Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:37, 8 April 2009

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Jan-Mar 2009

wp:HSITES

Sure, I'd work on the California task force. Rosiestep (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Huckleberry Island, Beechwoods Cemetery, and Glen Island Park (New Rochelle, New York)

When you removed the G5 speedy-deletion templates from these articles, you stated (or at least implied) that you would be taking responsibility for their contents, not merely shielding the unwelcome (and suspect) work of a banned contributor. I realize that only a couple of days have passed, but if you have not been able to get down to the task of thoroughly researching these articles and verifying them, I suggest that it is time for you to either move them to your user space (so you can work on them later) or expect an AfD process to begin. --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You tagged 5 New Rochelle area articles for speedy deletion within a few minutes. I and others removed the Speedy deletion tags as the Speedy tagging was rather obviously contrary to wikipedia guidelines. Two of them you put up for AfD, where I spoke against you, and where I think/hope the AfD request will be denied. I don't understand what productive purpose you are trying to accomplish with any of this. My honest question to you: why don't you go do something else, in or outside of wikipedia? doncram (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, I tagged those articles for speedy deletion because they were created by sockpuppets of a banned user and the only substantial edits had been by other socks. Misplaced Pages policy (WP:Ban) states:

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons.

Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to. Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a {{db-g5}}, or its alternative name {{db-banned}}, to mark such a page. If the banned editor is the only contributor to the page or its talk page, speedy deletion is probably correct. If other editors have unwittingly made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned user, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do.

Note the statement "Users who reinstate take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." Since you removed the speedy deletion templates from these pages, I concluded that you intended to take responsibility for vetting the article contents, but you have not done so. In effect, it seems that you have chosen to aid and abet the activities of the banned user.

As for the two articles that I put up for AfD, they were the ones that appeared to have the most trivial topics -- where I saw the least possibility of a plausible basis for arguing that the importance of the topic was reason to "rescue" the articles. If you are not interested in rescuing the other three articles, I guess I need to put them up for AfD also. --Orlady (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have committed, I am opening an Unban case by tomorrow. I believe that will be the correct forum to continue this general discussion. I think it will be distracting and unhelpful for you to open AfDs on these three right now. doncram (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of being unhelpful, it seems to me that keeping those articles on public view falls in the "unhelpful" category because it encourages banned users to engage in behavior deleterious to Misplaced Pages and the community of contributors. As I suggested earlier, you could move those three articles to your own user space (and ask to have the redirects deleted) until such time as you are ready to work on them. --Orlady (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What i suggested would be unhelpful would be for you to open 3 more AfDs right now, to add to the 2 ongoing ones which will probably fail, at the same time as the community is being asked to ocnsider a complex Unban proposal about the Jvolkblum mess which your actions have, in my view, greatly widened and extended. Your actions have in general made a bad situation worse, in my view. The unban proposal will, unavoidably, be partly a referendum on your behavior (and on mine too, I suppose). Here, I am saying I think it would be unhelpful for you to force the AfD discussions right now. It will not really advance the general discussion for me to spend time on those 3 articles in some other way, either, right now. doncram (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If those two articles that I took to AfD survive AfD, it will be because the contents will have been verified and rewritten. --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I renew my request that you take responsibility for the content of these articles, in keeping with the implicit commitment that you made when you removed the speedy deletion templates. There is still a valid basis for requesting their deletion, as these articles are still substantially the creation of a banned user evading the ban -- not to mention that fact that this is a banned user whose content cannot be trusted. --Orlady (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have trimmed Huckleberry Island back to the content that the cited sources actually support, and removed the two external links, one of which was a link to a terraserver image (should be replaced by coords) and the other of which had no apparent relevance. Beechwoods Cemetery is already no more than a minimal stub, but I note that the only source for most of the article is "find-a-grave," which is not generally regarded as a WP:RS. This leaves only Glen Island needing verification. --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to note: You speak as if your revising some NR area articles to your liking, settles something. You have elsewhere expressed how you dislike New Rochelle, its students, its affluent community, etc. What you accomplish on your own, alongside with destroying any budding wikipedians who are actually interested in NR, is really not likely to be very good. Who are you writing for, and why? It may sound corny, but if the writer does not love the subject, the writing is at best sterile. If i took over these, I would want to allow and encourage the locals to contribute and take over, and that would be the point. I would see it as facilitation and that would be clear to others; I don't know how to describe what role you seem to envision for yourself with respect to these articles in any positive way. Can you envision a positive role there, for you or for some other moderator?

Anyhow, Find-a-grave is fine for establishing that someone famous, or semi-famous, is buried somewhere. This is not a Featured Article nomination. doncram (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have come to dislike New Rochelle because of the time I have expended rewriting articles to remove and rewrite detail-filled flowery text (about ephemeral N.R. topics) that turns out to have little or no relationship to the sources cited.

On the subject of rewrites, I had high hopes that your desire to save these articles from speedy deletion would motivate you to take responsibility for their content. However, I finally gave up and trimmed Glen Island Park (New Rochelle, New York) down to what I could find support for. I would like to be able to say "You're welcome," but I don't guess I expect you to thank me for the effort.

