal), and Polaron's view, and my view, and any other commenter's veiws. doncram (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
About Polaron's recent expansion, it appears to be of two kinds. Partly he appears to be using the NRIS location information that might describe the Norris Historic District in Tennessee as being essentially the whole town of Norris. I would in general accept that kind of support for making a merger, if it was adequately explained in an appropriate footnote reference that could be devised. However Polaron is apparently also applying other judgment and personal knowledge, using less clear fields of NRIS and less clear info such as perhaps merely that a place such as the HI Napali north coast archeological district has the same word as a Napali state park. Or that the location of the archeological district is given as being the state park (which does not address whether its scope is the same or not, it could just be a statement of nearest location). I can't tell the difference as no sources are provided, and I do not have easy access to all of the NRIS fields that Polaron is using. (Note one of the crucial fields appears in the NRHP list-articles and in NRHP.COM mirror sites, but not in the individual Elkman infobox generator output.) If Polaron would agree to focus on a category of the more narrow and clear type, and to provide reviewable information and to construct some type of appropriate footnote, continuing mergers of that kind could be managed and allowed, hopefully with some other editor than Acroterion or me supervising or reviewing, perhaps by use of a table of these. I do note that despite Polaron's recent assertion that he is using better information or judgement now, that some of his recent forced mergers have in fact been inappropriate and other editors have objected and/or he has conceded to my reversal of his edits. Also some of Polaron's new mergers seem to smell like they should be okay eventually, if sources would be provided. This could be an outlet for his apparent wish to contribute. Or perhaps that would be too complicated to manage at the same time. doncram (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This process isn't about Polaron or Doncram, it's about the application of Wikipedia policy to the discussion (I'll label it thus in the name of diplomacy) between Doncram and Polaron. As such, I'd prefer that the editors in question speak for themselves, and not interpret each others' motives or actions. You both must stop: it takes two to edit-war.
I'll have a look at Polaron's arrangement. Let's try to keep it simple. Acroterion (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I note that Polaron was implementing new mergers that extend to the disputed area as of these edits this afternoon, several hours after you asked him and me to desist:
# 15:53, 8 October 2009 (hist | diff) Hungry Mother State Park ‎ (mention nrhp)  (top) [rollback]
# 15:52, 8 October 2009 (hist | diff) N Hungry Mother State Park Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Hungry Mother State Park) (top)
# 15:52, 8 October 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Hungry Mother State Park ‎ (top) [rollback]
I don't think a cease and desist order would be fair if it is meant to apply just to my reversions of his expansions of the conflict. I don't want to start reopening previously disputed cases where his status quo is in place, in order to keep it even or whatever. doncram (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
While I see little in principle to object to (do you really think that the park's historic district is not directly associated with the park?), I'll ask him to hold off, and something more in the way of references is called for, given that the nomination data is available for almost all Virginia properties. You really must stop following him around, and Polaron must stop making redirects until we can get things sorted. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
About that one, i have no idea about ultimate appropriateness of merger, but there is no source provided and it is part of rapidly expanding the conflict. You asked at my talk page about a subpage of P's that i might have been referring to. I am not sure what you mean, but perhaps it was about my mention somewhere above of P's unfinished proposal. I was referring to the proposal discussion within Talk:Poquetanuck where 3 somewhat objective criteria that could have bearing on some proposal, never fully specified, were discussed. The three criteria were about whether a place was a listed "principal community" in CT, whether the NRHP HD geocenter was within some distance of a GNIS location, and some other one. I don't know if those are helpful or not. I personally would go with the simplest test: has actual information been identified with a prepared citation that describes a relationship, like has a NRHP document been obtained and used to make an informed judgment, as can be done in some states with online documents, and can be done in some other instances with online information that happens to be available as Orlady dug out in some cases. Otherwise, IMO there's no separating between P's guesses wasting everyone's time vs. P's actually having earned something by doing useful work that identifies a legitimate merger and constructively builds the encyclopedia. Basically put up actual info that others can review, in put up or shut up mode. doncram (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

<undent> I've asked, and he's agreed, and Nyttend's working with him on general sourcing issues. Polaron's answer concerning the format/criteria was the same as yours. Re; your final comment: once again, I caution you to stop interpreting the motivations and actions of others. Please stick to stating your case in a positive manner. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a general consensus that much discussion could be rendered moot through appropriate sourcing of Polaron's work, which is something we talked about some time ago in a more general sense. I suggest a general campaign of assistance and positive reinforcement: cites are a nuisance, but they become second nature after a while, and we have tools to assist in formatting them that P may not be aware of. Nyttend's taught me a few things about citations through example. Acroterion (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

National Harbor of Refuge and Delaware Breakwater

I cam across the National Harbor of Refuge and Delaware Breakwater Harbor Historic District and found that a separate article exists for Delaware Breakwater. As you know, the breakwater is completely included in the newer, expanded district. Do you think it makes more sense to leave them separate? Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 22:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As it pertains to the present matter, it is well-documented that the breakwater is wholly included in the larger district. The breakwater should be merged into the larger district, but I find the NRHP title awfully indigestible. Your section header, National Harbor of Refuge and Delaware Breakwater seems more succinct. At the time I started writing it I wasn't sure which breakwater was which - the NRHP noms are all over the place, and it wasn't until I was nearly done that I was confident I had sorted out the places and terms. By that time I wasn't feeling like undertaking the merge and left it to later, then never got back to it. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR thread is copied here from Elkman's talk

The following (highlighted in green) has been copied over from User talk:Elkman#Counting, since some participants felt it didn't belong over there. Please continue the topic here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that this thread is a reference to a certain 3RR case, take a look at User talk:Acroterion#Ideas for resolving the open 3RR case. Acro has said he will give a longer response later today. I think that any solution might need to include some of the 1RR ideas mentioned in his first response in the AN3 case, and a ban on splits and merges, unless agreed by consensus or blessed by Acroterion. Also I hope that somebody (anybody!) can make a complete list of all the articles in Connecticut where there has been a dispute regarding the scope of the historic district. Maybe a global compromise could be agreed if we knew all the cases in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any objections to this, if the parties involved can come to an agreement and stop getting involved in revert wars. The dispute isn't just limited to articles about Connecticut, though -- it's involved Silver City, Idaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Virginia City, Nevada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (cue Bonanza theme music), Chiricahua National Monument (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in Arizona, and San Miguel Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in California, among others. Since "all the cases in dispute" potentially includes (from Doncram's point of view) any article that Polaron edits, dispute resolution is becoming a Herculean task. If there's no peace to be gained between Polaron and Doncram, then arbitration might be necessary. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
And don't forget Vermont, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
That's why any action on my part will be contingent on good behavior; this has to stop metastasizing. I had resolved to take it to AN3 if it got out of hand; Elkman beat me there (and thanks for doing the diff-related legwork). There's a limit to how much scolding can accomplish, and I'm sufficiently involved that any 3RR block I imposed would make things worse. I've outlined a process on my talk page; comments are welcome on the process (i.e., no manifestos or position papers, this is not the occasion). Acroterion (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Right. It's even gotten to the point where I've been reading up on the historic district areas on Mantorville, Minnesota, Carver, Minnesota, Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota, and Center City, Minnesota, just so I could have a defense ready in case someone wanted to start revert wars on those articles. All of Mantorville is included in a historic district, while only subsections of Marine on St. Croix are included. Carver's is defined fairly clearly in the NRHP description. Meanwhile, Center City Historic District just includes buildings on one street. I wouldn't mind actually developing content for those articles, instead of having to have the exact boundaries ready, but if I really have to list township, range, and fractions of sections, at least I know where to find them. I'm going to get really cranky if someone demands that I find a plat map of Rice and Irvine's Addition to Saint Paul, though. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh but it has :) [1]. In any case, I apologize for dragging you (and a whole bunch of other people) into this mess. From this point forward, I will request comments in cases where I have doubts about whether a redirect is appropriate or not. --Polaron | Talk 01:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, just in case anyone asks, I did find a GIS viewer for St. Paul, so I can pick out which properties are in Rice and Irvine's Addition: [2] --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Elkman: Regarding the 3RR case, what would you think of a rule that neither Doncram or Polaron could make a revert, a merge, a redirect, or an edit for 90 days on anything NRHP-related that would advance his side of a dispute? Any exception to this rule would have to be approved by a Talk page consensus, by an RfC, or by Acroterion if no consensus could be found or if there were too few participants for a proper discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not Elkman, but I think this is a good proposal. Additionally, I think there should be some limit on the length and frequency of comments in talk pages and RfCs -- this is not an exercise in drowning one's opponent in words. Also, I think the volume of activity requiring mediation is likely to exceed Acroterion's capacity (this has already occurred), so at least one additional "neutral third party" ought to be designated. --Orlady (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, I support the 1RR suggestion as well, and I second Orlady on the limitation on position statements. The positions of the participants are well-known, and recent comments have devolved into interpretations of the actions and motivations of others, which are unproductive and unconducive to assumptions of good faith. As for help, I'm all for it. The number of currently-disputed articles is in the hundreds now, and the potential areas of dispute could easily run into thousands. Additional eyes will also provide a sanity check. Acroterion (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
EdJohnston: That rule sounds good to me, although I'd recommend defining it as historic districts in general. I'm just concerned that one of the parties will find a way to snipe around the edges of this rule. Orlady's and Acroterion's suggestions about a neutral third party are also good, because there could be a lot of articles in dispute. And, Orlady is correct about the length of comments -- the amount of verbiage in these discussions has been out of control. Poquetanuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is 3512 bytes now, while Talk:Poquetanuck (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) is 148914 bytes. That's a 42.4:1 ratio of talk to article, which is just ridiculous. I don't know how you can place an enforceable length on discussion comments, but a warning to the participants should be sufficient.
I'd also suggest that Doncram should stop following Polaron around and checking up on his edits, and that Polaron should work a little more on documenting the reasons that a community is historic and/or provide a link to further sources about the history of an area. I can give some examples about how I think four communities in Minnesota should be handled. (The examples are Center City, Marine on St. Croix, Mantorville, and Carver, as I mentioned above.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 13:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Echoing part of Elkman's comment, some issues would be resolved far more cleanly if Polaron would start consistently citing his sources when he adds content to articles. For example, in this diff he mentioned his sources in the edit summary, but did not provide citations (I subsequently added a source to that article, but not one of the ones he mentioned). If he had cited sources on his first edit two hours earlier, the subsequent edit war over that article might have been avoided. --Orlady (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Elkman, Polaron, Doncram, Orlady and Acroterion. Here's my revised proposal.

Doncram and Polaron are under an editing restriction for 6 months, on articles that are related to NRHP. They may not exceed one revert per article per day (a 1RR rule). In addition, neither party can make a revert, a merge, a redirect, or an edit on anything NRHP-related that would advance his side of a dispute. For instance, redirecting historic districts to towns, or undoing such redirects. Any exception to this rule would have to be approved by a Talk page consensus, by an RfC, or by Acroterion if no consensus could be found or if there were too few participants for a proper discussion. Neither party may add unsourced material to an NRHP-related article. If Acroterion believes either party is not following the restriction, he may present the matter at WP:AN3 for possible sanctions.

Is that better? Can anyone suggest improvements? What about finding an additional mediator besides Acroterion for times when he is too busy? EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I object, that is not acceptable to me. I have done nothing but try to work constructively, try to build consensus, open Talk page discussions, work out a 4 or 5 part categorization of the types of issues and how they could be resolved, open 7 batches of RFDs which took a bunch of the problem off the table, advertise an RFC, seek constructive input, negotiate a mediation approach with Polaron that he and I would agree to accept to terminate discussions about specific contested cases, and invite a different editor and Acroterion to serve in that role, make suggestions to Acroterion on how to manage the process along, propose focusing on several New London county test cases where there was not previously a bitter history, work in discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck towards a grand proposal to settle all the CT cases, etc., etc. all basically bending over backwards to give benefit of the doubt to Polaron's personal knowledge of CT places, despite his previous inability or unwillingness to provide sources for his assertions. I have not edit warred to keep unsourced statements in articles (or if anything could be construed that way it would be related to some complication that I would have been explaining in corresponding Talk pages). My behavior is not to be censured. I appreciate that under a lot of scrutiny now that Polaron may be changing his ways, and that during this long process he has already changed some of his ways. I do wish to apply for Wikipedia Admin status sometime, perhaps soon, and I do not want a 6 month restriction on my editing in the NRHP area, my main area of wikipedia contributions, on my record, for that and in general. doncram (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I don't blame EdJohnston for this because he is picking up on the tone of comments about me from others, but i am deeply insulted by this proposal. doncram (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Doncram: If you don't like this proposal, and you can't suggest anything better, then I could always open a Request for Arbitration. I don't want to do that, especially against two people within the same project I work on, but it's starting to look like arbitration is the only way this dispute can be addressed. You claim your behavior is not to be censured; I disagree. I really doubt you were previously watching so many of the articles that Polaron has been editing -- I suspect they only hit your radar after you've checked up on his contributions. If you submitted a Request for Adminship, I would oppose and point out examples of your behavior. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:RFAR is available for use when the collective admin corps cannot come up with any reasonable solution. I embarked on a lengthy negotiation because I was concerned about the possible loss of long-time content contributors if conventional blocking was used. If we can get no cooperation from either party in a fully-negotiated agreement, then blocking becomes more logical. I hope that Doncram is aware that his edit-warring on NRHP articles is likely to come up for discussion at any future RfA. Even if he is right, administrators are supposed to possess diplomatic skills. If Doncram does possess those skills, why are we here now, and why was this not settled long ago? EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I am resisting the urge to comment on Doncram's reaction because I have been steadfastly trying to avoid direct interpersonal interactions with him. As for a 3rd-party mediator, the best candidates probably would be Wikipedia:Nrhp#Members NRHP Wikiproject members who (1) have not been involved in this saga, (2) are not among the "friends of Doncram" (my term) who predictably send him messages praising his good work and defend him when controversies arise, and (3) have not had negative interactions with either party in the past. --Orlady (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, one problem is having this discussion about me here on Elkman's Talk page. Probably I shouldn't have commented here and seemed to accept the venue, in lieu of discussion at Acroterion's page or somewhere else more neutral. Elkman has had problems with me, as expressed anew a day ago in outburst at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#This project, to which several people have indeed responded, and in a couple of scattered posts Elkman showed he was troubled by disagreement with his view that was expressed there. I believe it is Elkman's privilege to say directly what he feels here on his own talk page. But I feel constrained in responding, and others will not notice this here or would not comment here in deference to Elkman, who indeed plays a central role in the NRHP wikiproject. If there's to be some administrator's only discussion you can do that wherever you wish, of course. doncram (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be kind of nice to not get a bunch of new message notifications on my talk page. And, I forgot that I'm not supposed to express frustration toward you. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
"I believe it is Elkman's privilege to say directly what he feels".....this SUPPORTS your right to express your frustration....however, then when anyone disagrees with YOU, you tend to have an odd outburst like the one on my talk page recently. We're ALL frustrated here, and we're ALL expressing it. That's part of discussion and consensus building, at least in theory. Lvklock (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the end of the material that was originally typed on Elkman's talk page, which I copied over. Please continue the debate on the 3RR issue here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If we go back to the process that Acroterion was mediating, then that would be to have Acroterion and/or others march through making decisions on a list of contested issues. Previously that was going to be limited to open issues in CT, VT, RI, listed out in Talk:List of RHPs in CT, Talk:List of RHPs in VT, Talk:List of RHPs in RI. Now there are scattered more cases nation-wide.

Acroterion had suggested 4 New London cases to address first within a supervised process. Two were tentatively resolved (at least Polaron and I agreed upon them): Noank Historic District (split) and Poquetanuck Village Historic District (merge leaving an unsupported assertion that has a citation needed tag attached). The other two are Norwichtown Historic District and Quaker Hill Historic District. The discussions for these are linked from Talk:List of RHPs in CT#New London County HDs. Acroterion, can you make decisions on those two or how do you want to proceed.

