User talk:Acroterion

Signpost

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:

• Wilder, Vermont and Wilder Village Historic District - Both articles have merge templates and were discussed at some length, on both article talk pages and probably also on the Vermont NRHP talk page.

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)

• Wauregan and Wauregan Historic District - I merged this pair after discovering that, not only had discussion ceased, but the merge templates had disappeared. There's discussion on the Wauregan talk page and probably also on the Connecticut NRHP talk page. [ADDED: I was mistaken regarding the current state of these articles. After I merged them for the reasons given, Doncram split them again. --Orlady (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)]
• Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut) and Southport Historic District (Connecticut) are both redirects to Southport (Fairfield). Doncram objected strenuously to this arrangement at one time, and I don't know if he is at peace with the current situation. There was much discussion on the Connecticut NRHP talk page.
• Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut) has a merge template pointing to Georgetown, Connecticut, but the Georgetown article does not have a merge template. Discussion was on the talk pages for both articles and on the Connecticut NRHP page.

• Looks like a merge candidate to me as a village core essentially identical to the HD. Acroterion _(talk) 02:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Baltic, Connecticut and Baltic (Sprague) both redirect to Baltic Historic District. Apparently Polaron and Doncram agreed on this, but when I look at the list of pages that link to the HD article via the redirect from Baltic, Connecticut, I'm not sure that the redirect is a good arrangement, as there are four pages that link to this as a named place (not an HD).
• There was a dispute over Stony Creek-Thimble Islands Historic District, Thimble Islands, and Stony Creek (Branford). The current state, in which all three articles exist, seems to be satisfactory to everyone (some old merge templates were removed today), but I'm not completely sure of that, and the articles look kind of bedraggled after being the subject of a tug of war. There's discussion on the Connecticut NRHP talk page and the Thimble Islands page; I haven't checked the Stony Creek page.

• 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)

• Wyoming, Rhode Island has a "split" template that proposes the creation of Wyoming Village Historic District, but the HD article has been created and displays a "merge" template. Discussion died out a while ago, and seems to be consolidated on the Wyoming, Rhode Island talk page.
• Hope Valley Historic District and Hope Valley, Rhode Island both display merge templates. Discussion is on the Rhode Island NRHP talk page, and has died out.

• Since there are doubts appearing at the very similar situation at Wilder Village Historic District, may I assume that the same applies here? Acroterion _(talk) 19:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Carolina Village Historic District and Carolina, Rhode Island are currently one merged article (at Carolina, Rhode Island), but the merged article still displays a merge template, and I think it's possible that Doncram is hoping to have them split again. Discussion was on the Rhode Island NRHP talk page. --Orlady (talk) 00:26, 27 August 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)

MILHIST admins

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added myself (unfortunately, it's alphabetized, so I'm at the front). Acroterion _(talk) 11:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The return of Stacey Jackson

Hi Acroterion, dropping you this message because I saw this post from you and wanted to give you a heads-up that the person recreated the article - while I didn't see previous versions, the one they created now is taken verbatim from the singer's own website and doesn't indicate notability, so it's likely to be identical to the previous ones. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 12:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've salted it for three months. It'll just expire about the time the album's supposed to show up. Acroterion _(talk) 12:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company building

Hi. I'm the guy who wrote about the building posting:

The building used to be extremely inefficient and expensive to operate. On sunny days in Winter in the 1970's, the south side of the building, in the sun, needed to be cooled down so people could comfortably perform office work. In the Summer, the north side of the building, out of the sun, needed to be heated up. This is why the building's design, though widely praised, has rarely been copied: it's uneconomic. Over the past three decades, many of the fancy window coatings designed to let in light, but keep out heat have been tested out on this building.

You edited that out saying:

nrhp infobox, rv commentary on energy inefficiency, which is not unusual in a building of the era) (undo)

I'm writing you because I think my commentary should stay in. People do wonder why very few other two sided buildings have been erected. My comments answer that question. To you, it's obvious, but to people who are not architects and who are unaware of how inefficient a lot of buildings of that era were (and are), it's not obvious.

I'm not an architect. I'm an NYC tour guide who gets asked questions like that -- Why aren't there any other two-sided buildings? -- all the time, so my comment is in response to that potential question.

BigGuy (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted mostly because it was an entirely unsourced commentary, which is something that's discouraged. The "two-sidedness" isn't inherently less efficient than four sides - there are plenty of long narrow buildings and round (one-sided) buildings of varying degrees of efficiency. Your comment states that nobody uses the form because it is inherently less energy-efficient, something that needs substantiation. Can you provide a reference for this? It appears to me that the building's lack of energy efficiency has more to do with the 1963 glazing, HVAC and control technology, as well as its orientation, rather than some inherent problem with the shape. There are other lens-shaped buildings out there, and I've never seen any indication that they are any more or less efficient than anything else with the same surface-to-volume ratio.