A stubby article that is verifiable has far more value to this encyclopedia than a long detailed piece that has no relationship to the sources it cites (and is likely to be some combination of copyvio and fiction). However, this article still suffers from the fact that it doesn't know whether its topic is Glen Island or Glen Island Park. Perhaps you can resolve that question. Also, I left some unsourced content in the lead section, but flagged it with several "citation needed" templates. --Orlady (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Misplaced Pages talk:LAHCM

I have nominated Misplaced Pages talk:LAHCM (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz 09:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded there to defend the redirect which i had created. Thanks for the notice, I guess, but why bother to attack a redirect in Misplaced Pages talk space? doncram (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion, please

Billwhittaker recently put together an article for the Bertrand Site in Washington County, Nebraska under the name of Steamboat Bertrand, along with several pictures. Which picture from the article do you think is best suited to the county list? I've put the picture of the model on the list for now, but I wonder if the picture of the artifacts might be better. Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Declared/designated

Is "declared" the official NHL term, or is it just the one that's preferred by WP:NRHP? Seeing your edit to the Wyoming list today reminded me of the question, which had occasionally popped into my head for quite a while now. Nyttend (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have thot the preferred term was "designated", but wikid77 has been trying to narrow columns and so i was going with the shorter declared there, better than a weirdly abbreviated and wikilinked desig. or desig'd or something. Yes, the NHL official webpages use "designated", e.g. this example. The nationwide PDF list of NHLs doesn't seem to use any term, just lists a date. doncram (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Unban proposal at wp:AN including topic ban request on New Rochelle area edits

I opened an Unban proposal, which also includes a topic ban request on User:Orlady, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady. This may reduce my availability to address other matters. doncram (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I meant to reply earlier to your kind invitation to participate in WikiProject Historic Sites. I seem to find myself up to my ears in reviewing, research, and writing, and I must regretfully decline. I wish you luck. Finetooth (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Siena College

I am sooooo happy to be for once roughly on the same side as you instead of being polarized opposition! Per your request that previous arguments be restated for the benefit of newcomers to the discussion I have added a new section to the argument on my personal opinions, as the person who kinda started all this. (Sorry about that). My goal is not to remove the name Loudonville and replace it with Newtonville. Simply to state that there is some wiggle room or unclear relationship between whether the college is in Newtonville or not, I think it is important for the article of Newtonville, New York to mention Siena College but that keeps getting an "undo" put on it due to the dispute here. Without compromise here the Newtonville article loses one of its most important aspects of why it should even exist.Camelbinky (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It really sucks that it came down to a block on the page and I feel responsible for the warning you got, as it was I who started all of this discussion and everything. I am truly sorry. On the bright side your version ended up being the version it got blocked at. If I understand correctly the block only lasts five days? Do you know if that is true and what happens then, can hippo just go back to changing it? I dont want you to stop commenting on discussion and walk away. I always thought wikipedia was the purest form of democracy, but I guess its more like hippo is fillabustering and we just cant overide. There has got to be some wikipedia guideline to end this. I mean we've all tried to compromise and nothing has worked.Camelbinky (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I liked the joke about the bar in the Pinebush. That was really good. Tell you what- next time you find yourself in an argument on an article let me in on it and I will start breaking chairs over people's heads!Camelbinky (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Have you gone and read the comments made by some other people on hippo's talk page? This really seems like a common thing to happen with him, he's been blocked for editing warring before, others have accused him of edit warring many times without taking things to the talk page to explain why he reverted in the first place and to continue to do it after a discussion begins and is ongoing. To continually insist the article remains HIS way while a discussion is ongoing and no concensus has been reached seems arrogant and against wiki civility if not policy. Contact them if you think it might help. I have said to hippo before, and I dont care if an admin warns me on it in the future, I really think what hippo likes to do is clearly trolling, he uses wikipolicy as a shield but the essays out there on trolls say they often do that, that having policy on their side isnt a defense. For the longest time we had a concensus of 5-1 on a reasonable compromise, it should have stayed that way. Now others have gotten fed up and left the argument. I really think you should bring this to the next level of whatever. I went and got a second opinion (daniel case), and that wasnt enough for a resolution, daniel case went and put out a request for comment, that didnt do any good. I support you and am with you the whole way all the way to the end, just lead the way and keep me informed what you need me to do as to where this is going and everything.Camelbinky (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You should do some research on wp:troll, remind you of someone? Hiding behind wiki guidelines to cause controversy despite commonsense and a majority of editors disagreeing? Hmmm....I have called our friend this before, and I stand behind it, regardless of if it gets me in trouble. We call out vandals and sometimes we are wrong, but dont get punished, I'm just saying it looks to me that this is what we have and I think it holds water to believe so.Camelbinky (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, did you actually read that essay on trolls - one thing I noticed was "When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not." It seems like you are reading what you want into it. By my reading of it, it could be applied to just about anyone who you disagree with. If you think someone is trolling, you don't think they are engaging in "genuine dissent" etc. It could certainly be applied to you, me, Doncram, maybe others in this dispute. Probably best if we all assume good faith.

To the above unsigned commenter I will respond here as I do not know who posted it and cant respond on their talk page (which I will assume in good faith was accidentally not signed)- I did assume good faith for a long time. The conflict has escalated. I am not the only one who has recently brought to others attention that more needs to be done regarding the editor in question. It is not about genuine dissent, it is about reverting and editing in contrast to any concensus or lack of concensus. Editing to a certain version during discussion before discussion is resolved is bad faith plain and simple, bringing the edit conflict to more articles without concensus after being told by multiple editors that they dont agree with that interpretation is further bad faith and against wiki-policy. Editing against concensus is vandalism even if the editor thinks they are right and everyone else is wrong.Camelbinky (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WHS Africa list

Hey, you made my nice neat list look sloppy and abandoned it!  :) Lvklock (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks nice. Where do you get those coordinates from? Lvklock (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All that's left to do for basic tablization is the EUR region, exclusive of Bulgaria. Does it need to be split into smaller pieces, like Bulgaria, or just one big table for the rest for now? Lvklock (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I realized that likely most of the redlinks had articles, so I started in EUR checking for articles and pipelinking them, but now I'm thinking that i should possibly be setting up redirects instead....which is the way you'd normally do it? Lvklock (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and direction. Lvklock (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Siena College

Just as a reminder, you're at 3RR on Siena College. I know both sides are discussing this on the talk page (I'm also leaving a warning on the other reverter's page), but please don't edit war, even while talking it over. Good luck on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You are a Wiki-Terrorist ?!? (He is not, of course!)

Hey Doncram,

I am not exactly sure if we have talked before but somehow your talkpage pops up on my watchlist in connection with recent controversies. If we have not met before: "Hello there, nice to meet you!"