Not sure what is to be done now, but I'll start a new list at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list for now. At least this would count up how many issues are open. Polaron, could you please help with this? doncram (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

FYI, the contention seems to be starting up again, perhaps, see Talk:Norwichtown. That is one of 4 New London cases that you were considering. I will contest unilateral changes to merge articles, outside the framework for discussion and mediation, and counter to the agreement reached between some parties. On the more peaceful side, there have been a couple productive-seeming exchanges, like P questioning some edit i was making on one HD and me just sending away for the actual NRHP document, which happened recently. doncram (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look. I'd been encouraged by recent circumstances, but it's time we resolved things. Are you in general agreement with the general statements I've made on the discussion page in my userspace? I'll be following those guidelines as closely as possible. Acroterion (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
There's new edit warring, now relating to Preston City Historic District. I've reported Polaron for 4RR violation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: ).
You do realize that 3RR applies to both parties? I count four reversions by each party. It's never a good idea to breach 3RR and then report your partner in an edit war. Just because you didn't use the word "revert" or "rv" in the edit summary doesn't make it OK. Unpredictable things may happen. I do, however, feel that Polaron should have afforded you the courtesy of allowing you to develop the article before initiating a discussion on merging or whatever. I am trying to get people to move toward the development of substantive content, and would rather not have such action thwarted. See below for an essay on stubs, mediation, and why I'm pushing people to avoid three-lines-and-an-infobox articles. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
About your general statements, i have not reviewed them recently. I recall that you made some assertions / judgements that I thot were mildly over-reaching (meaning going beyond where Wikipedia policy stands, like perhaps about your taking an anti-stub stance), but perhaps I could live with some of that, as part of a compromise which secured agreement / end to inaninity(sp?). I recall you also criticized me in some way that i didn't think was completely fair, but I was not offended and didn't think it would be helpful to argue about. In general, though, it feels hard to go back now and rehash stuff that was agreed upon between Polaron and me in the Talk:Poquetanuck agreement. In going through that long discussion, Polaron and I both were taking to heart your direction to come to some agreement, and we eventually did. My view about Orlady's participation before/during/since that discussion is that she does not like the agreement, but she has never IMO been promoting any general settlement. It is pretty intolerable to plan to fight out in every CT, VT, RI, etc. case what is best; what is needed is a general agreement or injunction to stop edit warring and to allow development of NRHP articles. Given new developments (the NRHP docs, and your comments and the discussion at Talk:Norwichtown), I am not going back to the general statements right now. Please advise if you think that would be helpful and I will be glad to do so. doncram (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
When you ask somebody for their opinion on something, you need to be prepared for an unexpected result. In reviewing the actual content that is in dispute I'm struck by the near-complete absence of useful encyclopedic material. The vast majority of the items in contention are, from an NRHP point of view, stubs. Three lines and an infobox. They service to turn a redlink blue, but that's about it. Maybe somebody'll expand it. It happens. My modest proposal is firmly grounded in Wikipedia policy. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not a gazetteer of places on the NRHP, all of which happen to have some kind of minimal article. A stub's better than nothing at all, but a two or three paragraph referenced article that explains what the heck the place is all about is far, far superior to a stub, and resembles an encyclopedia article rather than a data entry. And if we've got the sources available to do it, that's what we ought to do, not put in a placeholder and come back to it. I spent much of this year updating old stubs I'd created, and vowed to stick to something approaching DYK length as a first try from the beginning from now on.
I can't ban the creation of stubs, but I think that much of the current dispute revolves around the creation of minimal articles for their own sake, rather than as encyclopedia articles. The ensuing arguments over the validity of the stubs vs. redirects or merges or splits have taken up too much time and goodwill. Writing an article gives us some meat to work with and is a more productive use of time and Wikipedia's bandwidth. That's what I want us all to do. I can't enforce it, I can only cajole, but I see stubs as the root of the problem. This is not meant as a criticism of anyone who creates a stub (I've made lots, and I understand the attraction in doing so), but a re-evaluation of what we're accomplishing and what we might accomplish. That kid in Africa [3] will appreciate a two or three paragraph article on the Stump Corners Historic District in Connecticut far more than a three-lines-and-an-infobox stub. For the states that have the available resources, we should all be making a diligent effort to use it. The nom docs aren't a panacea, but there are few that can't yield a couple of paragraphs. Acroterion (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Scotty's Castle

Would you be willing to create Death Valley Scotty Historic District as a redirect to Scotty's Castle. Seeing as you were the one who added the NRHP infobox to Scotty's Castle, I will defer to your judgement on whether the redirect is appropriate. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 22:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it this evening. I recall that there were a number of options on that subject, so I'll have to re-acquaint myself with them. Acroterion (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I came across another, hopefully uncontroversial one where you added the NRHP infobox: Fort Miles (article discussing the historic district) and Fort Miles Historic District (redlink for the official NRHP name). Creation of the redirect would probably be called for here. --Polaron | Talk 17:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Update of the 3RR case. Need a volunteer to explain Poquetanuck

Hello Acroterion. This comment is addressed to you directly, rather than the other contributors who commented a while ago in the general Doncram vs Polaron issue. As you know I've decided not to go further with the 3RR case at WP:AN3#User:Doncram and User:Polaron reported by User:Elkman (Result: ), but it's left open on the noticeboard if another admin wants to close it.

It seems that NRHP members may either have lost patience with the historic district issue, or feel that they don't want to get into more debates that go round and round without getting anywhere. If Doncram and Polaron can't agree on a voluntary solution, at some point we may need to appeal to the general community to get them to impose a solution. Working against this option is that the general community will probably be baffled, and won't be inclined to participate when no sound-bite can be offered that explains the issue.

Do you think NRHP members might be found (or yourself, possibly) who could summarize in easy-to-understand language what went wrong in the Poquetanuck case? Just need a very simple blow-by-blow summary that is written from a neutral point of view. Can't exceed 500 words or admins won't read it. I assume that the furor at Talk:Poquetanuck is typical of the issues that led to the 3RR filing, so this is a good way to illustrate the problem for outsiders. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The much earlier discussion at Talk:Hartford (village), Vermont (which involved a larger group of participants) might illuminate the underlying issues a bit more clearly. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
That is a highly unusual example, where an NRHP application document became available. What is at stake in the vast majority of cases was Polaron implementing merger/redirect without any source being available (or, if available to him, not being disclosed). The Hartford village case does illustrate the possibility of disagreement even if a NRHP document is found. The discussion there also reflects stress of participants dealing with an ever expanding battleground; Polaron shifting into Vermont was a branching out, expanding on the already huge set of issues at Talk:List of RHPs in CT. There was subsequently some agreement restored to address CT issues first. If the battleground was limited and the edit warring was stopped, it would be possible to come to agreements on places like Hartford village where NRHP doc had been uncovered. doncram (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggested that example of the underlying issues mostly because I thought that the rationale for various people's viewpoints was presented in a fairly succinct fashion and more people participated than in the Poquetanuck discussion. --Orlady (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hell, I didn't read all of Poquetanuck, probably because being an administrator has a way of attenuating one's attention span when confronted with walls of text. What this boils down to are two issues.
  • Should there be a separate article for a historic district that is substantially the same as a given place, usually a village in New England, but theoretically any small town? Doncram maintains that a separate article, even if the historic district article is a stub and the village's article is a stub, will encourage other editors to flesh out the historic district article with details. Much of Poquetanuck and similar arguments involved a sterile discussion of what might be congruent between town and HD. Doncram is willing to concede that a consolidated article might be appropriate where there is a nearly exact agreement between village and HD, but absent information on the HD and absent a definable boundary for an unincorporated village, little can be accomplished.
  • Polaron has been creating redirects for redlinked historic districts to the parent village/town/hamlet and noting the existence of the HD in the main article. Doncram feels that redirects are inappropriate as they're unsourced and discourage article-building for HD articles.
Both Doncram and Polaron are acting in good faith and each have valid arguments, and have discussed the subject extensively and reasonably cordially. However, neither feels the underlying issue is resolved, and the whole historic district overlap/merge/split/redirect issue has become a trigger point for both editors. Given that there are tens of thousands of historic districts in the US and that about 70% of the articles are not yet written, or exist as stubs, there's a lot to argue about.
On sourcing: the National Park Service is slowly digitizing the National Register nominations for everything in the US and putting them on line. These are the chief sources for any NRHP property. Between the Park Service and some of the more progressive states, there's full source material online for maybe ten states and most Park Service-owned properties. Everything else must be obtained via photocopy. The separate National Register (NRIS) database contains information concerning the existence of a given property, its approximate location, some dates and a reference number, and not much else. My feeling is that the creation of articles or redirects sourced solely from NRIS should be discouraged, as there is insufficient context to create an encyclopedic article that complies with WP policy. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
So, if I take a picture of an NRHP in a state where the info is not online, you would not support creation of a minimal stub in order to show the picture? I see value in even that minimal information as support of the county list articles. I'm not gonna argue about it at length if that's the consensus, but I think the stubs DO encourage new local editors. Lvklock (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not advocating extremes in either case, I just think NRIS is too thin a reed to sustain a very useful article, but is fine for, for example, sourcing all of those lists that Nyttend, Doncram, and others have labored over - which should be illustrated. I've added my own pictures in such cases, and I'd point out that it's well known and widely ignored that pictures could be constructed as original research. One lesson of Poquetanuck is that NRIS is more of a problem than a help in the HD articles. I don't think that NRIS + image = article, but there's a place for the image on a list. NRIS + NPS FOcus (or another source) + image if possible = pretty good. I'll point out that's my opinion, and probably Elkman's opinion, given the warning on the infobox generator. I don't claim that it's consensus and would not try enforce it as a matter of consensus, absent other opinions. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, when I see a redlinked article in a list that has a picture, and I can get a second source, I've created articles in preference because a picture is available, which adds tremendously to the value of an article. Acroterion (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, makes my life easier, if the bad taste of all this leaves and I ever get back to contributing. I always thought it was sort of a cop out to just add a pic to a list, without bothering to create the stub. I still think even the infobox gives useful info, but, like I said, I won't argue about it. Lvklock (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Not intended to discourage you, and I want to point out that that's my personal opinion. What counts is consensus, not my opinion as an editor. I've argued much the same as you where Blofeld of Spectre has created lots of article on locales from a single source and people have complained: I see no harm. Where I see a problem is in the specific case of HDs versus locales where it has left us all going in circles. Individual properties, I'm less concerned, although, personally, I avoid doing it. As an admin and as theoretical arbitrator, I deal with consensus, not my opinion. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I was at a meetup with some other Minnesota Wikipedia editors (User:Bobak, User:Myotus, User:Jonathunder, Jonathunder's friend (who isn't a Wikipedia editor), and User:BenFranske) this afternoon. Bobak, Myotus, Jonathunder, and I are part of the NRHP project, so we had an interesting conversation regarding historic sites and writing articles about National Register properties. I mentioned this current argument at one point, and our general consensus was that if there wasn't a lot of information about a historic district, we could always write about it within the town's article. If there's a lot of information about the historic district, or if that section becomes too large within an existing article, then a new article could be created about the historic district. We didn't spend a lot of time discussing or debating this, so their opinions may differ somewhat from mine, but I don't think there's a lot of argument. This seems to be a common-sense approach, or a case-by-case approach, instead of something that's dictated by strict guidelines.
  • This (or something very like it) is what I kind of figured we would come up with as the right compromise. dm (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Right. However, that does not address the issue of what to do BEFORE someone wants to write about it. Should it best be handled as a redlink, to a properly disambiguated name in cases of name duplication? Or MUST it be a redirect to an existing town/place article, even when that article is a stub itself, or otherwise poorly written? Lvklock (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It was redirects that started this issue, and they definitely need to be discussed.
Speaking only for myself, it bugs me to see a redlink in a list-article of National Register listings when I know there is an article with information about the property. I figure that if appropriate content on the topic exists in Wikipedia, the reader of that list-article ought to be provided with a link to that content. Accordingly, on a number of occasions I have piped those links to point to the existing article, and I've probably also created a few redirects. Many of those edits of mine have been reverted by purists who hold that the redlink must remain until an article exists that is specifically titled with the name of the National Register property. Doncram's view is that redlinks are needed in order to entice newbies into creating articles about the HDs. On the other hand, I believe that we'll end up with a better article if the newbie first reads the existing information about that topic that's currently in another article.
Although I still believe that most of the village and neighborhood HDs that are at issue here should be covered in a single article about the place that discusses both the HD and other aspects of the place, I propose a compromise. For situations like Poquetanuck where (1) a minimal article exists about the place that has at least an iota of information relevant to the HD, and (2) NRHP mavens have not obtained the nom form or other sources of information about the HD that they choose to trust as official, I propose that (1) the article about the place should contain a redlink pointing to the title of the potential future article about the HD and (2) the NRHP list-article should contain a bluelink title that is piped to the place-article. For example, the list of NRHP properties in New London County would link to [[Poquetanuck|Poquetanuck Village Historic District]], and Poquetanuck would have a redlink to Poquetanuck Village Historic District. This approach, which was suggested to me by WP:Redirect, would achieve my goal (which is presumably also Polaron's goal) of pointing the user to relevant information while achieving Doncram's goal of preserving a redlink to entice a future article-creator to get involved. --Orlady (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
An observation: a redlink in the place-article should be referenced to NRIS. Acroterion (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Fort Snelling, Minnesota might actually be a case of an article where the geographic information should be separated from the information on the historic site. The geographic information includes the size and population of the area (the only unorganized territory within Hennepin County), what's located there (several current military facilities, MSP Airport, the VA Hospital, a golf course and athletic fields, and the historic fort itself). Meanwhile, the information about the historic site should talk about the old fort as purchased by Zebulon Pike and established by Josiah Snelling, its nucleus of the development of the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, the establishment of the Upper Post as the head of the Department of Dakota, its role in World War II, and then its preservation as a historic site. (Well, the preservation of the oldest part. The Upper Post lies mostly neglected.)
Sorry, I rambled on in that last paragraph. I guess I'm just interested in history and I like to talk about it. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a shot at summarizing the thrust of discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck, by actually making a proposal at Talk:Poquetanuck#a specific proposal. doncram (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

By all means, I've been dealing with work-related emergencies and aggravations and haven't had a chance to do much. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Doncram/Polaron 3RR case

Hello Acroterion. I've been trying to negotiate voluntary editing restrictions that would settle down the NRHP dispute between Doncram and Polaron. Do you have any comment on the current offers at User talk:Polaron and User talk:Doncram? If nothing voluntary can be agreed to, formal restrictions could be requested at WP:AN (regardless of the 3RR closure). However I don't fully understand Doncram's response. Do you think his idea is worth following up on? I don't care about specifics, so long as the restriction would place a limit on the reverting, and the restriction is understandable by anyone trying to enforce it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. Doncram's response would involve any enforcing administrator having to review six months of walls-of-text to see if any enforcement is to be applied. Your original proposal is succinct and enforceable without being too onerous, and Polaron's agreed to it. I would prefer that we stick to that, and not drag in qualifications, explanations and exceptions. I suspect any referral to AN would produce more restrictions than you propose. Acroterion (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
On re-reading your proposal and Docram's response, do you seek to impose restrictions on Polaron and Doncram, or just on Polaron? That may have Doncram confused. I'd suggest that the conditions apply to both parties. The "if one other editor agrees" might lead to trouble, as both parties could probably find at least one support under most circumstances. Acroterion (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It's simple: Polaron agrees unilaterally to those editing restrictions for 6 months, and I agree that would be helpful. I unilaterally made some other promises/offers (perhaps I shouldn't have, because that is confusing you, but I was trying to give something to Polaron by that). We are done. No administrator has to read 6 months of text. P is not saying I have to have to accept the same editing restrictions. Honestly i am not trying to take advantage in interpreting P's agreement to EdJohnston's request as unilateral. I think P is actually clearly saying he is conceding the structure-of-articles-and-redirects issues to be left to me, so that he and i can work on content. I accept that, and with that I have to accept that I have earned some complaining about me being stubborn, etc. And followup edits to Preston City Historic District confirm this. It is settled, knock on wood. doncram (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Doncram, in the above paragraph, you are narrating what you think Polaron has agreed to. I don't think we are done unless Polaron confirms his agreement to whatever this is. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Doncram's summary is accurate enough. I would just like to request that all existing stubby historic district articles that do not currently meet the criteria of the so-called "Poquetanuck agreement" should be merged until such a time that they meet the criteria. Once that is done, I will not initiate any mergers myself for a while but I would aggressively support any previously uninvolved local editor who wishes to do so. I also request Doncram to not simply undo my content edits as he has done in the past. I am genuinely trying to improve the article by clarification of some things. Also, any decisions by Acroterion on items in the "big list" should supersede a strict reading of the "Poquetanuck agreement". Decisions based on actual content are always better than the somewhat arbitrary criteria that was established. --Polaron | Talk 23:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, good, I basically agree with that. About merging the stubby ones, I assume you mean that you'll do re-mergers where the Poquetanuck 3 somewhat arbitrary criteria for having merger are met. I expect we'll have some future disagreements about content if it is not sourced, given that we and others involved have become hyper-focused on what is supported or not, but that will be much reduced. I look forward to focussing on adding content we can all agree is supported, based on the newly available NRHP docs, and get away from arguing about implicit assertions. And I do agree that actual info trumps the Poquetanuck agreement's focus on placeholders for when actual info is not available. doncram (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cabin Creek, i bin dare

Hey, i see u r active in National Register of Historic Places listings in Tulare County, California, adding Classified Structures photos. Nice job. But hey, i stopped at Cabin Creek to look for the Cabin Creek Ranger Residence and Dormitory and took pics, about a year and a half ago. In my backlog to upload, along with a bunch of pics for the interesting Wilsonia district. The Cabin Creek ranger station is a nice enough spot, in a forest, about a quarter or half mile walk north of the main roadway through the park, no one around. I recall noticing ur doing good work with Classified Structures photos in Hawaii, a while back. U seem to hit a sweet spot, good for u and the wikipedia. :) doncram (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to replace any of those pix, since for the most part they're snapshots taken by NPS personnel. The classified structures images were missing for most of last year, so I've only recently been going back and grabbing images where they could do some good. We passed through the park in 2005, long before the notion of taking pictures of NRHP properties (or WP at all) was something to consider.
By the way, thanks for posting the notices of your work on the Big List. I'll be following through on more topics there this week. Acroterion (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

redirects reprise

Thanks for speaking up quickly at User talk:Polaron#Redirecting NRHP HD articles. About the new redirects just created by Polaron, though, could you just promptly delete them to remove them from our need to list them out and discuss them. I can't delete them myself and it is cumbersome to start up a new RFD batch to discuss them all. It's higher on P's talk page, User talk:Polaron#Redirects, where i recently did try to talk out the ridirects issue. It is somewhat frustrating to have new hedgehogs of redirects created. doncram (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do; I spent the early afternoon dealing with a car that blew 2 quarts of oil from the oil cooler feed in 10 miles, which has set me back somewhat with this afternoon's RL work agenda. Acroterion (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

New Images

You found a couple of great images today -- the Hawkes House photo is gorgeous....

I hate it when others swoop down on a treasure trove I've found, so let me ask -- do you intend to upload the Derby Wharf Light image from the same source? It's very similar to the existing USCG image, but in color. Looks like it could use a little rotation. I haven't checked -- are there more that we should grab? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

By all means, upload any images you want to; it's a fair amount of work to go through the lists and find candidates, and I've missed quite a few, I'm sure, particularly if they weren't obviously related to National Register items. The NPS stuff is highly variable, from apparent scans of bad Xerox copies to nearly professional-level images. The Hawkes House was about 2 degrees crooked, so I straightened it,, but it needed no other doctoring. Acroterion (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me to understand...

I recently created a page called Neagus about an underground group of researchers funding various projects. I believe I may have used the wrong reference link/links for this post. Please tell me two things: A. What about my page was vandalism? and B. What edits do I need to do to allow this page to go back up. Please, I wish only to help with the project and seeing how much information on other secret organizations Wikipedia already hosts, I would like to let the masses know about the organization called the order of neagus. This is my simple plea: Explain to me how to make this page more coherant so it would not be considered a vandalism. Yours truly- Jerel Edward Rogers Vi Vankleek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Facesforce (talk • contribs) 06:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted because it appeared to be a blatant hoax; no such organization was mentioned by the references, and it's "Brookhaven", not the "Brooklyn heavy ion accelerator. Can you provide two or three references to this organization in independent media? Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio :-(

I've discovered that one of your NPS uploads from the past couple of days is apparently not PD-NPS: I can't remember what it is, but if I remember correctly, it's of a Navajo pueblito in Utah. The EXIF data states that the image is copyrighted by someone or another. I'll get back to you if I can find it. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Here we go: File:Picto-Petro Man Ruin UT NPS.jpg. There's a "Copyright holder" line in the EXIF data that reads "(C)2008 Bud F. Turner". Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll tag it for deletion on Commons and do a quick check of others. I've been looking at the data, but inevitably the one that mattered got through. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. A pity that's the copyrighted one, seeing how hard it is to get shots for archaeological sites; but don't we all wish that the NPS was more clear with image copyright statuses. I've never run into this problem with photos from that part of their site before, FYI. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, we already know that the NPS has a casual attitude toward this sort of thing; looks like they grabbed somebody's image. Just to keep on the right side and not emulate them, I've installed an EXIF viewer into my Firefox setup so I can see EXIFs before I upload. It works pretty well. Mr. Turner was using a Canon 1Ds Mk. III, which isn't a government-issue point-and-shoot. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Maid-rite

Would it be acceptable to redirect Maid-Rite Sandwich Shop to Maid-Rite? Just asking for your input here --Ender The Xenocide | ( Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No - the article is about a specific stand that's listed on the National Register of Historic Places, so that location's notability is well established and documented. I think the text should say something like "is one of the last original Maid-rite franchises." I've moved it to Maid-Rite Sandwich Shop (Springfield, Illinois), though, since it's not unique, and added "earliest" as a qualifier..Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Otago Boys' High School Board of Trustees Student Representative Election, 2009

I've added the 2009 election to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otago Boys' High School Board of Trustees Student Representative Election, 2008. Would you be willing to offer an opinion about it there? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Down Home In Suntlay appears to have returned

Hi. You blocked Down Home In Suntlay (talk · contribs) about a year ago.[4] The user now appears to have returned as Thekingofjuice3 (talk · contribs). Thanks for any help you can offer. Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. Upon consideration I really couldn't find a good reason to allow the editor to remain unblocked, as they were continuing a year-old edit war via another account while blocked. Assuming this is the person Dowd allegedly snubbed at age 11, they are now 12 or 13 and have some maturing to do before they will be able to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

longerdays.com

Hello,

I intend to make an information wikipedia page about the company longerdays.com

I don't see how this is any different from the other numerous companies listed on wikipedia:

Circuit_city
Jcpennys
L3_Communications
Comcast
Coles_Supermarkets
Meijers

Longerdays.com is one of the few larger Virtual assistance firms operating in America today.

I am new to Wikipedia, please be patient.

Thank you.

Chad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad.lawie (talk • contribs) 00:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


You'll need to credibly assert that the company complies with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. The company should have received significant notice in multiple independent media outlets with a reputation for fact-checking. The companies you list are on major exchanges (well, Circuit City was) and are regularly mentioned in the media. Also, according to your userpage, you have a conflict of interest, which means that you are strongly discouraged from writing about subjects with which you are closely concerned. Acroterion (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Question Regarding Page Deletion

Why was our band page (Mining In Afghanistan) deleted? We are an established band in the state of Michigan, and feel that it is unfair that you deleted us from Wikipedia. Our debut album ("A Perfect Christmas: Our Gift to You") is unique in that it released digitally (and free of cost at that) before we began distribution of hard copies. I suppose we're confused about why, exactly, we haven't met the criteria. As I understand it, Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia which strives to provide the world with the wealth of knowledge from a number of different topics. Unless something is categorically untrue, or entirely irrelevant, it should be placed on Wikipedia. The Mining in Afghanistan (Band) page was neither of these, so clarification regarding its deletion would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiningInAfghanistan (talk • contribs) 02:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:BAND for notability guidelines for bands. The article did not assert that the band met those criteria. The tone was inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, being largely promotional and rather informal, and you appear to have a conflict of interest, having a close association with the subject. Also, the title was wrong: "Minging in Afghanistan" means something else entirely. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Terry Holdbrooks

I am planning to write an article about this individual. and would like to use Terry Holdbrooks for that. As you have deleted the previous article there and i am not an administrator could you please check if the previous article topic was about the same person and if so could you restore this article to my user space so i can work on it? Thank you IQinn (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the same person. The original article was pretty much a promo for his book. I've put it in your userspace at User:Iqinn/Holdbrooks. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah you are right that needs a lot of work. Thank's a lot. IQinn (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it!

Stegosuarian has given you a cookie! 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}}!

I figured out I could just make a user page :)

Very good. Please keep the stego-wrangling out of article space, and thanks for the cookie. Let me know if you need help with anything. Acroterion (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ORIGIN PC

Hello. Please tell me what is wrong with the ORIGIN PC page? It is the same as pages of competing companies. I had a friend create the page and you still deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadow56 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Redding Center Historic District and Stratford Center Historic District redirects

Hi Acroterion, could you please delete redirect for Redding Center Historic District. I see that another administrator has deleted redirect at Stratford Center Historic District, accepting my speedy delete request there. I thot these were considered plenty, and decided. doncram (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, done. Thanks for the reminder. Acroterion (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

BrytonPick

Hi, I am trying to add a page for BrytonPick, I see it has been deleted it, I would like to contest that. Briefly, we have not added BrytonPick with the intention for advertizing it…since it is a totally new innovative product that is going to market we merely want to give it a definition that can be found by curious users. We advertize in several channels, but or intention with Wikipedia is to define what our product is and why it is different from floss or a toothpick, and that it is the only innovation in dental floss in 100 years. I see you have Dental Floss, and Toothpicks; BrytonPick is a cross between the two…it is an innovative invention, designed and made 100% in the USA. We ask that you consider allowing us to define our innovation on Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Brytonmc (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Michael

The article was promotional in nature. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: dental floss and toothpick are generic products; yours is proprietary. The article was unsourced (sourcing to your own website is not sufficient to meet the general notability guidelines). You must show that the product has received significant coverage in major media with a reputation for fact checking, and it must be substantial in nature, not just a mention. Finally, you have a conflict of interest: editors are strongly advised to avoid editing or creating articles about themselves, their business, or their products in order to avoid the use of Wikipedia for overt or veiled advertising. Please do not use Wikipedia for advertising orthe reation of articles that serve to promote a product. Accounts that act in such a manner may be blocked as promotion-only accounts. Acroterion (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
understand your concern, I know that editing our own page seems promotional, it was meant to be strictly informational.

We are willing to conform to all your guidelines; it was never our intention to cross those regulations. There are several proprietary products mentioned on Wiki, and ours should be in that same category. There is no generic or general category this falls into. Information is all we want to share. We did not mention anywhere it is for sale, and can remove links to the website.

Keeping that in mind I attach several references that have been written by consumers who were not paid or incited to write about our product, more are available on demand, but these independent source should be enough to demonstrate the viability of this product as an independent page, besides the fact we are promoting health for those that cannot use a general product like floss and pick. :
http://whatsinasmile.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/healthy-options-brytonpick-floss-alternative/
http://www.dentalbuzz.com/2008/08/26/brytonpick/
http://thepitterpatterboutique.blogspot.com/2009/12/brytonpick-floss-in-seconds-giveaway.html
On the subject of oral and overall health from the ADA:
http://www.ada.org/public/topics/oralsystemic.asp
ADA finding on America’s flossing habits:
http://www.ada.org/public/media/presskits/publicspeaks/survey_findings.pdf
I ask that we are able to edit our page with perhaps the information given by those independent user blogs. Please advise…thanks again for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brytonmc (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
With rare exceptions, blogs aren't reliable sources. None of the sources mentioned above constitute significant coverage in major third-party media. Acroterion (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, I would like to give you links to Major Media coverage. These are all major publication in the dental field and City Newspapers, forgive me but the easiest it to like from our web, all is verifiable if you would like that also, just trying to save time. All these publications are resposible and factual:
Dental Products Report (circ. 1 Mil) <copyvio link redacted>
Modern Hygenist (circ. 300K/mo) <copyvio link redacted>
Washington Post (circ. 120K/day): <copyvio link redacted>
Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (circ.60K/mo): <copyvio link redacted>
Tampa Tribute (circ. 150K/day) <copyvio link redacted>
Los Angeles Times (circ. 500K+/day) <copyvio link redacted>
There are more, including magazines like Self, Men's Health etc. As you can see, we are not using Wiki to promote. We use publication for promotions. Please reconsider the delete on misunderstanding. Kind Regards, Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brytonmc (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Those are an improvement, but they're not very substantive. The LA Times item is the best of the lot. You'll need to format them as references (see how the article you cite below does it), since pictures of a newspaper aren't scholarly references and you should avoid references back to your own website, especially since those images are copyright violations, which are not permissible links from WP. As for the article, I won't restore it in the form you originally wrote it, as it's far too promotional. I'd suggest that you create working space in you userspace at User: Brytonmc/sandbox to develop a neutral article. You should avoid the first and second persons, superlatives or "peacock" language, and stick to just-the-facts-ma'am.. Keep in mind that references, however scant, only deal with notability, and even then the article may not survive a full debate at articles for deletion. The conflict of interest remains as well. Acroterion (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is an article on Wiki of a competing product...can i ask that we have the same consideration for ours: Platypus Ortho Flosser. Thanks! Kind regards, Brytonmc (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Michael
The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument isn't a good one to make. That article's been pared way down from an advertisement, and it's pretty much borderline as it is. Still, it's properly formatted, referenced and factual. Acroterion (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I understand you thinking, I can change so that we are closer to what Platypus has, we just want to define BrytonPick here...that’s all. I dont understand the copywrite issue since we own the rights and patents...? Ultimately it is our intelectual info...