There is a lot of stuff going on on Misplaced Pages that does not head in the right general direction in my humble opinion. It seems that you are under the "suspicion" of being a suckpuppet, meatpuppet or contributor of worthless stubs. In other words, you are a Wiki-terrorist of some sort and every single one of your steps is monitored. The vultures are waiting for you to make a mistake in referencing information in an article. You are under the constant risk of being banned ... just because. Take the articles about New Rochelle referred to above, for example. Two of the three mentioned are stubs and one looks quite good to me. I did not check them in detail but the two stubs, again in my humble opinion only, should have a right to exist on Misplaced Pages. I have produced stubs like this myself and some topics do not have enough to write about (for now) but they still have a right to exist on Misplaced Pages and are helpful, at least in my understanding of the Misplaced Pages project. I have seen stubs created by the person accusing you (O), that were of the same grade or lower and they are still part of the encyclopedia. Stubs are something other editors can add to. Babies are not born fully grown either ...

The rating system here includes stubs and that is great. No editor, apprentice admin or admin, in my opinion, should be allowed to criticize or attempt to delete an article just because it is short and incomplete. The last definition of a stub that I use to assess articles is this one: A stub class article "provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition". (This is the definition taken from the Wikiproject Tennessee assessment page) That definition would cover every very short article that does not include information that is proven incorrect. I am opposed to develop articles in the user space in most cases, there might be instances where it is appropriate but this is not and should not be a general rule to adhere to and no one should be required to do so. Misplaced Pages claims that it can be edited by anyone, but that is only possible if the article develops in the open, where everyone has access to it. You can do it in the user space, if you want, but you don't have to. In general, secrecy about things related to Misplaced Pages should be forbidden.

If stub articles are unwanted, due to community consensus, the rating system should be changed to "perfect" (the lowest grade), "even more perfect", "apprentice admin approved perfect" and "admin approved perfect" (the highest grade, which can only be reached if you have good contacts to people in admin positions to grant that status). Please excuse my sarcasm here. But it is not only about the stubs, it is how (some) people treat other editors here, but still find supporting votes when they seek or are suggested for adminship. I have read your complaint about O and her paranoid behavior when it is about sockpuppets. Don't get me wrong here, I appreciate O's contributions and they are of value for the Misplaced Pages project, as well are yours. But there seem to be personal issues that get mingled up with Misplaced Pages. At any company you would get fired if you mix your personal deficiencies with job related tasks and that has a negative impact. Not here. I wonder why?

Maybe, maybe, Misplaced Pages is a psychological experiment. To see how Orwell's Animal Farm works out with real people. An experiment to find out how well it works if a group of people, essentially working on the same project, is given the opportunity to organize itself and make their own rules to govern itself. If I had to make a judgement about this question today, with the limited perspective I have of Misplaced Pages ... I would say, the experiment is a failure. The pigs are taking over and it is going to get worse. I admire and encourage your persistance to fight the negative and discouraging forces and I appreciate your contributions to improve Misplaced Pages.

Let me conclude this note with these famous few lines below. So long ago these words were formulated so perfectly, with so much thought, skill and care for the right words by one of the greatest writers of all times. Good old William Shakespeare would not worry about a copyright that might be violated here, I am very sure of that. He would smile in his grave (or where ever he rests in peace) and be proud that what he wrote could not be formulated better by anyone in the in the last 400 years since his work was first published. What if William Shakespeare had been discouraged from writing? A poor place this earth would be ...

Take care and happy editing, doxTxob \  05:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken about me being a wiki-terrorist; rather i am involved somewhat in defending several persons caught up in an anti-terrorism-type campaign, where the cure is worse than the disease, in my view. Thanks though for the nice quote, nice message overall. doncram (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for the misunderstanding! The terrorist remark was sarcastic. Of course you are not a Wiki terrorist!!! Not at all! I am sorry to have formulated my words in a way that could be misunderstood this drastically! As I stated above, your contributions are a valuable addition to the project. This is not only valid for your edits but also for your opposition against the "slings and arrows" that are cast at you (and others) from certain users or user groups.

Absolutely do I take the same stance on banning (or rather not banning) users as you do, especially if the only evidence is "duck-like" editing activities and the "suspicion" of something merely based on an IP number. "Suspicion" or "duck-like" activity is not enough. There are things going on here on Misplaced Pages that should not be like they are. Facts are kept secret and small groups make their own decisions, withholding information from the community. You are right, and I share your position in this matter, and that was what I intended to come over in my message, "the cure is worse than the disease". "Well roared, lion!" (Shakespeare once more).

Again, I am sorry that my sarcasm was not formulated clearly enough and offended you. It was meant just the opposite way, as a support of your actions to prevent useless user bans and as an encouragement for you to keep going in that direction, holding the true values of Misplaced Pages high and be willing to fight for the right thing. For this reason, I award you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. You deserve it!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your efforts to "take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them", ... hopefully. doxTxob \  02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Take care and happy editing, doxTxob \  02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

LA neighborhoods

Hi doncram ... Based on your edits to National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles, you seem to have knowledge of the neighborhoods of LA, would you please the neighborhoods for the 7 listings added to the NRHP this week? I placed 6 of the 7 in South Los Angeles and 1 in Downtown Los Angeles. For future reference, how do you determine which neighborhood a site is in? Thanks. --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fountain of Time/Washington Park

I thought you might be able to help me find info on Washington Park details about Fountain of Time. Might there be any commentary in the Park's National Register of Historic Places application about the vistas of Fountain of Time. FoT is now at FAC and I have a discussant who is looking for answers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked up "Washington Park" in Haargis. Why does it yield 24 displays?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, i tried Haargis too, following the instructions i wrote out at wp:NRHP for Illinois-specific resources. After building a query, i get to 24 database items' detail reports as well. There are separate entries/reports for a statue, for a swimming pool, for a fireproof warehouse, etc., all within the park. Unfortunately, I don't see a link to an overall document about any one of the first 5 or 6, within their reports. For the fireproof one, i do find links, but not getting me to a PDF file, at least not quickly. I took a guess about using one of the id numbers to guess what PDF for it might be filed under, parallel to some other document URLs from the agency. Hmm, I find nothing at http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/PDFs/163543.pdf but I get a 75 page, 3.5 mb document when i try http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/PDFs/200151.pdf. That is a scanned copy of a Hyde Park-Kenwood Historic District NRHP document, detailing 222 contributing structures and supporting a boundary increase application. I don't know if that district overlaps, includes Washington Park or is separate, but I got the 200151 number from one of those detail reports. You could try other guesses like that, but really any available PDF documents should be listed in the detail reports. You could wade through them all, looking for PDF links. Anyhow, it looks to me that the database is an inventory database of structures and objects. This is similar to a National Park Service database about structures within the National Parks that are operated by the NPS. This is rather primary data, not very helpful; it certainly would be better to find an original application document with narrative discussion, but i am not seeing that on-line. Perhaps this situation requires a request to the Illinois agency for a hard-copy of any original application. This is not NRHP-listed, right? If it is NRHP-listed, you could request same from the National Register (by email to nr_reference (at) nps.gov, to be postal mailed to you at no charge. Hmm, it is NRHP listed. You should just request the application documents from the National Register, for both the Washington Park (refnum 04000871 and 92000483) and for the Washington Park Historic District that also includes it (refnum 73000710). I got the reference numbers from searching on Washington Park in IL in Elkman's NRHP infobox generator. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

When you say contact nps.gov, I am not sure how. As I look at http://www.nps.gov/contacts.htm I do not see an applicable contact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Another contacts webpage http://www.nps.gov/nr/about.htm#contactus includes, under Contact Us / Email / Reference, the nr_reference email address i stated. I am in frequent contact with them via that email address. doncram (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I missed that that was an email address in the first communication. Sorry.

There are Washington Parks in Elkman's search tool in three parts of the state. The 24 DB items are mostly from the Cook County one. Would it be fair to describe things like Fountain of Time and the Adminstration Building that now hosts the DuSable Museum as contributing structures to a U.S. Historic district based on their inclusion in the DB?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Oh, sorry, the 92000483 refnum is for the one in Springfield. Other 2 refnums seem relevant tho. Hmm, i don't want to define a new term, contributing structures as opposed to contributing properties. I am not sure that contributing structures is an official term (it might be though). I would think that the contributing structures of a historic district would be anyhow, would be whatever is listed within the historic district's nomination document. Such documents often list out and number all the contributing properties or structures, and also non-contributing ones. I see that i myself used "contributing structures" in William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures#this example historic district article where i listed out both types. It's a good bet that the Washington Park and/or Washington Park Historic District docs would list those two, and others, but i'd personally rather have such documents in hand to be able to use the exact name that the district uses for the place, and to document it properly. doncram (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you'd be defining a new term. My interpretation, from looking at "Section 5. Classification" on a nomination document, and specifically at the "Number of Resources within Property", is that the NPS already uses the terms contributing buildings, contributing sites, contributing structures and contributing objects. I know I have used the term contributing structures, though I can't immediately recall where. In one historic district I have pics of but haven't written the article yet, there are 26 contributing objects...mainly hitching posts and carriage steps. I'd call them contributing objects in the article. Lvklock (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

73000710 is in Template:USCity. Only 04000871 is relevant if I am correct. I have sent for the document.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my further mistake about the Ottawa one. Skimming it, I saw that it was bordered by streets named Jackson and LaSalle which looked like Chicago streetnames to me. Good. doncram (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lvklock is correct this shows the District includes 3670 acres, 15 buildings, 28 structures, 8 objects.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What does MPS mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That source about the district is one of the URLs associated with nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, a private site mirroring public domain NRIS information. It's probably correct, although NRIS has data entry errors, and the original documents would be the better source to cite in wikipedia articles. What is an MPS? It is a Multiple Property Submission. You're semi in luck, as all MPS documents are scanned and should be publicly available via link low down on NR webpage http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm. You want to search by name for "Chicago Park" within Illinois, to get to the Chicago Park District MPS document, which I see now is mentioned in the NRHP infobox report. However, the search website is NOT WORKING NOW, it seems. It often is not working, I have noticed. You can request the document by email to the same nr_reference, and I think they will just email it to you or provide a direct URL to the PDF document. doncram (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For the Chicago Park District MPS

I got an email response with new insttruction: shttp://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/haargis.htm To use:

1. Click on "Go to HAARGIS"
2. Under property search, click on 'advanced'
3. In the pop up window, click on 'County'
4. choose the county you need
5. type in one word from the property title then click 'finish'
6. on the resulting page, click on the report link
7. Scroll down until you get to the link for 'view background documentation'
8. This is the link to the pdf of the nomination file.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• This led me to http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/PDFs/223353.pdf --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Doncram/PR urgents

Why does your User:Doncram/PR urgents template have a FAC title, which gives you two FAC templates on your user talk page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It was a legacy from when I was developing what became the PR review box at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/PRbox, copying the FAC review box idea. I blanked and requested deletion of that temporary userpage. thanks. doncram (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

List of National Monuments in the United States

Thanks for pointing out the FLC had finished successfully. Cool! dm (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Next picture request

Idaho is finished. Do you think it needs more pictures? If so, you'll have a small selection: there are only 44 pictures for the entire state, and only three counties (Latah, Ada, and Clearwater, with 9, 7, and 3 respectively) have more than 2. Even Bear Lake County, with 92 sites, has just 1 picture. I'm going to check for HABS pictures; I don't know if any of the pictures currently up are HABS, but there have to be a bunch of them available for download. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, I remember enough not to ask you to make a clickable map :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction, 45 pictures; I found one on Commons (for the Fenn Ranger Station in Idaho County) that might be good, if you want a vertical picture. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Adams Power Plant Transformer House