How do you suggest i start, or should a third party enter the info? I am new here I will look at the sandbox.... Any other tips are appreciated...thanks!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brytonmc (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The copyright violations are the images of copyrighted newspapers. You may not link to them from Wikipedia, you must use appropriate references stating the article, publisher, date of publication, et cetera. It's relatively simple, and the other article contains examples. As a matter of fact, I'm removing them above, because they really can't remain here. You should re-write the article from scratch in your sandbox, bearing in mind what I've explained above about promotion and promotional language. Acroterion (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand your interest in getting a mention of your product on the world's fifth-most-trafficked website. However, whether you write it or somebody else does so at your request, it amounts to the same thing. It's still a COI. The test is whether you can write an appropriate, factual article on the subject, strictly avoiding promotion. I can help you with reference formatting, but the language must be your own, and can't borrow from copyrighted material. Even if it's your own, it would have to have been released at the source under a compatible, freely usable copyright. In any event, your website material is oriented for marketing: nothing at all wrong with that, but it's not suitable for re-use in an encyclopedia. Also, when we see editors who are keen to place their product or service in the encyclopedia, we tend to wonder if the editor has any interest in contributing to the encyclopedia in any way unrelated to their product. Acroterion (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

<undent> Also, please add any comments at the bottom of this thread. It's easier to find that way, indenting with a colon (add one for each new comment) and signing with four tildes so SineBot doesn't come in and do it for you. Acroterion (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I apologize for just jumping in with the correct knowledge of guidelines – our intentions are innocent! I will re-write with your suggestions in mind...I am going to take some time to learn this website and it's tools, I'm not even sure what the sandbox is yet! So, I hope there are some tutorials available here so i can learn...I understand adding references, like I'm writing a scholastic bibliography right? Does that mean that i have to also add a hyperlink to the article? I am not sure if i can link to the originals, though they may ne available on the pr company website...it remains to be seen, please advise if the articles must be linked to originals. I looked at Platypus' references...and you point to our LA Times article which is still available online...the others probably are not, but i have to check…in essence our article will be short like Platyp… Will you be able, or some other editor be able to see my sandbox and advise when it’s correct? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brytonmc (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't expect new editors to know all 10,000 guidelines. Just ping me here when you think you've got something. I'll be in and out today, and won't be available much this evening. Hyperlinks should not be embedded within the article (as opposed to internal links to Wikipedia content, which are encouraged, i.e., toothpick, done with pairs of square brackets [[toothpick]]. External links should be in a section at the bottom, and should be strictly limited, since it quickly becomes a link farm otherwise. References must link to the original where possible, otherwise you should use an appropriate referencing format that describes the referenced material. Acroterion (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

repeated violation of editing restriction

Please note User talk:Polaron#repeated violation of editing restriction. I also asked at User talk:EdJohnston that he take a look. I am trying to clear out backlog of stupid kneejerk disputes so that other editors can work in CT NRHP articles without hitting minefields. It is beyond irritation now that Polaron is again, really soon, in outright violation of editing restriction he accepted. What is the point of discussing and coming to agreements, commitments, etc. doncram (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he was wrong, and it's a violation of his editing restriction. An easy way to avoid such issues is to develop such an article in your userspace and post it once complete. I know that somehow troubles you, but it's best that lines like "It has some significance" never see the light of article space. Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Acroterion, I think it would be appropriate to insist that Doncram refrain from creating "fill in the blank" stub pages in article space. Creating pages like that one that he started in Fenwick Historic District is like waving a red flag in front of a bull; its difficult to fault the bull for rushing at the flag. --Orlady (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That's my feeling as well; I'd hoped that encouraging DYK-length articles would prevent this issue, but that emphasis seems to be decaying, or honored in the breach. It's worth remembering that there were two parties to the edit wars. Acroterion (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Why delete this just because you havn't heard of him does not mean he can not go on here? at least help me to stay within guidelines please i need advice :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revtv (talk • contribs) 11:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BAND and WP:BIO, WIkipedia's guidelines for the notability of musicians and individuals. It's not whether I've ever heard of somebody, it's whether anybody in the press has heard of the person or musical act and chosen to write an article about them. The article did not indicate any such notability. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fort de Charenton

Bonjour, cela fait plaisir de voir que le travail effectué se retrouve sur la wiki en anglais. Cordialement (d'un wikipédien français créateur de l'article que tu as traduit). --Thesupermat (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Merci de créer l'article! J'ai apprécié le travail de traduction et j'espère que mon français s'améliore. J'espère aussi que je n'ai pas changé le sens trop. Je peut lire le français facilement, mais c'est plus difficile pour moi d'écrire. Acroterion (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello friend

I've referred a blocked vandal from two years ago to you my friend, he's been asking me to unblock through email since the 7th. Hate to say it but I've been trying to ignore him in the hopes he'd find someone else on his own. I finally had to poke him along to you, (if he even tries to contact you that is) I told him you'd be reasonable and hear him out. Hope you don't mind. Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. BESTBUY

I'll keep a lookout. Nothing in the inbox at the moment. Acroterion (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Dais Analytic Corporation Deletion

I noticed that the Dais Analytic Corporation page, which I created yesterday was deleted. The first version of the page I attempted to publish included mission statements that could be seen as promoting the company. However, the latter version, which was also deleted, only provided information on the company. The company is doing unique work in Nanotechnology that is not currently being done elsewhere. Additionally, the scientific observations included on the page have been confirmed by 3rd party testing. Partnership with a well-established company like GE and a $200 million dollar deal with China only bolsters the legitimacy of this entry.

I believe that the most recent article submitted for Dais Analytic Corporation is both fair, unbiased and relevant. I am requesting that the deletion be withdrawn and the page restored. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcorta2 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it wasn't promotional. The article made no assertion that the company was notable, which is also grounds for speedy deletion.. A $200 million deal is not in itself a qualifier. You should include references, particularly in major media, which would deal with the notability issue. Please refer to WP:CORP for guidelines on corporate notability. I've placed the original article in a sandbox in your user space at User:Alcorta2/sandbox for you to work on. Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Fort d'Ivry

Updated DYK query On January 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fort d'Ivry, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Acroterion. Thank you for typing up the nice little article. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting Fascist States of America

Thank you! User:Na3s removed the Speedy Deletion tag I had on it. Warned the user; just wanted to say thanks!-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 00:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, the user's just cranky about recent events. Cheers, Acroterion (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fort de Villiers. fortifications of Paris

bonjour,

Je viens de lire votre contribution sur le fort de Villiers. Il se trouve que je suis particulièrement impliquée avec mon association dans la sauvegarde de ce fort avec le président Patrick Cotte. Pouvons-nous utiliser votre traduction dans une plaquette d'information que nous remettons à nos amis d'Europe qui nous soutiennent ?

Merci d'avance pour votre réponse, Bien cordialement

Yveline Méline http://conferencefortsiledefrance.blogspot.com http://www.asfv.eu —Preceding unsigned comment added by YMELINE (talk • contribs) 12:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fort de Villiers. fortifications of Paris

bonjour,

Je viens de lire votre contribution sur le fort de Villiers. Il se trouve que je suis particulièrement impliquée avec mon association dans la sauvegarde de ce fort avec le président Patrick Cotte. Pouvons-nous utiliser votre traduction dans une plaquette d'information que nous remettons à nos amis d'Europe qui nous soutiennent ?

Merci d'avance pour votre réponse, Bien cordialement

Yveline Méline http://conferencefortsiledefrance.blogspot.com http://www.asfv.eu —Preceding unsigned comment added by YMELINE (talk • contribs) 12:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

J'ai répondu à votre page de discussion. Acroterion (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Helios Productions

Why did you delete this page? please inform me on how to create the page so it stays, thank you. Producercollective4 (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Acroterion (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Please advise. Producercollective4 (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Glenville

Hi. I noticed you collapsed the Fairfield county section but left the case of Glenville (Greenwich) and Glenville Historic District without a judgement. Since the HD article is more developed and the neighborhood article is nearly devoid of useful content, I am suggesting that the neighborhood article be temporarily redirected to the HD article until someone develops a more robust neighborhood article in the future. --Polaron | Talk 13:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking: I'll have a look at it. Acroterion (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

reference error message

I received the following message when editing my article. I rechecked the references and everything looks normal. What else should I look at?

There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a <references/> tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcorta2 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

request a block

Hi A, could you please consider imposing a preventative block, per what i describe at User talk:Polaron#Canaan edits and edit restriction. I will ask also at EdJohnston's Talk page, and i just mentioned this to Nyttend (only because N had just posted at my page, altho he has not been involved in enforcing P's edit restriction). I don't know who is online, but I am afraid P is embarking on a new spree that will cause considerable more work to clean up, and that is not directly constructive, whether or not it exactly is in violation of P's edit restriction. --doncram (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, got ur message. Creating brand new redirects may not be in technical violation of the explicit edit restriction. But, you are the administrator suggested by Polaron and agreed by me to be invited to serve as mediator in the broad long-running dispute. And you have judged quite clearly enough, in the issues list area, that redirects like these should not be created. This is within the general domain in which you have agreed to be the admin / mediator. So I request, and think you should, block P for a while now to enable some discussion, and then come to further judgments about it.
I imagine that some of the redirects will be okay. The problem is that creating them in this way is causing administrative work, more tracking and discussion, and P is expanding rather than reducing the general problem. I'll add, it seems immature for P to be going off now on a spree to create more redirects, continued further than what i have explicitly documented, rather than respond even once to my raising the issue at P's Talk page.
I don't have time for this now, myself. Could you block and allow discussion over some period, please? --doncram (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You may remember that I've recused myself from administrative actions in this matter, and that I'd be considered involved under the normal administrative rules in any case. I've left a message to find out what's going on and will check back from time to time (I have to go to a project site for a while). It appears to me that the cart is way out in front of the horse - if he's got sources that tie this all together, why not put it in the article where a reader can find it, and with references? Acroterion (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Further, I imagine that P may be using NRHP documents that he might have downloaded, to come up with alternative names/terms. In at least some cases, I expect the article structure (whether NRHP HD article should be split or merged) is not yet set. Creating thickets of redirects is part of arguing by him that merger is the way to go, making it more difficult to split if that is per the Poquetanuck agreement, say. Having redirects created only gradually, when topics are developed, would obviously be more suitable. The current behavior is disrupting wikipedia to make a point or two, like that P can do what he wants, disregarding hard-won consensus to have and to operate in a mediated process. Really, i don't have time for this now though.
Argh, I see your reply that u feel now involved. Could u quickly point that out at ANI, or i may. --doncram (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I've left a note at AN/I. I understand your point, but I think this should be reviewed by the community at large. It would be better to keep this as a straightforward discussion of WP:V rather than dragging in motivations and speculation. Acroterion (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering to take on this mess in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm experiencing some regrets, although a glass of wine smooths over the rough parts. By the numbers the actual dispute is growing faster than it is being solved, but I see progress made between outbursts. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Do they even make wine strong enough to smooth out these rough parts? I don't think even Romulan ale would be enough to help. (Also, did you mean AN3 instead of AN/I?) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a backup plan. AN/I is correct. That was Tuesday's eruption, since archived due to apathy. AN3 was yesterday. Acroterion (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WTH?

What do you mean inapropriate? Lucas Duke (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Acroterion (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: WTH?

I'm gonna ask again. What do you mean innapropriate? Lucas Duke (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied again on your talk page. Acroterion (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My Page

Why did you delete my page User Automatonon. It was under my own userspace. If you think I'm being crazy, please clarify. Automatonon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

No, it was a redirect from article space, which isn't allowed. Your user page is safe. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Pic rename

Can you rename File:Davenport-mayor.jpg to File:Joseph J. Davenport.jpg so it isn't confused as a picture of a mayor of Davenport, Iowa as I did when I first saw the picture. CTJF83 chat 01:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I renamed it to File:Joseph J. Davenport.jpg, but the page says James J. Which is correct? Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Joseph is right, fixed the link in the article. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, CTJF83 chat 03:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Another idea for admin action on NRHP

Hello Acroterion. The 3RR case is still open, since no other admin has decided to wade in with their own closure. How's this for a proposal: Orlady, Doncram and Polaron are restricted from creating articles or adding or removing redirects for any geographic places or historic districts in the United States, for a period of six months. The restriction ends when the three of them reach an overall agreement on criteria for dealing with historic districts. Before going into effect, any agreement would need to be reviewed by at least one admin familiar with NRHP issues, such as yourself, to be sure it is fair and enforceable. Though the editors would accept the agreement voluntarily, it would be enforceable by blocks. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We might initially limit this restriction to NRHP historic districts, since I believe they're the crux of the debate. If the bickering spills over into single properties, we can expand the restriction accordingly. I would also suggest that we have all three editors agree that NRHP article content disputes that involve one editor reverting the other's edit be immediately posted at the NRHP project discussion boards for commentary, rather than endlessly reverting one another's edits. I feel the NRHP project could have resolved at least one of the causes of yesterday's flare-up without much hassle. Bms4880 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to speak for Acroterion, but my opinion is that solution seems rather restrictive and doesn't deal with the real issue. There are two issues here: article quality (as evidenced by phrases like, "This building, structure, or district has some significance.") and editor behavior (Doncram vs. Orlady, Doncram vs. Polaron). If we prevent all three of these editors from creating articles about historic districts, I'm thinking that Orlady would just quit WP:NRHP, while Doncram and Polaron will find something else to bicker about.
Also, there's a risk that some other editor could find him/herself in trouble when trying to improve an article. For example, I might update Ann Street Historic District from saying, "The district has some significance," to, "The district has merit for its architectural features, several of which exhibit the work of locally important Hartford architects as well as well-known architects from Boston, New York, and New Haven. The district also illustrates the growth of the city around the turn of the 20th century, including the growth of Ann Street as a commercial district." Would that turn into the kind of wording that would violate the agreement? That sort of thing would make me nervous. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I would expect strong opposition, since those topics are exactly what Doncram and Polaron do here. The latest event between Doncram and Orlady had nothing to do with creation or redirection or historic districts; it was a fight over phrasing. As I had previously pointed out to Doncram, I thought his favored wording had no place in an encyclopedia. Orlady's characterization of it as "vandalism" was, however, insupportable. The proposed restrictions wouldn't have prevented yesterday's event, and I suspect the jostling between editors will eventually find another outlet. There are several common threads to the ongoing dispute:
  • Doncram's ownership of all things NRHP-related, and his focus on creating unique articles on individual NRHP properties or historic districts, sometimes regardless of other context. While he has been grudgingly amenable to merges, it's clear that he'd rather have a placeholder article for each and every one of the 80,000-odd NRHP properties, even when that exact property is covered with a slightly different emphasis already. Left to Doncram's devices, I believe the NRHP listings would take on the characteristics of a walled garden.
  • Polaron's extensive creation of redirects now and his expressed intention to return at some future date to add content that explains the redirects, leaving the redirects to stand as an unsourced assertion of some kind of relationship. When pressed, he gives reasonable explanations for his actions, and his direct interactions with Doncram have been mostly constructive, but it's still the cart before the horse. Polaron would like to see extensive merging of content, which is at the core of his disagreements with Doncram. Orlady, Nyttend, and I have all asked him to place greater emphasis on sources and referencing.
  • The bickering between Doncram and Orlady's goes back to the banned User:Jvolkblum, who contributed extensive material about New Rochelle, some of it accurate. Doncram objected strenuously to the ban and later sought to have him rehabilitated over the objections of several editors (myself included), even though he'd been socking the whole time. See the relevant AN/I archive [5]. This may give some insight into the degree to which Doncram has emphasized the creation of NRHP articles to the exclusion of all other considerations. Doncram opposed Orlady's RfA, partly on the basis of her investigation of Jvolkblum, and he was correct in noting at the RfA that she can be snarky at times, but he seems to be uniquely sensitive to it and willing to take offense. Orlady has, in general terms, advocated more merging than Doncram would prefer.
Bms4880's suggestion that any proposed revert of any other party's edits (on any subject) be posted and noted by another party at NRHP before any other action is taken has merit, although the policing of it might be hard to manage. It would have the benefit of slowing disputes down and would provide an indisputable tripwire. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I was suggesting that Doncram or Orlady report the content dispute to the NRHP project before committing a second revert. For example, if Orlady removes or modifies content, and Doncram reverts it, Orlady would then be required to post the dispute to the NRHP project discussion boards to get the opinion of project members. If it's a non-NRHP project page, then it should be posted to the most appropriate project's discussion board, but as far as I know, most of these disputes involve NRHP content. The point is, the NRHP project is in the best position to resolve NRHP-related content disputes. It might not resolve the greater issue, but it will help. Bms4880 (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Point of information: Actually, bickering between Doncram and me did not start with Jvolkblum. I trace it to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in New York/archive1 in August-September 2008. (We had interacted earlier, but the interactions were pretty benign.) Back then I was fairly active with Featured Lists, where I focused on reviewing (and helping to improve) list candidates that were not related to the popular-culture topics that dominate FL. Accordingly, I commented on Doncram's nomination of the NY NHL list. Typical of most FLC reviews, there were a lot of criticisms, all of which should have been fixable. However, rather than working to improve the list article so it would pass FLC, Doncram reacted badly to the criticism -- he apparently received my critique of the article as personal criticism directed at him. I was personally disappointed at the time that he took things so personally, as I had been looking forward to seeing that article get promoted. Shortly thereafter, Doncram started editing somewhat contentiously in articles about topics in my local area and region (for example, see Talk:The Hermitage (Nashville, Tennessee) and the edit history of X-10 Graphite Reactor). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts was another negative interaction during that period -- another instance where Doncram took deep personal offense when I expressed concerns about content he had created. Also, we started tripping over each other in relation to articles about historic topics in New Rochelle, where I had already been long engaged in battling banned user Jvolkblum's sockpuppetry, copyvios, fake sourcing of articles, and promotion of everything about the city. Jvolkblum apparently noticed Doncram's negative attitude toward me and started urging him on against me (through various of his numerous sockpuppet personas), which I think pretty thoroughly cemented the poisonous character of Doncram's and my subsequent relationship. --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I expect to comment later on proposed restrictions, but I can manage only one thing at a time. --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Noted; that was where I first saw the interaction. Acroterion (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec, inserting before EdJohnston's remark) Okay, i'm going to say this: this is somewhat painful to watch. I do not enjoy being analysed by Orlady, especially. I consider her account above as overly familiar, biased, selective, self-serving, and inaccurate and/or skewed by significant omissions. I do not want to participate or view a big accounting of her and my past history, unless it is necessary as part of an RFC on user behavior (which would be useless as having no teeth) or an ARBCOM proceeding. Please note: I have repeatedly, politely enough, asked Orlady to cease commenting on me personally and especially to cease commenting on my motivations, where I have previously found her insight to be lacking and unpleasant. I have repeatedly asked her to stop following me around to unrelated areas. This current 3RR is about her doing that again. Please note, I have not frequently commented on her personally. I did oppose her nomination to administratorship in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady. When it closed in her favor, i was the first to congratulate her and wish her well. I hoped that she would go her separate way and that we would close the books on previous stuff, and it largely went that way. However, it is my perception that she has come around to following me around, seeming to intervene unproductively and contentiously, currently intervening into a productive exchange i was having with a Davenport Iowa editor. A while back, I was not happy to see her intervene into the CT NRHP mess, but I accept that she has her determined involvement there which will not change. I don't understand her motivations and don't presume to describe them. I will say however that it often seems that she is trying to intervene to prove her superiority over me in some way. Probably we all do that sometimes--and i am sure that i am sometimes motivated to prove my knowledge in wikipedia exchanges--but I feel she is excessively focussed upon me and that it is amounting to wikihounding. In the recent exchange, I thot she was apologizing for intervening in a new area (she might have just apologized and backed away, explaining credibly that she was just looking at my edits and did not at first notice it had nothing to do with CT), but instead she clarified or retracted to only apologize, sort of, for using rollback.
Please, you who are administrators, listen to what i am saying and have been saying, and please advise Orlady to refrain from unnecessary commentary about me and from unnecessary involvement with me. --doncram (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Doncram: So you're going to accuse Orlady of various and sundry offenses, yet not let her tell her part of the story, because she might say something personal against you? You're going to accuse her and propose editing restrictions against her, yet she doesn't get to respond at all because she's "analyzing" you or guessing at what your motivations are? That seems a little one-sided to me. Regardless, anyone who would legitimately sanction Orlady would have to consider your behavior and Polaron's as well. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) My proposal is that the restriction only applies to Orlady, Doncram and Polaron. Other editors are free to do whatever they wish with historic districts, though there is some chance the restriction might be widened if further problems occur. The hope is that Orlady, Doncram and Polaron would agree to a review system so that no new article or redirect would be created unless at least one other NRHP participant agrees. This restriction would hold for at least six months. The purpose of wanting the three of them to agree on a plan is so that nobody can dodge the result, claim that they were misunderstood, claim that the other parties are not complying, etc. Each person, individually, would be blocked if they create a new article or redirect without first getting support from someone else or change a redirect into an article with no prior review by someone else. To make this work smoothly, I suggest an explicit minimum requirement, like a new HD article has to be of at least DYK size. This is something the three of them could agree on as part of the new plan. So they could just endorse a new version of the Poquetanuck deal, if it were made specific enough. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram. While the RFC is named for him alone, the behavior of Polaron and Orlady should also be considered as well. I would encourage you to participate in a civil manner in this discussion, in hopes of finding a reasonable resolution. I saw at User talk:Bms4880 that you were considering an RFC, so your viewpoints (or corrections to anything I've said) are welcome. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm looking it over. I've not been involved in an RFC/U, so I'll be reviewing some policies. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing photo?