Quite some time ago, you added a HABS pic to this article with the caption "Adams Power Plant, with transformer house in left foreground". I recently added some contemporary pics of the building, and I actually think that the long building on the right side of the pic is the transformer house, based on the pics with the nomination form. I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something before I change the caption. Any thoughts? Lvklock (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, upon closer inspection I think the caption is right after all. Lvklock (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New FL criteria discussion: Final phase

Hello, I think we've hammered out a good revised Featured List criteria here. If this passes, there will be quite a few FLs (my estimate is somewhere between 50 and 75) that could soon be delisted just because of 3b. With that in mind, I'd like to get comments and opinions from all FLC regulars and everyone else who has participated in the discussion before it's implemented. Thanks, Scorpion 17:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:HSITES

What was determined with the bot tagging? Where is the bot category list? If List of Chicago Landmarks is listed as a top list-article article, why hasn't it or any of the landmarks it enumerates been tagged?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

New Rochelle discussion notice

To anyone who follows my Talk page, which maybe is my blog....I've opened a new discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles.

This relates to a perhaps overly complex 4 part proposal that i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady.

I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that good people will be part of the solution. I hope that this new discussion can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. doncram (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A word, if you please. The reason the "problem" won't go away is because there is no problem to begin with. As I've stated in the thread (which I have now closed), all of the checkusers who looked into the matter agree that, in every case, the same editor or group of editors is involved. Your desire to help editors who might have been caught in collateral damage is laudable, but at the point where you have been told — repeatedly — that there is no indication that there were any by the very people whose task it is to find them, continuing your crusade is no longer productive.

I dislike brandishing the specter of sanctions, but community patience with your argumentative insistence is not infinite. It would be wise of you to find some other area of the encyclopedia to occupy yourself with— or at the very least accept that, no matter how well-intentioned, your repeated intervention are neither productive nor welcome. — Coren  14:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Coren -- I consider your closing the discussion at wp:an just now to be heavy-handed and unhelpful. Your closure seems to be a response to the previous discussion, where i started by proposing a solution that was/is not accepted. Or to incorrect assumptions about what i was asking of checkusers. There is not consensus that there is no problem; there is some support by other editors to my views that there is a problem. doncram (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

discussion btwn Elkman and doncram only

Here, let me force you to make an uncomfortable and unreasonable decision: Either you stop advocating for banned user Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and anyone who appears like a sockpuppet editing New Rochelle articles, or you lose me at WP:NRHP and my contributions to that project. One or the other. It's your choice as to which editor you want to keep. --Elkman 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ultimatum; I sort of appreciate that you are over-the-top unreasonable with it. Hmm, well, I do think that there is a lot of negativity involved in dealing with the New Rochelle area articles. I would be interested in a different solution, say involving Orlady backing off too, while right now she is reiterating demands that i get more involved in New Rochelle articles that she wants to stir up. It's a dilemma. To refine your comment, anyhow, can you say what you like to see me doing? I wouldn't mind getting some positive direction that wouldn't be so uncomfortable to deal with, as you put it. doncram (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is your decision alone. Orlady isn't involved. I'll ask again: Who do you want contributing: me, or Jvolkblum and his army of sockpuppets? Yeah, I'm being unreasonable with this question, but you brought me into this policy argument last night by canvassing me on my talk page. If you really want my advice on what you should be doing, it's this: Don't keep advocating for Jvolkblum and his army of sockpuppets, don't get involved in the New Rochelle articles, and back down from your dispute with Orlady. You've got articles of your own you could work on. --Elkman 19:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. You may see above that Orlady is asking me to take over 3 NR articles, which I take it you are asking me not to do. I haven't agreed to do that, anyhow. But one thing that I think you may be unaware of is that i already took over responsibility for about 100 New Rochelle area articles: all those about neighborhoods. There are many neighborhoods, and there have been slightly varying names of articles. I did so by creating List of New Rochelle neighborhoods, setting up merger proposals into that for all the separate neighborhood articles that had been created, and following through gradually to eliminate all the separate ones. This consolidated a wide-ranging mess of repeated deletions and edit warring, into one place where sources could be discussed centrally. In the process, I explained out what i was doing, mostly at Talk:List of New Rochelle neighborhoods, I moved selected material from the merging articles into a "Mapwork" page, and I gave some direction about what I thought would be more useful. Early in the process, I opposed a an administrative deletion request or two from Wknight94, saying to some admin that I had it under control, and early on I moderated some back and forth between Orlady and Person G or H, i forget which, in the editing for one or two neighborhoods. You might think the List of neighborhoods article looks bad now, but there is a Temp version linked from the Talk page which I meant to move into place to replace it. And the main thing accomplished is that a big chunk of all the NR problem has gotten reduced down and eliminated. It succeeeded thus far by tacit agreement of Orlady and of the Person G and Person H editors, all of whom don't mind so much my management of these articles, for whatever reasons. Note, Orlady is asking me to extend my reach, and G and H accept my cutting out big swathes of stuff. As I believe my replacing the entire list article by the short stub already prepared would be accepted pretty much by all involved.