It looks like you added a nonexistent image here. Do you have an actual photo of the South Comfort Station? Ntsimp (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it got deleted because I didn't spell the public domain tag right and didn't see the notice at Commons. I'll re-upload and tag it right this time. Acroterion (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ouvrage Rimplas DYK

Hello! Your submission of Ouvrage Rimplas at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jujutacular T · C 14:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Admissibility of images from the Royal Collections of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Hello! I appeal to you on the appropriateness of placement of images from the Royal Collections of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (London). The fact is that the staff of the Royal Collection, which in combination is a man with whom I work, told me that the use of images from the Royal Collection without permission is unacceptable. She said that the images can not be used on personal sites. I do not know whether this assertion and to Wikipedia, as well as the use of images, especially the Royal Collections, somehow regulated. Many bought the image through the Royal Collection and employees may lose profits. Moreover, some images still did not have to be in a readily accessible, because otherwise there will be income for its owners. On this occasion I would like you to spend the permissibility of the use of images from the Royal Collection in Wikipedia. There is a whole category, but there are many images of royal personages. If the use is unacceptable, then I ask you to remove all these images, with a replica of each party to Wikipedia, who uploaded images to explain why they were deleted. I think you all will understand, and in the future we will not occur such controversial issues. Thank you! I'll wait for your answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Рихтер (talk • contribs) 19:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I have no idea what you're talking about. I have no personal involvement with such images on the English Wikipedia; most images are kept at Wikimedia Commons, and you may wish to raise the issue there, as it is separately administered and has its own policies. Also, you might wish to ask someone with greater familiarity with English to review your comment, as it appears to have been machine-translated and it is difficult to understand what organization you represent and why you are concerned in this matter.Acroterion (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

NationalCreditReport.com Wikipedia Page

Please advise on why the wikipedia page was deleted as I was still editing it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanjane102 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Acroterion (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Acroterion/Archive Q1 2010 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Globella

You deleted Globella. Why? I submitted a {hangon} and then submitted this notice on the talk page:

Globella is a company like RE/MAX. RE/MAX paved the way for 100% brokerages in the 1970's and 1980's. Globella is a small company, but one of few true exclusive buyer brokers in the world. Wikipedia has a couple of articles about exclusive buyer agents and exclusive buyer brokers, and wikipedia should allow articles about some of the companies that are paving the way for this important real estate movement (a movement that is based on consumer advocacy - most homebuyers are unaware that they are not being represented in a purchase transaction - exclusive buyer brokers are the only companies that can guarantee buyers that they can be represented by the same agent 100% of the time on any property they purchase).

The article was written objectively with facts only and with references.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Globella" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 31fella22 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The article was an advertisement for an apparently non-notable company. Please read WP:CORP for notability guidelines for companies. A hangon notice does not prevent deletion: it may be deleted at any time, and any promotional content is usually summarily deleted. Please do not use Wikipedia for promotion. Acroterion (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Shingle style architecture

You mentioned interest in developing Shingle Style architecture as a separate article. I've been coming across examples, and just semi-boldly split it out of one of the Queen Anne Style architecture articles, so I could add note about Montauk Association Historic District and Fenwick Historic District. Any instances having articles can be given Category:Shingle Style architecture, which will probably be subdivided by state when it grows. --doncram (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I haven't pursued it since all my books on the subject are in boxes while I finish the attic and build built-in bookshelves. I'll see what I can add in the way of refs with what's at hand. Acroterion (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I've run across quite a few as I worked through MD, now NY. I'll see if I can't recat.--Pubdog (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Long Island, Cape Cod, the coast of Connecticut, Bar Harbor, ME were the major centers of the style. Acroterion (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Heather Saario

Will you please leave the Heather Saario Article up, trying to give someone a sweet Valentines Day present, after a week or 2 you can take it down, just want to make someone's Valentines Day better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli-Farcus (talk • contribs) 05:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia isn't meant for that. I've found that roses, while more expensive, do very nicely. I'm sure Heather will love them. Acroterion (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

article

I havent finished my article yet so please review it after i finish it with references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcsrec (talk • contribs) 17:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ouvrage Rimplas

Updated DYK query On February 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ouvrage Rimplas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Steve Meade

He the most popular music freak out there, Youtube, Facebook and My Space. He has made many astounding music systems and i think he deserves importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyshoppa (talk • contribs) 22:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Advertising isn't permitted on Wikipedia. See also WP:BIO for guidelines on the notability of individuals. Acroterion (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hour of 17:00 on 15 February 2010 deletions

Can you tell me what was on the Galleria Marketing and Paul Kluger pages that struck your fancy to delete it? I'm doing research on it and I know Wikipedia is able to be edited by people and I know that some of the people working there or that have worked for Galleria Marketing (I was one of them) and for Paul Kluger have put stuff on there.

I was just looking for answers. Thank you.

--katherine.a.bernard Katherine.a.bernard (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The article appeared to be promoting the organization, which made no assertion of notability: both are grounds for speedy deletion (and my fancy has nothing to do with deletion). Userspace may not be used for promotion either, and the inappropriate placement of the URL was removed (and is usually symptomatic of a marketing-only account). Acroterion (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

love united hate glazer

why have you deleted my page, when its purely based on facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LUHG Mancunian (talk • contribs) 01:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for the promotion of causes, and pages intended to disparage or attack are deleted. Acroterion (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

intended to attack? its just informing people what is happening at one of the biggest clubs in the world, the media are all over it so i dont understand the problem, its not a "cause" its purely a fact on a football club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LUHG Mancunian (talk • contribs) 01:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You wrote an article disparaging the owners of the club as part of a campaign against them. This is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. Furthermore, it was entirely unsourced, and your user name indicates a conflict of interest and in the context of the article is itself unacceptable. Wikipedia isn't the place to defame people. Please see WP:COATRACK for a discussion of why this kind of article is not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The deleting of YouTube: TH3RGamer

Hello Acroterion,

I am writing to ask if my page YouTube: TH3RGamer should be aloud. I created an account called RJP.Adverttising but it was deleted because administrators thought I was a company (untrue), but in that account I created a page called TH3RGamer. This page was deleted because it didn't specify the importance of TH3RGamer. So as a result of the page and account being deleted I created another account and another page but this time called YouTube: TH3RGamer. After finishing this page, my first ever page, it was again deleted, by you. If you could please consider your delete and please undo it because both account were created within the space of a hour and both articles. That means I am new to Wikipedia and do not know all the regulations for the articles. So please reconsider the deletion of my page and I will take notice of your delete as a tip for the future.

Thank you for your time, Yours sincerely, ArrJayPea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArrJayPea (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read

I apologise if you do undo the deletion please notify the other administrators so they wont delete it on other occations. Thank you, Yours sincerely, ArrJayPea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArrJayPea (talk • contribs) 22:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

From ArrJayPea

The comment you made implying that I was writing an article about myself is, well, disrespectfull. A friend simply told me about this TH3RGamer on YouTube and I had to see what he was on about. I watched a few videos and thought this person was good enough to be put on Wikipedia. I am not TH3RGamer I am simply a fan. Please reconsider my offer in the previous message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArrJayPea (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the article did not indicate that the person meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Peters House

Thanks, Acroterion. Wasn't sure how to get the pic in that box (or rather, was afraid I'd screw it up). Looks good there. Feel free to move the others if needed, I struggled with placement before finally deciding on gallery. Carsonmc (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Atlanta Photos

Acroterion, I have tons of photos of significant, historic bldgs. in Atlanta. I'll try to add as I can. If there are any inparticular that you want, let me know, I might have them and will upload them. As for the info. box, I'll be trying it out soon on a new page. Cheers Carsonmc (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if you've noticed, but Carsonmc has joined WP:NRHP :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Edward Peters House

I forgot to mention, yes, I remember this being the Mansion rest, The Abbey was across the street. I also remember talk of tearing this house down. I do walking tours for a local preservation group. This house is on my tour. Carsonmc (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

The deletion log show you deleted the article on Terry Holdbooks, last August, under A7. I see you userified a version of the text to User:Iqinn/Terry Holdbrooks.

I noticed you didn't restore the full revision history.

I'd like to see the full revision history because I remember the UK prohibitiing the landing of a former Guantanamo guard, who had been booked for a UK speaking tour, and I have a recollection of adding referenced material to the article on that guard. It could be a different former Guantanamo guard. So I'd appreciate you restoring the full revision history -- or all of it that can be restored, barring any revisions that contain outright slander.

FWIW, references I turned up with google satisfies me that this topic, the topic of Terry Holdbrooks, does satisfy our inclusion criteria. He has worldwide coverage, for multiple events.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There were only two significant diffs, both by the original editor, the second of which was formatting the (excessively extensive) blockquotes - you didn't edit the article. On reflection, the main problem was with the general level of soapboxing and promotion, as evidenced by nearly half the article being quotations from the book. I'd agree that Holdbrooks is notable, and the A7 tag wasn't correct; more like promotion, soapboxing, and copyright issues. I can drop the whole thing in your userspace if you'd like. Acroterion (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll see if there is anything worth recovering. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Is that a yes to putting the whole thing in your userspace, diffs and all? Acroterion (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC).
Lol. Forgive me, that is what I meant at the time. But on second thought I'll just take a closer look at the end result at User:Iqinn/Terry Holdbrooks. Thanks for reassuring me by checking the revision history. It must have been an article on another former Guantanamo guard I worked on.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Atlanta Photos

Acroterion, I added several pics. to the NR page and several other places. See my talkpage. I think you have it linked to watch. Will add more very soon. Carsonmc (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding two buildings to the GA NR listing

Acroterion, the Georgian Terrace Hotel isn't listed on the NR Fulton County Ga. Wiki list, it was put on the register in 1986. Lots of history, I'm soon to make a page for it. Designed by William Stoddart in 1911 (same architect who designed the Ponce de Leon Apartments/The Ponce, 1913). Arthur Murray started his dance studios here and it's the place where the 1939 Gone With the Wind Gala was held, with Clark Gable, Carole Lombard, Vivian Leigh, Laurence Olivier, Olivia de Havilland and others in attendance. I hope to have this page written this weekend.

Also, the Shellmont Inn (Nicholson House at 821 Piedmont Ave., which is Victorian w/Colonial Revival elements) isn't listed. It was put on the NR in 1977. Designed by Walter T. Downing and built in 1892.

Too, I believe the house at 761 Piedmont Ave. is also listed on the NR (I haven't found a date). It was built in 1896 by Gottried Norman, same architect as the Edward C. Peters House, and is typical of late Victorian - classic details, individualistic and un-academic.

Did you want to add these? I have pics for them all.

Carsonmc (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. You can verify using the National Register Focus site, and if it happens to be working right, you can get NRHP nominations for some states (alas, not Georgia as of yet). Go ahead and write the articles, and I'll look at the list - it has a stray courthouse in it as I recall. Acroterion (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
LOL, yes, I saw that stray courthouse. Okay, I'll work on the Georgian Terrace page, and, perhaps, Ponce Apartment page. I'll let you know, or you'll see when they've been completed. Too, I'll look at the list and see if you've updated it. If so, I'll add pics.

Carsonmc (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Atlanta City Hall

I added a photo gallery to the Atlanta City Hall page. It's on the NR, but looks different than the other pages that you created - i.e. missing coordinates, et al. Carsonmc (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement?

Acroterion,

I am still creating the page, is your job solley to go around and delete pages. I am new and still reading pages to help with my creating of the page. Could you please not be so quick to delete me. Also how am I using Copyright Infringement? I work for the company and have been instructed to make a wiki page.

Thank you, Frontstreetpictures (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

about john schott

hello my name is duty chucker and am in reference to the john schott article again. i would have to disagree to ur claims because upon reading the article i had to then hand write, he loved it. he was actualy stating that he would have liked it to be on the web for HIS friends to see. he thought it was hillarious. i would truely say that he was not offended in any way, but exstatic about the thought of being on wikipedia. all of his students would also like to see the article online as well. my school, delsea high school would truely appreciate it if you did not block it, and if necessary change the name of the article. please allow it, dutychucker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutychucker (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to post things you've made up about people who don't meet the notability guidelines. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Capital City Club

Acroterion, I added info. to the Capital City Club page in Atl., but then realized it didn't have the national register banners, coordinates, etc. that are listed on the other Fulton County NR pages. Did you want to add that, or did you want me to try it? Carsonmc (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Georgian Terrace Hotel

Added architectural detail and history to the page. Let me know if you see something screwy. My eyes are shot, I've been working on this for over five hours - that is the research and writing. I know that the Fox Theatre district photos would be good to have on their own page, but since one doesn't exist, I thought I'd attach them here...let me know what you think. Cheers.Carsonmc (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Left message for you on my talk page. I cannot remember, do I need to tell you this here, or do you have it marked so that you'll see my messages there? Carsonmc (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about notability

Hi there. Just wanted to inform you that this article which you deleted has been recreated by an administrator. The page has been deleted approximately eight times and apparently now the topic of the article is notable. The only verifiable reference given in the article is one link to The Independent that mentions the topic of the article merely once as a side-remark. The other 3 references are not verifiable for people outside the UK. Your comment as to why this article is now included in Wikipedia will be appreciated. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The version I deleted was a straightforward copyright violation, and the deletion had nothing to do with notability: this version looks fine. Acroterion (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Amsaim (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Hood

Acroterion, I need your help. An administrator is threating to delete three images of books that I placed on the Mary Hood page that I created. These images have been up for over two years. I can change the data below these pics to match that of those of Gone With the Wind. Is this needed? Please advise?Carsonmc (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Other books have as much or less info. See The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter. Carsonmc (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be just as happy if fair use went away entirely. It's appropriate to have an image of Gone with the Wind in the article of the book, but I'm not convinced that images of Mary Hood's books add much to her article. That appears to me to be the argument: an image of a book might usefully appear in the article about a book, but it has less relevance to an author's bio. Acroterion (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand the rational, now. Carsonmc (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Cochran

I'm the webmaster for the website Stephen Cochran or wwww.stephencochranmusic.com. You can email me at [email protected]. I created the wikipedia page for him that you decided to delete which I had approval from his manager to create online article for him. It was deleted under the understanding that it was copyrighted material, material that wrote what is truthful to who he is. Can you please assist in helping to confirm the information data so the article can be published or what I can do to get a page up under his name?

Thank you, jrbamberg [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrbamberg (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two ways to provide verification for use under the GFDL and CC-by-SA copyrights that govern Wikipedia. Either the website copyright can be explicitly altered to compatible language, or a verification from the website via an email from that domain can be submitted to Wikipedia's OTRS address. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Please note that material from a website is almost never suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, as it (quite reasonably for an artist's website) is intended to be promotional, which isn't acceptable in an encyclopedia. The material you posted is no exception and must be fundamentally rewritten to be suitable for an encyclopedia. We request that those with a close relationship to a subject avoid writing on that subject, as it is difficult to write objectively in such circumstances. See Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. The website can be cited as a source, but should not be the only source, as documentation of non-trivial coverage in major third-party publications is also needed. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Rufus M. Rose House

Acroterion, I created this page tonight/this a.m. Let me know what you think. I didn't know, nor could I find (I'm not as adept at the NR stuff as you), the NR number for the house. Cheers. Carsonmc (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When you search for residences, you want to concentrate on the last name in case the listing is in the last-name-first syntax. I entered the search term "Rose" into the Elkman tool and specified GA as the locale, and sifted the eight responses. Updated now, good job.Acroterion (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Acroterion. I brought my camera to work, today, so hoping to sneak out and take pics of Baltimore Row and Fire House 11, both of which are practically next door to me. Sadly, it's overcast. Hum. I can always replace the pics. And great about the NR search function tips you mentioned. Next, I plan on writing the Ponce de Leon Apartment page. Carsonmc (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Superdude9191

IMHO, he is still doing it (reference your warning to him about edits that border on vandalism). I have had to remove his circular redirects in this article [6]. EditorASC (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My warnings concerned fairly obvious vandalism or sheer cluelessness on the 9/11-related articles like American Airlines Flight 11 which introduced spurious information implying that some hijackers survived. This kind of fooling around isn't vandalism, but I don't see the point in what they're doing. I've warned them, thanks for letting me know.Acroterion (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Now that is really from the "outer limits..." The only word that seems to me to fit that situation is "kook." But, I guess I am not supposed to be judgmental that way... Anyway, thanks for your other comments. I chuckled pretty hard when I read the Randy in Boise page. Some of the gurus which were plentiful from the MSN forums days, mustav gravitated over to Wikipedia, when Microsoft shut those down. Cheers, EditorASC (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Baltimore Block

Added photo gallery, including aerial photos I just took this afternoon. Enjoy. Great, great place. Sad only 8 exist. Most people in Atl. know nothing about them as their location is almost hidden by new construction and one way streets. Will be adding Fire Station 11 picture, today. Oh, added aerial photo to Rufus M. Rose House too. Carsonmc (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Schott, Round 2

Okay, what if i speak of "John Schotts" actual military carreer? will that be exeptible enough? I see no reason why an ENTIRE school of people, thats 500 people, can not go to wikipedia and see an article on their favorite teacher. (A teacher that has on many, many numerous occations has won best teacher, greatest teacher, most fun teacher, can not be honnored by a fake "or not" article on him. So i am now asking if an actual article on his actual identity would be exeptible? He has had a military career and has also won an extreme amount of awards for his great educational acomplishments. Would this be okay? yours truely, Dutychucker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutychucker (talk • contribs) 02:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BIO, which clearly covers the inclusion criteria for individuals? Has Mr. Schott received significant coverage in multiple media outlets of regional or national importance? Does he meet the standards described in WP:BIO? Those are the basic requirements for inclusion in this global encyclopedia; what I have to say depends on what those rules say, and whether the information can be backed up by reliable sources.. You obviously like and respect this teacher, which seems to me to be much more valuable and important than inclusion in Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ottawa Police Service

I'm thinking of going to ANI with this since he won't pay attention to his talk page. I don't see a malicious intent to harm the article, just enthusiastic cluelessness, so I guess it's not technically vandalism. --RrburkeekrubrR 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and while I'd be within policy to block them for massive copyvio, it'd be best if someone else does. Acroterion (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I reverted to a much older version as I couldn't find much in the way of valuable additions since here. There were also some suspect removals. I made a hash of the edit summary, but, for the record, my principal concerns were WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTMEMORIAL & WP:COI. --RrburkeekrubrR 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That's fine - the massive nature of the copiyvio makes all contributions by that editor suspect. Given the apathy on AN/I, I doubt that there will be any squawking if I block the IP if they resume copyvio edits. Acroterion (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

dutychucker rests on deletion of john schott and exepts defeat...

by seeing what you wrote puts my arguement at ease. i understand the guide lines and exept the articles deletion. but as a side note, or off the record, in some cases dont you believe that people that may be great and loved by many, but not around the world, should be noticed? i understand that without any GREAT awards John Schott is only a general from desert storm that no one cares about. im not angry at you, dont get me wrong, i am just angry because of this sites guide lines, no one will be able to see what a great man he was, and still is. i understand and exept the deletion of the article. the great honored general from dessert storm will have to rest, as will i. thank you for your time- dutycher p.s- mr john schott is and forever will be the greatest man that has ever walked the earth, in my book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutychucker (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow

A little over the top, aren't we?

Tell me. Would you rather have productive editors, or spend your time making a WP:DICK of yourself driving people away?

Wait. You're an admin. That automatically makes the latter your job. Holy St. Latke And The Jemimah Brigades (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You said it, "productive editors." Not editors who use names like "Saint Pancake" and attack editors who legitimately question the appropriateness of the name and your contributions. If you wish to be unblocked, you may email [email protected] with an appropriate reason that deals with the issues that got you blocked, which you have never addressed. Instead, you have abused all who interact with you, which is not acceptable in a collaboratively-edited encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Acroterion

Check out the acroterions on this building . Thought you might enjoy. Any news on the Maryland Historical Trust request? Thanks in advance--Pubdog (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Look at the acroterions on that one!
On the MHT thing, I'll ping the bot operator - I think they're wrapped up in school work at the moment and are intermittent on the wiki. Acroterion (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

delete?

Why did you delete my page.

I just started it and you deleted it within 5 minutes.

How the hell am i supposed to make a page if it's deleted that quick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpolasik (talk • contribs) 04:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page: it's not generally a good idea to write an autobiography. Acroterion (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


Why did you delete my page!! You are really mean!! talk 6:10, 24 March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ISnarly (talk • contribs)

Rating?

I got St. Henry's Catholic Church (St. Henry, Ohio) and St. Anthony's Catholic Church (Padua, Ohio) to DYK some time ago, but they've never been rated. Would you be willing to rate them? Nyttend (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look. Acroterion (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! One problem with both of these properties is their nomination forms — rather than completing full nomination forms, the people that composed the MPS simply sent in the nominations for the Ohio Historic Inventory, which is our meagre version of a heritage register. You can see a digitised version of such a form here, which I've used at St. Augustine's Catholic Church (Napoleon, Ohio); the OHI forms for the churches you just rated are somewhat more informative, but not very much. I'd like to get back to these churches at some point — if I could work out a way to get inside, I might be able to improve the coverage of the frescoes, for example — but they're far enough away that I'm only rarely in the region (the day I took the photo at St. Anthony's was the only time I've ever been to Padua), and I don't know if they'd be willing to let me in, as I'm a Protestant. Finally, if you'd like to see good interior coverage, check out Ammodramus' new Commons:Category:St. Leonard's church (Madison, Nebraska): 44 good interior and exterior pictures, plus 14 more of the associated rectory and garage. Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Most Catholic churches I've been around are happy to let us heretics in if you don't look like you're going to nail some theses to the door. It was clear that if you'd had the sources, you'd have written about the interiors. I've had the same problem with the French fortifications I've been writing about - there are large and obvious gaps in documentation, even in the best of sources, and WPMILHIST doesn't countenance C class - it's a start or it's B. I have to resort to generalities about what happened after WWII, which can only go so far. Acroterion (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, good to know; I love the Luther allusion :-) Per your comments at St. Henry's, I've modified the High Gothic statement. Is "High Gothic" generally used to mean only the mediaeval architecture and not the revivals thereof? Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Just so. Washington National Cathedral and St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York would be High Gothic in spirit. They're really not High Gothic if you take Gothic seriously, having been built in the spirit of revivalist enthusiasm and 600 years too late. The churches in Ohio are Gothic Revival, regardless of what the author if the thematic study thinks. St. Henry's just uses more High-Gothic-derived detailing. In any case, there aren't any brick High Gothic buildings, ignoring Albi Cathedral as an anomaly (but utterly fascinating). Acroterion (talk)
Okay, makes sense; thanks. I've never known the different styles well enough to be able to distinguish between them. Also — if you have the time, could you try to help me put together a DYK hook that would include both St. Augustine's Catholic Church (Napoleon, Ohio) and First Presbyterian Church (Napoleon, Ohio)? Besides their location in downtown Napoleon (hardly unusual, since there are many other buildings downtown) and their representing half of the county's NRHP listings (surely not very good for a hook), I can't think of anything that might lend itself to a good hook. I'm thinking of trying to say something like "that St. Augustine's and First Presbyterian, on opposite sides of downtown Napoleon, Ohio, have completely different architecture styles", but I really don't know how to phrase this properly. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Will do, once I update something at Ouvrage Rochonvillers and have some lunch, get back to the office, etc. Acroterion (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't have much to offer. The Presbyterian church is quite nice, in a sort of Middle-Earthish way. Acroterion (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC).
What do you think of "that downtown Napoleon, Ohio is bracketed by the prominent architecture of St. Augustine's Catholic Church and First Presbyterian Church?" If we can't figure out how to do a double, I'll just nominate First Presbyterian with something concentrating on the beesnest tower. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say "prominent and contrasting". Otherwise, I'd go with "resembles a beehive" for the Presbyterian church. Acroterion (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! The prominent and contrasting pair of buildings is now at T:TDYK. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting

first off Dakota Cocchi is me i don't know why youu deleted it I work in a small wresdtling buisness... nevermind JUST DON'T DELETE MY NEW PAGE!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakotacage (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate username help

You may want to check into User:Mothafuka123. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Between the name and their history, there's no point in being nice or patient. Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Article list for Glacier NP

I saw your comment at Elkman's talkpage...anyway, I used a few of your pages to help add to a master list of Glacier NP articles which was started by Mike Cline here..thoough not specific to structures, it does list most of those that you had already.--MONGO 06:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Architecture question

Is there a specific term for the type of window visible above the entrance to this church, with two smaller arches topped by a circle to form a larger arch? Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of - it's not part of the classical or the categorized Gothic vocabularies. Acroterion (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks; I've seen or seen pictures of windows like this in many Gothic or Gothic Revival churches (e.g. this photo from Notre Dame de Paris), so I thought that there might be some official name for them. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look through some of my references on Gothic architecture - maybe there's a French term that I've not retained. The space at the top is often called a tympanum in Gothic architecture, and the object within is a rosette. What you have at St. Johns is similar in concept, but I'm not sure I'd stretch the term "tympanum" that far, nor would I call a circle a rosette. You might call it a free interpretation of a Gothic window grouping motif. Acroterion (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You'll see that a tympanum is usually found over a door rather than a window. Acroterion (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
See this [7] discussion of a quatrefoil, except it isn't a quatrefoil. Acroterion (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
How bout a circle set in the transom above round-headed lancet windows? Acroterion (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good; I'm going with "rounded lancet windows". By the way, I may have an interior picture for St. Anthony's Church after all; this post includes some pictures, so I'm going to email to ask for a free license. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought this was an interesting discussion so I asked Giano what he thought. Iridescent also weighed in with this link [8] which has some good info and additional details when you rollover the terminology. No firm answers, but some interesting additions to the lexicon and some historical information on how the styles developed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I feel better: if Giano doesn't know a concise term for the arrangement, then perhaps it doesn't exist. The terminology of Gothic architecture is less rigidly codified, as much of the subject was studied only later by the Victorians, whereas the nomenclature of Classical architecture was specified at the time it was being built, and then discussed in detail by the Romans (i.e., Vitruvius). Therefore, we know that the little faux-wood pegs on the bottom of a triglyph are called guttae, but there are all manner of widgets and gubbinses in Gothic that have no name - at least not in English. Acroterion (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
When i look in one domestic architecture book i have, I don't find a term for the windows, but why the several mentions of Gothic? This can't be Gothic, with rounded top to windows, and I don't see any pointed gothic arch shapes either. I'm curious what architectural style(s) for the church are given in the available sources. --doncram (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Round-topped windows don't disqualify it from being Gothic Revival, at least not in North America - everything else is Gothic Revival in character and intention, and somebody was having fun with the design. In northern England a Gothic building with round arches would be Norman style. In France, it wouldn't exist as Gothic, but in Ohio, it was more freely interpreted. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Alert: Photo Delete

Acroterion, You might be aware, but someone has put a delete tag on the NR Listing Page on the Biltmore Hotel Atlanta listing (and page). I can, or you can, move one of the pics I took into the info. box if you want. Just an FYI... Carsonmc (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

hellfire commentaries

i was going to but i had stuff to finish

Kinghellguy 00:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinghellguy (talk • contribs)

Deletion of Stephanie Haley

Thank you so much. My little brother got on and made this page. Very sorry for the trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singerhmk (talk • contribs) 20:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, happy editing. Acroterion (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

deleted

You Deleted my Reager page i understand. This is actual a true story and it is to the benifit of me and my friends. Some parts were fake but they were stories we made up when we made the word. We Actual use the word —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snrm007 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We deleted vandalism. Please do not re-create the article. Acroterion (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, although I don't know how to make articles I am trying to let people know about my friend Phillipe Price who has done lots of work in my hometown of barrie. i have no source and stuff and don't know how to link stuff but he deserves some recognition.