I wasn't able to talk about this alternative way yet in the recent wp:an discussions. I am afraid that if I backed away from all New Rochelle articles, that this progress would be undone. Currently, this area is entirely under control, requiring no recent edits, but it would require some involvement from time to time to maintain, and it would perhaps be necessary to actually involve myself in positive development of the articles. Also, I think i pretty much took over several of the NRHP articles similarly. So, I wonder if it would be compatible with your request for me to maintain the NRHP and neighborhood articles that i already took over, and just not extend any further? I don't want to give you undue grief with your proposal, whose simplicity is/was admirable. Please note i don't want to insist you make it reasonable or anything. :) doncram (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break to separate from above

Sorry that I get involved in this. User Orlady has no authority to assign responsibilities to anyone at her discretion. Take care, doxTxob \  20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to tell Doncram what to do, nor assign him responsibilities. Doncram took it upon himself to remove speedy deletion templates from three articles that qualify for speedy deletion under G5 as the creations of a banned user. I have reminded him that (under WP policy) when he removed those templates, he was saying (implicitly, if not explicitly) that he would assume responsibility for the contents of those articles. He is not required to edit those articles, and no one can tell him what to do. However, if he is not going to take responsibility for them (and no one else picks up the mantle of responsibility), then the articles will need to be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Since DoxTxob (talk · contribs) is working on an RFAR, this discussion has become a moot point. I'll let you guys figure out to do with New Rochelle and with WP:NRHP in general. Thanks to the both of you for reminding me just how badly I can fail in an online community. --Elkman 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not about New Rochelle or a group of articles on the NRHP. This discussion is not about making deals about who gets to edit which article. In my view, the main problem here is that editors who made reasonable edits to an article are kept from editing Misplaced Pages for no reason but a shared IP number. It is that simple. Should that be possible on Misplaced Pages, that users are randomly banned/blocked for no reason that can be found in their edits, I would admit that I lost my faith in Misplaced Pages. doxTxob \  20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:A. B.#New Rochelle discussion notice

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration

Hey doncram,

Are you interested in filing a request for arbitration in this sockpuppet case? In my view this is heading further and further in the wrong direction. Especially the latest ultimatum by User:Elkman to make you chose between keeping him in that NRHP project or continue to support innocent editors who have been banned. I know what my choice would be.

If you are interested in filing the request it would be great if you could do that because all involved parties need to be named and you are much closer to the topic and more involved than I am. You would probably be able to formulate the case better in 500 words.

The key criticism I see her is (1) that User accounts ar banned for no reason except for sharing an IP with a disruptive editor from the past. Another point (2) is user Orlady's paranoia, she is proud to have already investigated an blocked 66 accounts from editing. The next point (2) is that attempts have been made to discuss this matter in a very reasonable and matter-of-fact fashion whis was cut short twice and was closed after a few hours. In my opinion a discussion that had a reasonable chance to be solved in a civilized manner is avoided and a few "investigators" who obviously have nothing else to do with their lives is busy playing the secret Wiki-Police to feel important and powerful. I also critizise (4) that the group of users denies that there is a problem at all.

Do you agree on these key points for the request? Let me know here on your talk page. If you file the request, I will comment on it. If you chose not to file the request yourself, that would also be fine, then I will file it later today or tomorrow. Take care and happy editing, doxTxob \  19:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

They are good points, but I feel caught in a bind here. Also, browsing earlier today i notice that User:Coren who closed both discussions emphatically turns out to be an ARBCOM member. I expect he would emphatically reject ARBCOM consideration of a topic which just received some community attention. He/she clearly does not think the issue belongs at wp:AN, anyhow. I would want to secure advice/approval from one or more past or current ARBCOM members before proposing something there. And perhaps that is not the right forum, either, yet. Sorry not to be more encouraging just now. doncram (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I didn't file the CU request that led to blocking 66 socks, and I would not boast about the number. Actually, it was a bit horrifying for me to realize how much work the CUs did in checking such a large batch of accounts, which had built up during a period when I was not reporting suspected socks in real time. --Orlady (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration - Unjustified ban of users

I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Misplaced Pages. The arbitration request can be found here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum You are mentioned as an involved party and I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \  22:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"To whom it may concern" : Orlady files most every claim of sockpuppetry against New Rochelle related editors, so her claims of 'innocence' should be taken with a pound of salt. I doubt that she is 'horrified' by the amount of work that the CU's have done in terms of checking for these "socks" since she is the one responsible for 99% of the requests. Also, her selective choice of wording for her claims varies tremendously - from innocent and sincere to spitful and full of snimosity. You can see this clearly in her user history. If she was so sincere, as she claims, I wonder why she has been unable to produce any evidence of plagiarism or wrongdoing? She clearly is out to prove that is occurring yet she is unable to do so. This is why she resorts to her 'safety zone' - she reiterates some baloney claims of sockpuppettry, adding numbers of users blocked and her typical rhetoric of " the last time I slacked off on my tracking of Jvolkblum socks, the result (about 6 months ago) was a burdensome task for the checkusers, leading to the blocking of about 66 sockpuppet accounts. Additionally, a lot of articles that these and other socks edited still have not been thoroughly vetted to separate the solid content from the unverifiable cruft. I would far rather prevent this stuff from being created -- and get it deleted as soon as it shows up -- than ask volunteers to expend precious time sorting through it. If these topics are notable, sooner or later someone honest will create solid articles about them, but the Jvolkblum cruft probably makes it harder (not easier) for true newbies to contribute content on these topics". I find this extremely hard to believe. This user has proven through her actions that she is clearly researching the sources provided, and she has shown to be jubilant when she has been able to prove the most miniscule proof of "plagiarism". Thus, her only resort is to make continued mention of the sockpuppetry claim that she is 100% responsible for her. Obviously she is personally affected by the city of New Rochelle, or maybe she is upset that there could be a successful, diverse and historic municipality out there that supercedes Oak Ridge Tennessee?

I think it is also pertinent to note that Orlady tracks the talk pages of users involved in this issue. She apparently believes she can not only monitor what information is listed on Misplaced Pages, but also track the dialogue between other users. If she is entirely innocent, as she so strongly claims, them I challenge her to step back and let other users verify "misinformation" and revert vandalism. If this so-called master soickpuppetteer truly exists and is so villanous and detrimental to the site, than other editors will surely find these issues and act accosdingly. Who made Orlady the Sherriff of Beacham County? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onesang (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Typical of Orladys nature, she has taken a sole communication which was posted to you and added the account to her cockpuppettry claim. If she were truly in the right she would stop her endless drama and leave everything up to the countless other competant users who are aware of the issue. She obviously cannot do so because of some personal animosity that she has, but why dont we see if maybe she can rise to the challenge?? My bet is she cannot. cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onesang (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments will be more helpful on the arbitration request page found here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum. Please do not forget to sign your post with 4 tildes "~~~~" at the end of your comment.