If you could help me by cleaning up the information I wirte so it is proper and to your standards that would be great thanks.

John Chan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sykoboyko (talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BIO for guidelines. Note that claims about people's sexual orientation will be deleted. Acroterion (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

totally agree :)

had no idea what i was doing & didn't realize i had to have my crap together right away... hahaha :)

i couldn't find a "delete" button or I'd have done it myself :) live & learn :)


thanks for all you do :)

New Photos as requested

Acroterion, just wanted to let you know I took photos, today, and added here: Swan House, MLK Site and Ford Motor Company. Cheers. Feel free to play around with placement of MLK ones, didn't want to delete top photo. Carsonmc (talk)

Good job, they look great! Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ouvrage Rochonvillers

Updated DYK query On March 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ouvrage Rochonvillers, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Friends In Deed A7

Hi -- I'm working on a page about the NYC organization Friends In Deed, and saw that you had previously deleted a page on the organization for A7 reasons. I've put up a version of the page in my user space here: [9] --is there a chance I could ask you to look it over before I move it to live wikipedia status, to avoid A7 in the future?

There is a potential COI, since I work for the publisher of a book the founder of the organization is publishing in May. I think that I've maintained NPOV and that the article is reasonably and reliably sourced, and I think the organization is clearly notable, but the potential COI should be of course borne in mind. Thanks much! Jwthornton7 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The version I deleted was a copyright violation and read like a press release, and the rationale should have been for one of those - I don't quite see why I went with A7. I like your version and it passes the notability test. COI policies exist to discourage boosterism and whitewashing of content; I don't really see an issue here. It's amply sourced and avoids promotion. Acroterion (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Promote Balsam Lake Mountain Fire Observation Station

Hi ... IMHO User:Daniel Case has done an outstanding job on Balsam Lake Mountain Fire Observation Station. How does this get bumped up to a Featured Article?--Pubdog (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The first thing is to rate it: it's obviously not a stub. It needs to be assessed according to the B-class criteria. It meets all of the B-class criteria, so I've changed the rating. The next step would be to request a higher-level review. Usually articles go to Good Article review first, which is frequently better for narrowly-focused articles - FA is a long, involved process fraught with politics, GA is more straightforward (usually). Daniel's worked with both GAs and FAs and knows the drill, so I'd ask him what he thinks is best (and tell him about your appreciation of his work).
I've nudged ThaddeusB again about the bot. I've discovered that the MHT has now placed all of their NRHP noms (except Baltimore City) , as well as all of the Maryland Historical Property Inventory sheets on the site. It's slow and balky, and appears to be powered by underfed squirrels, but it sometimes works. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see the guidance on Balsam Lake. I think Daniel's done an incredible job and deserves notability. On MHT, thanks also for the info on MHT posting the nom forms. Are you suggestig some manual intervention is desirable or will a bot be ble to tackle this, albiet slowly?--Pubdog (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nano-thermite

Hi -- you said that the existing consensus was to keep the mention of it's proposed role by 9/11 conspiracy theories out. Can you show me that discussion? I haven't found it on the nano-thermite discussion page. Thanks! 152.131.10.133 (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much consensus by discussion as consensus by edit, uniformly opposed as WP:UNDUE in an article that's about the material, not theories on its use that are regarded as fringe views in most of the secondary sources that we rely upon. Please note that Bentham, as an open-sourced journal, is not generally regarded as a reliable source: there was discussion about a year ago in several 9/11 related article talk pages on the subject. You may open a discussion on the talk page, if you wish. A concise summary is best, no more than one or two paragraphs. Please remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Acroterion (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Blodgett Hall, Oneonta, NY

I propose a merger or redirect. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me; I'd go with a redirect, as there wasn't much of note in the article. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mummy Cave

After someone gave me compliments on St. John the Baptist Catholic Church (Maria Stein, Ohio) (the building in question in the "Architecture question" section above), I embarked on a mental journey that concluded with my decision to nominate Mummy Cave for GA class. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A mental journey from Ohio to Wyoming! I'd be happy to take a picture the next time I'm out there; we saw a grizzly a few miles up the road from there last time. Thanks for nominating it, and I appreciate the confidence in our collaboration - I've not bothered with anything above B-class, but it's probably time to learn a few new things. I'll keep an eye out for review comments and make a pre-emptive pass through on my own to see if the prose can be improved. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I have one observation: the lede needs to be rewritten to provide a better summary of the article. Comments I've received from some B-class reviews by folks at MILHIST have emphasized the value of a good, concise summary paragraph or two, backed up by referenced elaboration in the body of the article. Acroterion (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I've only once tried for GA; it was the Southworth House (Cleveland, Ohio), which passed. I'm not at all sure what needs to be done with the intro (I thought it looked good), so I can't do anything unless the reviewer makes suggestions. And thanks for taking mental note of trying to photograph it; while I've been to Wyoming, it was only for part of one day (a year ago next Monday), and I didn't get any farther north or west than Laramie. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I've fixed the referencing issues, but I'm not sure what to say about the map. I'm just not clear why that's an issue for this page: since pushpin maps are standard projectwide, shouldn't any issues be taken up with whatever project oversees the location maps? Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Damned if I know; it's a product of the Kartenwerkstatt on de-wiki. This kind of thing tends to fall into the general image sourcing/Commons OR hole, where you can wind up in a bind if you admit that a graphic actually had a source, making it by some stretch a derivative work. Acroterion (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Bell

He came back as another IP, would you mind indef-semi-protecting the talk page to prevent abuse and evasion from him?— Dædαlus Contribs 01:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's been taken care of already. Acroterion (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Superior race

I had an idea and was wondering if you could just redirect it to "Master race" and protect it if needed? Tommy2010 (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan: done. Acroterion (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

New Category

I request permission to make a new category. This category will consist a list of the Japanese victories in the Pacific War of World War II. Lucas Duke (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't need permission from anyone to make a category; just make sure that the category is backed up by the sourcing in each article it is appended to. Acroterion (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

NRHP Applications

Acroterion, I thought you would be of the proper authority to answer this question for me. I've noticed many English Wikipedia articles on NRHP listings, including those authored by myself, take liberally from the text of NRHP applications. While the images on these applications may not be considered public domain, is the text public domain? If so, I'd like to create a template similar to that of Template:Bioguide for NRHP listing articles that utilize NRHP application text. What are your thoughts? --Caponer (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Acroterion can answer, but, briefly, they're not in the public domain, so that's not appropriate. Well, a few of them are, the early ones written by Federal employees. Most are not. --doncram (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
As Doncram says above, it depends. You will see a few written by individuals who are clearly Federal employees, usually for structures belonging to the Federal government, but the vast majority of NRHP noms were written by private individuals, private consultants who were not working for hire for the Feds, or state and local authorities whose works would not be public domain. That said, a template or notice for those that use PD text written by Feds might be a useful flag, although I'd rather see it just get rewritten. Acroterion (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Snake River Ranch

The Ranch Manager for the Snake River Ranch in Wilson, WY is not Scott and Jamie Putnam. The current Ranch Manager is Lance Johnsen who resides at the main ranch location.

Please arrange to correct this information in Wikipedia as it has created some confusion. In the future it may be most beneficial to check your sources more thoroughly before posting on the internet.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.117.217 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The information was added by 15 February 69.144.98.156 (talk · contribs), not me. I have removed it as inaccurate and inappropriate advertising. Please check the article history before making statements such as the one above. Acroterion (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of British Executive Study Tours

I am new to this! Please explain why you have deleted the British Executive Study Tours page? I was in the middle of adding something to the talk page and it was deleted whilst I was writing. I was trying to explain that I was new to this and I needed an explaination as to why the page was deleted so that I could correct the problem before you deleted it. Please let me know why it was deleted but not the Bellerbys College page? British Executive Study Tours is a private company and not a language school or school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfullerroot (talk • contribs) 22:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was about an organization which did not make any claim to meet the notability guidelines for companies or organizations. Bellerby's College is not so clear-cut, as there are a number of sixth-form colleges listed, and I do not see an equivalence between a tour-and-language-study service and a school. Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm, burritos

Woody's Burritos has all the most delicious burritos in Santa Cruz! There are no sources I can find other than the website that says opening soon, but they def. opened and it was the best burrito I ever had! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwood89 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll look for them the next time I'm in Santa Cruz. However, since there are no other sources than your personal testimonial, we'll have to wait until the place gets substantial national notice in the press for an article. Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Threat left on your page

It's being dealt with here [10]. Ridernyc (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nigel did bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.90.157 (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

why did you delete my page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensears94 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Acroterion (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Heloo mr acroterion if you had let me finish the editing of my page you would have seen that it is going to be of great significance and importance. so please can you undelete so i can keep editing and when im finished feel free to make your decision then. many thanks ben sears —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensears94 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied (again) on your talkpage. You may describe your notability there. Acroterion (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fun GUy Friday

This is not a memo; this is something spreading to other offices in teh world that we use.

This is not something that is a joke.

This is something that is real.

National Talk like a pirate day is a huge holiday and was created by a local group. Fun Guy Friday is a methodology in which morale can be boosted in the workforce.

Page will be created again, please stop deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fun guy friday (talk • contribs) 12:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place to promote something; it is a place to recognize documented phenomena. Do not recreate the article: you will be blocked if you do. And it's meme, not "memo." Acroterion (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You deleted my page

Hello,

You deleted my page last night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CultureRealtySolutions quoting:

A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))

However, the article was a stub identifying the a Canadian real estate company. There are many other stub posts :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuProprio.com

and many other Canadian Real Estate companies on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Real_estate_companies_of_Canada

Can you please explain why my post was deleted? Thanks, William —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamscr (talk • contribs) 13:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The article did not indicate that it met the guidelines for corporate notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to use to justify adding more content of the same type; the article in question must stand alone. DuProprio has at least received notice in the press, albeit of a marginal nature. Also, the article was on the edge of being promotional. In addition, please read our policies on conflict of interest. You should not be writing about a subject with which you are closely connected. Acroterion (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Kellblase block

Hello. You recently blocked Kellblase for creating two articles referring to the deaths of certain girls, both of which I had tagged for speedy deletion. I have not had nearly as much experience with Wikipedia as you have (nor am I an administrator!), but it seems to me that perhaps a block was a little harsh. Granted, it was a new and (so far) vandalism-only account and in all likelihood they would never come back to edit anyway. However, I believe the articles created were more of hoaxes than threats, as each only said "this person died" or "this person was killed by..." rather than anything disparaging, and would not necessarily warrant a block.

I'm not looking to have their ban lifted or arguing that you made a bad call, I'm really just trying to get some insight on the policy here-- again, you're the admin. Thank you! AlexHOUSE (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I could have gone either way on this one, but my experience has been that that this kind of joke should be dealt with, if not harshly, then firmly. I've taken somewhat more credible issues of this kind to the police or to school officials. I had some second thoughts on this particular issue, but am convinced that the person in question was unlikely to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia in the near future, and if they do become a contributor later on when they're feeling less silly, then they might have a better understanding of what WP is and is not. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Makes total sense. Thanks! AlexHOUSE (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete Zwinglio's praying page?

Why did you delete this Editing User pray:Zwinglio page? Zwinglio\pray 01:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it was a duplicate of your userpage in article space where it did not belong. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation, Zwinglio\pray 03:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Acroterion, I am sorry to have to ask you again why did you delete User pray:Zwinglio page? I know there is a reason, and probably a good reason, but I don't quite understand whhat is the reason. I was under the impression that this User pray:Zwinglio is another User talk page or User test page. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would like to know why is it that I am mistaken? You say that you deleted it because it was a duplicate of my user page in article space. My talk page and sandbox are duplicates as well. How would I know the difference between user page and article space, since the page is called User pray:Zwinglio? Kindly please explain. Thanks, Zwinglio\pray 01:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The syntax "User pray:Zwinglio" would place the page in article space - in other words, in the encyclopedia, since there is no "User pray:" space. If you wish for something to be in your personal userspace, the syntax would be "User:Zwinglio/pray", which makes it a subpage of your userspace rather than a part of the encyclopedia. For something to be in user space it must be prefaced "User:" or "User talk:". Note the use and position of the colons (:). Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Once again, thank you very much. Zwinglio\pray 13:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

warning to User:Tim5636sc

You placed a level 3 spam waning on User talk:Tim5636sc. Has this uses done more spamming than the speedy deleted page I had already warned him about? your warning did not cite a specific page or pages. DES (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the second incarnation of CLEAN BOOST PERFORMANCE MOTOR OILS, which was both advertising and a copyvio. Since he ignored the first copyvio notice and reinstated the blatant advertising, I didn't think a friendly blue level 2 icon would get the message across. Acroterion (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah I missed that. (The first was also both spam and copyvio) Thanks. DES (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bennies Hill Road Bridge pic

Hi .. nice pic. Just thought I'd let you know I added it to List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Maryland.--Pubdog (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have to create a wikipedia page for my English class about a person that doesn't already have a page. How do i go about doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscott37 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Confused

I don't understand why my page was deleted. It said it was deleted for complete non sense, but I didn't type any gibberish or random characters.

The page was titled "That Game".

Gameboy1100 (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted because it made no sense; it could equally have been deleted for no substantive content, or no context. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
So, if I made it make more sense, or put more info on it, could it be brought back to life?
It was basicly just a mirror of another mind game called "The Game" where if you think about The Game, you lose the game. Here is the link to what I am mirroring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(mind_game)

Gameboy1100 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What about basic things like sources, verifiabilty and clear, concise, understandable encyclopedic content? Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
That is what I was aiming at. I was going to add more to it later and have some friends help. Is there any way to make a rough draft using the format Wikipedia uses that other people can access?

Gameboy1100 (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You can create a working space in your userspace at User:Gameboy1100/sandbox and work on it there. Remember that sources must be of a significant nature, in publications known for fact-checking. Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Elite Radio

why was elite radio deleted? it is a current radio station —Preceding unsigned comment added by Har0xz (talk • contribs) 03:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be non-notable web content. See WP:WEB for information on notability guidelines. Acroterion (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

I was just seeking information Lucas Duke (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The user in question has been blocked since September. You are seeking to debate this person on-wiki. Please confine your discussions to improving the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Rossmcleodrfc (talk · contribs)

Thank you! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:EatTheYeast

I'm not sure if you warned the user first, or the page was recreated first, since they are both the same time. Perhaps a block or creation protection is warranted? CTJF83 chat 19:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It was recreated for the third time, and Mazca blocked him. I warned and deleted for the second iteration. Acroterion (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, CTJF83 chat 19:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nalini Singh, page deletion

It looks like you deleted the page I was creating.

I have been emailing with the author Nalini Singh ([1]), and she told me i could create a Wikipedia page for her, she also told me it was okay if i used the bio from her website. I was just trying to put the page up and then forward it to her so she could look at it and approve it.

Is there a way to have two people with the same name show up when you search? There is already 1 Nalini Singh but it isn't the author.

Thanks

````Q

You would title the article Nalini Singh (author). You have to be specific with Singhs, Smiths, etc. WHile the subject may have agreed that the bio is OK to use here, it is not acceptable to copy content to Wikipedia for re-use. Wikipedia uses a free content copyright that is not compatible with most original-source copyrights. As Ms. Singh appears to be notable, I encourage you to rewrite the article in your own words, using that bio and whatever else is available (see WP:RS for advice on sourcing) to deal with the copyright issue. In particular, the tone of the copied text is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Source

i apologize, i had watched the NatGeo special on him a while ago and became interested in his actions. I read about him in many sources, but cannot remember where, and referencing National Geographic is about all i can offer. You are welcome to revert it to its original scripture with the sources, my apologies for deleting them for it was merely accidental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.95.22 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page - no need to apologize, and your contributions are welcome. Acroterion (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

:84.198.198.143

Is on it again. [11] --OpenFuture (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw it, and was going to ignore it, as it represents an modest improvement in politeness: DFTT. Acroterion (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City, Virginia

Hey Acroterion, I was wondering if you could give the Stephens City, Virginia page a once-over and see if I am missing anything that is normally added to other town/city pages. If you could give me a list or things to add (sections, pictures, etc.) please let me know. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I learned a new word: "bicenquinquagenary." The early history section is a bit light on references; it appears that it's all from one source, but could probably say where it's from at the end of each paragraph. Also, there's no particular information on the present economic basis of the town (I realize Stephens City is a bedroom community, and that I-81 plays a part, so maybe some content could be developed to deal with that). Otherwise, it seems to be a good, complete discussion. I'll look at it again tomorrow when I'm a little more focused. Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I had to look up what the anniversary name was when we, as a town, celebrated our 250th...and from a site (which I have lost in my history) I learned that 250th was bicenquinquagenary. So, I added that neat piece of trivia.
The history of the town (that entire section) was written by Bryon C. Smith at the Newtown History Center in Stephens City. I worked with him and he released the entire text under an OTRS ticket. I will add the one reference to him on each section though, that is a good idea.
Ecomony of the town is good too. I will have to see what I can dig up on the subject. Stephens City does have its own budget, but due to the size of the town, it mostly goes to cosmetic changes and such. They painted lines on Main Street (to mark on-street parking) and put in crosswalks, also done was the beautification of Newtown Park. So that gives you an idea what their budget is for. Problem is, not many of these changes made the local newspapers, so sources would be tough if not impossible, but I like me a challenge.
Look forward to your further ideas tomorrow :) Thanks and Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know, the page has changed since you last looked. I updated the infobox, added a Government section, moved somethings around, added more references and more. Darned Demographics section is still kicking my butt. What is on the page (put there before I started working on the page) isn't matching up to the Census information and I am not sure what to do. Anywho, just letting ya know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
You got a point with Jeff Cesnik. I didn't add that one, but it came with a reference, so I thought "why not?"...but I see your point. I will see if he has done anything recently (outside of Robotica) and consider taking him off the page since he is just the one line.
As for the history section...I feel it would make the page "disconnected" to move the history onto another page. But I know it is ALOT to read. That entire history section was written by one person (as I said above) so it only comes with the one reference, which I listed on each paragraph. I am working on getting a detailed and inline referenced version of that history from the gentleman that wrote it. That will help me clear out some of the "Further reading" section (if not all of it). I will try and get ahold of him this evening or tomorrow and get a copy.
I will definitely reword the "Veterans" section to be more reader friendly. As for the scattered punctuation and capitalization errors, if you would like, please feel free to edit those as you see fit. I have no problem, of course, with someone working on the page...in fact, I encourage it :) Take Care and Thanks for the Help...NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the history could be boiled down; even if you removed it to another article, it would still need a fairly extensive summary section, with subsections. However, I think a fairly ruthless editing would get it in proportion. I'll correct the minor spelling and formatting issues as I see them; I'm having one of my articles reviewed for GA, and the attention given to grammar and sentence structure was quite detailed, and I'm glad I'd weeded out the easy things before it went for review. Acroterion (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I could move the bulk of the history to it's own page, but, see, I am not sure if I can edit any of the history down. It was given to Wikipedia by the Newtown History Center via an OTRS ticket (see the talk page for the number...can't remember it off the top of me head). So that is why I am hesitant to remove to edit (with the exception of punctuation and capitalization errors, etc) as I am not sure, with the OTRS ticket, that I can. I don't want to remove something and then get in trouble for it and lose the whole thing. I also don't know if I can remove it from the page either due to the ticket :S So I am not stalling, I just don't know if I can. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the OTRS ticket means that it must remain unedited - it just means permission was granted and confirmed. It's not a biography of a living person or something like that. You might want to ask somebody with OTRS access about policy, but I don't see this as something that's un-editable, just something that needs to be abridged while remaining properly attributed. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie, I understand. I think I know someone with OTRS access and I will ask him about the policy. Thanks for your help :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Death Hoax

Why did you delete my article? That was the only page where people that believe that he is still alive enjoy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Coloma (talk • contribs) 02:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

An unsourced hoax is not suitable for inclusion. A previous version (which was also a copyright violation) was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson Death Hoax. This one is different, but the same effect. A careful examination of coverage of this phenomenon sourced from the mainstream press might have a place, but not pure speculation. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello

I would like to ask your opinion about the format that should be used for the localities from Romania with an important Hungarian population

From the Romanian Constitution: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=1#t1c0s0a13 "In Romania, the official language is Romanian". Also, According to Local Public Administration Bill (promulgated in 2001): "Where over 20 of the population is of an ethnic minority, all documents of a legal character will be published in the ethnic minorities' mother tongue.".

My opinion is that according to wiki rules Hungarian names should be listed before for example German names, but still in parantheses, in Italics: Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name, German: German_Name)

We just want to respect the standard naming policy WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule

User:Rokarudi, instead of focusing on the discussion, falsely accuses the editors who don't support his POV that are sockpuppets of User:Bonaparte

Can you please express your opinion here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hungarian_names_of_Romanian_places

Thanks in advance for your answer and sorry if it wasn't a good idea to post this message here (Umumu (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

I have little to contribute on this matter, as I've not participated in much content regarding naming conventions. The Romanian Constitution is mostly irrelevant where Wikipedia is concerned, although the rule appears to be a useful basis for a naming convention. Naming disputes with an ethnic dimension are among Wikipedia's most bitter feuds. I would suggest reviewing some other ares of Eastern Europe to examine the naming precedents - there are parts of Poland that have seen three different regimes, for instance, and there is probably a precedent in Czech and Hungarian articles. Switzerland may also provide leads, although the ethnic disputes there have been well-moderated. Acroterion (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Herman Melville

Policy question... Brand new User:ClareSpark has just added a book to the reading list here,

  • Spark, Clare L. Hunting Captain Ahab: Psychological Warfare and the Melville Revival (Kent State University Press, 2001, rev.ed. paperback 2006.

If she were not so honest in her choice of user name, I might have thought nothing of it, aside from doing the needed reformatting.

The four Amazon reviews are mixed, with three at five stars, one at one star. Other reviews, generally positive, so arguably the book has value.

So:

  • it may well be a useful addition to the reading list
  • it's surely COI
  • I'm reluctant to penalize honesty

You're paid big bucks for tough Wiki decisions -- should it stay or go? Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 19:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to suppress a potentially useful addition on the grounds that it is sort of spammish, and it's been in print for a while now, so it's not like she's promoting it for her book tour. The negative review appears to be by someone unaccustomed to academic analysis. I'd leave it alone.
I'm still waiting for the Wiki-gold I was promised before my RfA, not to mention the WIki-groupies. Acroterion (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not exactly a gorgeous blonde teeny-bopper groupie (on at least four grounds), but you can count me as a fan.Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 10:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I think. Fortunately for me, my wife likes geeks, and fortunately for her, blonde and young are overrated.
By the way, I like your subpage on architectural photography. I've been re-training myself do shoot with digital after shooting film for thirty years, and am continually surprised by how different it can be. I miss doing B&W in the darkroom and watching the image emerge, but I don't miss working with color wet photography. Happily, Photoshop lets me adjust color images without burning money. Perspective cropping in Photoshop has helped with falling-over-backwards buildings, although I'll probably eventually get a tilt-shift lens anyway. Acroterion (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. For historical reasons I use Corel Photo-Paint, although I think I'm going to start using GIMP because I'm doing a partial shift to Linux. Although Photo-Paint has perspective cropping, I've never mastered it.
I own a Nikon 28mm PC, which I use a lot. Fact is, though, that using a shorter non-shift can also do the trick. The shortest Nikon shift lens is a 24mm, which shifts 11.5mm -- half the shorter side of the frame. So it adds 50% more effective coverage the short way, or 33% the long way. But the 15mm (which I also own), has an angle of view 50% greater than the 24mm, so it has 50% more coverage both ways, important for most buildings for which perspective is a problem. Of course, you have to crop the bottom, so you're giving away pixels, but unless you're doing big enlargements, it won't show. On eBay, the 15mm appears to cost less than the 24mm PC, so it's worth thinking about. (I've ignored the possibilities of the 13mm and 14mm, as ordinary mortals can't afford them).Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mosbeast

I recently created a page called "mosbeast". Mosby is an important dog in the Columbia SC area, especially around five points. He is widely known and loved by everyone around him. He is a Boykin Spaniel and is truely an exceptional dog. While the page might come off as humorous, it would make a lot more sense if you knew the dog. We could go into more detail about why he is such a "beast" and why he is loved on the page. We apologize for the misunderstanding and hope you will put the page back up. We are actually going to present the page for one of our classes at the University of South Carolina. I hope you can find it in your heart to please put the page back up!

God Bless, The Mosbeast Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsaparow (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see here for why the page was deleted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for getting the Mummy Cave article to GA level!!...Moxy (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Nyttend (talk · contribs) deserves full credit too: he pushed for expansion of the initial stub, found sources, formatted references, wrote a substantial part of the content, and pushed for GA. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Done and done!!!Moxy (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the credit; nevertheless, I think you did a lot more work overall. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a collaborative work, and it wouldn't be a GA without your effort and encouragement. Acroterion (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Terminology help

Can you think of a six-letter word whose final four letters are "mock" that would describe a sort of transcept? I'm using an NRHP nomination form to write about a church, but the NPS staffer who copied the form misaligned the copier, so that the first two letters of each line are cut off; for example, a different line begins with "tagonal spire". For context, here are the two lines with the sentence in question, with underscores standing for the missing letters:

__tagonal spire and gold cross. Gable projections form
__mock transcept. Buttress-like supports on the side walls"

Thanks for your help! Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's my only picture of the church; hopefully it can help you. Here is a Street View of the site, if that's at all useful. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's literally "... octagonal spire and gold cross. Gable projections form a mock transept." Gable projections would create something resembling a transept if the bay doesn't project beyond the nave walls. The spire in the picture is indeed octagonal, for the part above the tower at least. Acroterion (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
If you cruise down the street in Street View (to the left), you can see a gable that's almost flush with the side wall of the church, thus a "mock transept." Acroterion (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thanks. It's been a long time since last I encountered the word "transept", so I didn't know that "transcept" was a typo on the part of the author of the nomination form. I had wondered if it were "mock transcept" [it's written with a typewriter, so all the letters are the same width], but I figured that I must have guessed wrongly when Google brought up zero searches for "mock transcept". What's more, I thought that the reference to gables discussed the fact that the front façade is not a square; I had no idea that it was referring to the side. I hope to get back to this community before long; the day I took the picture was busy, and I didn't have time to take any other pictures that might have shown the transept. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
A true transept (the word is frequently misspelled, as you've found) would project beyond the nave walls, so that the plan of the church would form a Latin cross. I think the nominator was being a bit pedantic in his evaluation - plenty of 13th Century High Gothic churches would have "mock transepts" by that definition. Acroterion (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation; I'll rewrite my description of the transept. It turns out that I really did get more pictures and simply hadn't uploaded them; you can see the transept (and the octagonal spire) better in File:St. Nicholas Catholic Church, Osgood, western side and front.jpg. Hopefully I can finish this article soon; I'm just waiting on a county history book via interlibrary loan, since the nomination form is quite cursory in its parish history. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted My Page? Help me out ?

Apparently, you deleted the page infolona which i made today. It was regarding my dads company/website infolona. It had 0 marketing and was just brief stuff about infolona, what it is , what it does, why its important.. etc. First, Can you activate the page again? Secondly, Help me with it. PIN POINT THE ERRORS SO I CAN WORK ON THEM. IV BEEN STRUGGLING SINCE 6 HOURS AND YOU JUST DELETED THE PAGE IN 1 CLICK ? :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmayajain (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Acroterion (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Previous Message

""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.""

Can i get a copy mailed? Ill attempt to write the article again according to the notability. Could you assist me with this ? Thanks =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmayajain (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

PS

Somebody else is making the infolona page again within the notability and guidlines provided by wikipedia. Please contact before taking action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmayajain (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dwayne Tryumf

Seeing as you're doing new page patrol, could you look at this one? Looks at best marginal to me, and the OP took off my speedy tag. Thanks, PhGustaf (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

When you look at it seriously, they fail WP:BAND conclusively. Acroterion (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:

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

Could you please salt Infolona which is a third re-creation of a A7

Please, the creator keeps on building this article. Please salt it. --Morenooso (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe I'll send it to AfD if it gets re-created, so I will be a trivial delete if it reappears, although there may well be a flood of meatpuppets, based on the editing patterns. I'd prefer for that it get speedy-deleted by someone else, though, to make it clear that there is a consensus and not one lone admin who objects. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

I'm not sure I understand the rule.

  1. X makes an edit
  2. Y believes the edit is inappropriate and reverts it
  3. X makes the same edit
  4. Y reverts it again
  5. X makes the same edit
  6. Y reverts it again
  7. X makes the same edit
  8. Y reverts it again

Who breaks the rule first? As I read WP:3RR, it's Y, at step #6. Is that right? That seems a low bar -- that the two should have discussed it before X made edit #3.

I ask because User:Hmains is adding Orphan tags again to NRHP places. The policy at WP:ORPH#Criteria seems to me very clear -- tags are to be added only to articles with zero links. We're at step #3 above on Adams-Magoun House, I know from experience that Hmains won't respond to discussion, but I have no interest in breaking 3RR. On the other hand, it seems to me another clear case of Hmains using AWB to make controversial edits.

Although my inclination in most instances where I don't like what a user is doing is to walk away -- there are too many articles to be written to fight small battles -- I think this one is worth a little more attention because many NRHP sites will have a limited number of incoming links -- often just the one from the state/city/county listing. The Adams-Magoun house is a case in point. It's notable only for being an early house in the City of Somerville. Adams and Magoun were not notable and there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of other Federal houses, so it's unlikely to attract other links.

Although {{orphan}} has no direct effect on the future of an NRHP article, it sits at the top of the article, saying, "This article is deficient" in a box. It seems to me that such tags should be avoided where they are not useful -- it seems doubtful to me that tagging a lot of similar NRHP articles is going to squeeze more links-in out the stone. Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond in more detail when I get a chance, and I'll have a word with Hmains, who has a history of tagging and recategorizing against consensus. I dislike the orphan tag, as it applies to virtually every article at some point in its life, and can probably be stuck on millions of articles. It means nothing, and is a pointless substitute for a few minutes of productive de-orphanizing - AKA WP:SOFIXIT. Acroterion (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep. It's not a 3RR issue tho. A 3rr violation is reverting more than 3 times within 24 hours. In the example given, assuming in the original edit X made some other change to article besides adding orphan tag, and assuming other changes are not part of later edits, X has to revert one more time (making 3rd reversion by X), and then Y has to revert one more time, then Y is in violation, if all 4 of Y's reversions were within 24 hours. In the Magoun article and elsewhere, the editor is just adding the orphan tag as a byproduct of visiting the articles to make category additions/changes, and never simply reverting to add orphan tag alone. The issue is a wide-ranging behavioral pattern of editing against likely-nearly-unanimous consensus of all other editors who care about the NRHP articles. --doncram (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Aha, thank you. So it's #8 in the revised list above that is the first violation, "more than three reverts" being four. That's a really low bar -- if I ran the zoo, I'd cry a pox on both their houses after #4 in the list above.
Yes, of course, the orphan tag is not the only problem I have with Hmains, but it's the most visible. I can live with the Transportation tags he's adding to Lighthouses -- I don't like it, but it doesn't sit right at the top of the article.Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's really 4RR, although nobody really has a right to three, most admins wait for four, preferably after a warning, to avoid a visit to AN/I or AN3 amid cries of "I wuz abused by a rouge admin!" I'll answer more fully, but am about to face a houseful of visitors, yesterday having been spent preparing for the onslaught. Acroterion (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.nalinisingh.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion/Archive_Q1_2010&oldid=1088829057"