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Montana

Since you give me a few things, I'll do likewise:

• In case it wasn't clear (I'm not clear whether you understand this or not; pardon!), I added the L&C Bridge to the other county list because its coords and description placed it on the border between counties, but not between states.
• You note that it needs a notice in the comprehensive list of entries at the top of the state list: I agree, but I didn't place one because your version still had the ?s on many lines: between its incomplete state and the notices about it being split between counties (the ones on which you remark in your last note), I thought it better to wait until the top list was ready to be completed.
• As you probably know, I don't work much with disambiguation: my primary concern with these lists is making sure that we don't link to the wrong target. Once I discovered that the L&C Bridge linked wasn't the right one, I only cared to see that we had an appropriate link to the correct one. Because I don't work with bridges and other structures, other than ones on the NRHP, I had no clue which (if any) was the primary topic, so indeed it might be a bad idea for me to move things around myself.

As far as the research notes — I've always been somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of having them fully visible in the article. You can see that I don't simply go around removing them, but my uncomfortability is the reason that I quickly investigated the issue and added it to the other county list. Could you perhaps comment out these research notes and the list of untableised sites? Again, not a big deal; just a minor concern that definitely doesn't upset me.

Just realised that I never signed my post. I wonder why not? Regarding your comment, "If in comments, you cannot see whether they link successfully to any article" — it's not a problem for me, as I would simply remove the comments and then preview; still, I understand that you and I have different preferences :-) Another possibility: could you perhaps format the tables (including changing the postal abbreviations for the state name to the actual name) and merge the lists in Notepad before posting? That's how I finished the Utah and Idaho lists in one stroke: simply working them out on my computer. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really clear about the benefits of adding a bunch of links to redirects instead of adding a bunch of links to the actual articles. It's especially a problem with sites in rural areas, as for unincorporated communities there's a lot higher likelihood that no "Communityname, ST" redirect exists; if we just convert ST to State, we don't need to worry about looking for red ones. As far as looking at the old ones vs. the new: I mean that, having removed the comment tags, I'd click the old ones to see them. What I mean is that all my changes are made in Notepad, not that I don't go and look at the articles before producing finished Notepad files. I too look at them "above and below"; I simply don't post the "above" until after merging it with the "below". You can see that the "finished" original versions of the Utah and Idaho lists include pictures where possible; it was by going through all bluelinked articles in the original list (and all bluelinked communities) that I obtained these pictures. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd not considered looking at the bluelinks in the original; surely that wouldn't be too hard for me to do (again, just previewing), but I've not done it. And about the pictures, I simply like seeing as many ones with pictures as possible (thus I've gone through every HABS file for Alaska and Idaho), so perhaps that's a more important thing to me than anything else except actually getting the links right. And that's why there are plenty of redlink listings with pictures that I've found online or taken myself. By the way, what do you think of the number of pictures on the Idaho statewide list? Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat on this note, can you look at Virginia City Historic District and Robbers Roost? Both go to sites outside Montana, but are also the names of sites in Madison County, Montana; I'm making those sites Virginia City Historic District (Virginia City, Montana) and Robbers Roost (Alder, Montana). Nyttend (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment :-) As far as the new disambiguation notification page: it might be a little while before I do anything with it. I learned about WP:NRIS issues some time before I began using it, simply because I kept forgetting how to get there. I'll try to remember :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

With Idaho I split out everything, because with few exceptions there were several sites per county, and there weren't a ton of counties. With 56 counties, most of them having rather few sites, my idea was to split out everything with double digits, just to make it a reasonable size — even after cutting out all the counties that I think reasonable, it's still 58 KB. As far as the counties: I don't think it's a good idea, simply because it would likely make the page too large. At the resolution I've been using for Montana counties (the same as for most other individual county lists nationwide), the Custer County map, to take a random example, is about 14KB. With thirty different counties being listed on the main Montana page, we'd be expanding the page's total size significantly. After all, people can always go up to the top of the page to see the statewide list. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I'm ignoring boundary increases for Montana at the moment: since I'm merging some lists but not all (because you did the rest), I'd like to do the increases all at once. Only four counties remain to be formatted (Carbon, Ravalli, and two others that I can't remember right now), so I'll get that soon. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Completion

All counties are now virtually complete; I'm going through recent listings to get the recent boundary increases, and I'll be adding coords for sites without that I can find. I just made an interesting discovery: were you aware that Montana had two new NHLs in October? The October 10 list shows these sites. I've updated one site's article, but as the other has no article, I didn't write it. Could you also update the NHL list? Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 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 April 2009 (UTC)

Siena College, again

Hey Doncram, please be aware of WP:3RR. By my reckoning you've had 3 reverts in the last 16 hours. It's probably not worth getting blocked over this, or getting the page protected again. --hippo43 (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

BYE

I'm glad I got to patch things up with you before retiring from wikipedia. Good luck and thank you for all you taught me, though I was thick-headed and didnt always listen the first time. Give 'em hell.Camelbinky (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am very glad we got a chance to patch up stuff also. It hasn't been one-sided: I have certainly learned from you too, and I appreciate your graciousness throughout the Siena College discussion. I enjoyed getting to know you. You don't have to stay retired, but either way i do hope we may sometime get to hang out in person. I look forward to hearing chairs breaking behind me.  :) Anyhow, feel free to drop me a line outside of wikipedia; there is an email-to-me link at my Userpage. doncram (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Empire Building and color of NYC landmarks

I chose red -> big red apple. Anyway, take a look, especially at the nyc landmark reference, that's the way every reference doc should look. dm (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgia

At first I thought you meant that an IOOF Hall was up for Good Article :-) Sorry, I'll not be able to do much for the next little while: I have lots of picture work to do (non-NRHP stuff from my spring break trip that yielded lots of Denver NRHP pictures), and schoolwork demands a little time, too :-) I'll get to it when I have time. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Last post

Hey, I retire from this. You are one of the good guys. Keep going to fight the slings and arrows, it is important. I wish you luck. Take care, doxTxob \  03:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. There seems to be an epidemic maybe. Well, thanks for your good efforts recently. I am not going anywhere, myself. Feel free to be back in touch, anytime, and u can un-retire, as some do. Hope you have a good alternative experience, outside this. :) doncram (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

–Drilnoth (T • C) 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice to fairly or unfairly banned/blocked users

Rodiggidy, Sonkinator, and/or others: I've defended persons that I think were truly treated badly, whether the original Person A or others caught up in sockpuppet accusations since. I don't really much care whether this is all one person or several; you one or all have been treated badly. You've seen, or should have seen by now, my comments in two wp:an discussions and in a request for arbitration. But, if you are creating new accounts or IP-editing, you're not helping.

What you need to do, is to participate in an Unban request and get one account to edit from. The recent wp:an discussions and an arbitration case request did not result in an immediate unban, but the way is open to request one, and to start over. Please contact me via email if you would like my assistance. But if you are more interested in playing a game of provoking W and O, then you will gradually have me joining the opposition to you, despite that putting me in the company of persons who I do think behaved badly. doncram (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oregon NRHP

Have you checked to make sure that addresses, communities, listing dates, names, etc. for Oregon are in accord with the NRIS? If I remember right, I read somewhere that the listings had been changed around a lot to favour the Oregon Register's version of this data, at the expense of the National Register. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You should check out the county-by-county discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon, culminating in an extraordinary reconciliation between the Oregon list and what is now showing in the wikipedia tables. Combine that with extensive listing at NRIS info issues. Also, did u see my note at wt:NRHP estimating an overall omissions error rate, nation-wide, in NRIS? Brief answer: Yes. :) Further note: it was partly fun, partly unpleasant dealing with Oregon editors having rather higher ownership over their state's list-articles than any other state's locals. Definitely reaches more accurate state llist overall. doncram (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged. Katr67 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. Hope there are no hard feelings. doncram (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This New Rochelle business

Doncram,

I started looking at this a few days ago, after seeing the flurry of activity on AN/RFAR. Frankly, I was puzzled—I know I remember you as a prolific and productive contributor to NRHP articles, and so I didn't understand why you were so vociferous in defending what looked like a fairly serious cluster of sockpuppetry and misbehavior. If I understand the hints you've been dropping correctly, you're saying that some of the accounts now lumped into the "Jvolkblum" cluster of sockpuppets are actually associated with a different person, with a legitimate interest in improving New Rochelle, who's unfairly being blocked due to supposed editing similarities with Jvolkblum. If this is a correct assessment, I'd say that part of the problem is that you've been approaching the case the wrong way, arguing for an "unban". Bans apply to people; in this case, the person behind the Jvolkblum account. If you want to make headway, I'd suggest you try to show clearly which account or accounts is not Jvolkblum and request their unblock on the grounds that they aren't banned.

That said, I'm very concerned by what appears to be ongoing misbehavior related to New Rochelle articles. I decided to look at some of the recent dust-ups between you and Orlady over New Rochelle content, and found the deletion discussion on Commons for the train station interior and, later, the Glen Island Park revisions. What I discovered was that:

1. The photo of the station interior is missing Metro-North signage and various ticket counter paraphernalia that existed in a 2007 photo online. Yonkinator has almost certainly not told the truth about the date of the photo, which in turn makes me doubt that it was self-photographed.
2. I began looking at the Glen Island Park article—the material tagged for citation by Orlady seemed plausible enough. I did discover sourcing for it, but it turned out that the entire first paragraph was a nearly cut-and-paste copyright violation by MaryEastVill.
3. I looked at some of the sources that Orlady removed. Scharf and Panetta are both available in full or in part on Google Books. p. 870 of Scharf, v. 1, has nothing on Glen Island, nor does it appear anywhere else in Scharf's book. The sentence cited to Panetta is so minimally rewritten as to border on plagiarism. The citation to "Natural History Museums of the United States and Canada" is supposed to support the assertion that the Glen Island museum contained "mummies fron 332 B.C., Indian relics of the Stone Age and other rare antiquities along with the first fire engine used in New York state, several meteors and a giant stuffed white whale". The only one of these that's mentioned in the source, however, is the Indian relics—no meteors, no fire engine, no stuffed whale, no mummies.

This last is what's really alarming about this whole affair. What's the point of having lengthy, detailed articles about New Rochelle—about any topic—if they're crammed with misinformation and misleading citations, and plagiarized from other works into the bargain? I've had previous experience on Misplaced Pages where someone came in and wanted to level an extensive series of obscure articles to the ground, and I think the only way to defend yourself in that situation is to be brutally honest in assessing the articles you're trying to protect. Source 'em to the nines. Chop out and rewrite anything close to copyvio. That's the only way to save them when people take an interest in deletion. And right now, this is not happening. Maybe I'm reading with a jaundiced eye, but this is how your recent exchanges with Orlady sound, in condensed form:

• O: "These articles are crammed with copyvio and misinformation!"
• D: "But if you cut all that out, the articles are boring and stubby! Don't you want nice articles on New Rochelle?"

I can pretty much guarantee you that "Orlady hates New Rochelle" and "Removing misinformation makes these articles short and useless" is not going to trump WP:V and WP:COPYVIO in the court of Wikipedian opinion.

I think you're a good guy, and if there really is a systematic problem where people can't make *good* contributions to New Rochelle–related articles, I want to help fix it. But the only way to make progress on that is to acknowledge that the things I've found in my investigation above are malfeasance, and that the people who are doing that should not be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages. If there's anything you want to send me off-Wiki to clarify your position, please do. Because right now, I'm seeing a valuable contributor run his reputation into the gutter for reasons that are not, frankly, clear to me, and I'd like to find a solution that's better for you and for Misplaced Pages. Choess (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)