Why aren't there any more two-sided buildings than this? My guess is that it's hard to lay out interior space in a lens-shaped building, and a rectangular building will be more space-efficient. A multiplicity of sides yields lots of prized and high-priced corner offices, rather than two per floor with the lenticular shape. I doubt that it has much to do with heating and cooling.

Since you recognize that it's a commentary, you will understand that unsourced commentary is out of place in an encyclopedia. Please see WP:RS and WP:V for more on reliable sources and verifiability. Acroterion _(talk) 19:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

From BigGuy:

Thank you for explaining why you deleted my commentary about the building. What I wrote about the energy inefficiency is what people who worked in the building told me, but that was years ago. There were also some articles in the Hartford Courant in the 1970's and 1980's about the building that I recall reading -- reliable and verifiable to be sure -- but hard to retrieve. If I can download them, or at least reference them in footnotes, then I'll be able to add some things in about the building, but not before.

Thank you for all you're doing for people by working on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGuy (talk • contribs) 04:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can locate it I'd be happy to see the reference, as it's obviously a subject of interest to me. I think that long and skinny may be playing a role here, as well as possibly an east-west orientation, which would make things worse. I can envision that a curved surface arranged straight east-and-west might exacerbate solar exposure on the south side by prolonging the period of maximum heating as the sun moves relative to the skin - something we can deal with today, but hard to do in 1963. I've retrofitted buildings of that era with new glass and it's worked wonders. Thanks for your comments. Acroterion _(talk) 11:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 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) 22:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

HistoryForUs

Hello. Could you please tell me who created that article. I'd like to help them understand why their article was deleted. I think helping new contributors understand will prevent fustration and recreation of the deleted material but also help us retain a possible good editor. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OnlineResources (talk · contribs) They've been blocked. Based on their contribution history, they appear to have been spamming for that site. Acroterion _(talk) 15:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Guess there isnt any reason to keep my reply open in notepad anymore, hehe.--TParis00ap (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged, I've re-educated some apparent spammers myself, who've gone on to make good contributions. This one was mass-creating redirects, maybe 8 or 10, to the main article from very generic titles, a hallmark of spamming. Acroterion _(talk) 17:31, 7 October 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)

Why do not you wait for me hangon explanation?

Why do you delete the article of USA-ASSIST?

The reason for that article was to expand one of the companies listed in ‘List of United States insurance companies’ The information is very brief and without commercial character with corresponding references to the writing.

Other agencies with simile characteristic were incorporated such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_Guard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Corners_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Travel_Insurance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drakefield_Travel_Insurance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Risk_Managers A much others. Please , review your action.

The article did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion and made no assertion of notability. Most of the other websites you've mentioned don't appear to make the grade either. Can you provide evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent media for this organization? The links provided aren't very substantial in nature and don't establish notability. Also language like "...a leading edge vanguard company" make the article promotional in nature. Acroterion _(talk) 15:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, first at all, please response my question> Why do not you wait for me hangon explanation?
About the article> What evidence do you have to proceed in this way? Please review these point>
Notability: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable.
Verifiable: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Please check the sources and references about my listed articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_Guard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Corners_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Travel_Insurance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drakefield_Travel_Insurance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Risk_Managers

In my article I wrote a lot of sources and references for a brief content.
I think that company made assertion of notability, Because Its have more year of experience than others like Travel Guard and its was pioneer in offer ONLINE many different options of travel insurance for the international traveler via webservice.
Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." It is important to note that a notability determination does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic. --Uacomm (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The links you used as references were either non-specific, self-referential, promotion, or trivial mentions in general articles about travel insurance. You provided no references that focused on the company and its notability; its worthiness of notice (I looked at them all). This is a higher bar than just getting mentioned a few times in a general article or a trade publication. Your article made no assertion of notability - "is a leading edge vanguard company that provides online travel insurance products with over 30 years of professional experience in the insurance market" does not convey anything to set it apart and is promotional in tone without explaining anything in an encyclopedic manner. We would expect to see an article specifically focused on the company in a general-circulation newspaper or magazine of national standing to establish notability. An promotional article by a different user was deleted yesterday with many of the same references and language. Acroterion _(talk) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand, Please, see this list> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_insurance_companies I have checked all those companies... all have similar information and references.
You action seem a little unfair and wrong.
I put Hagon Wiki Markup, Why do not you wait for the explanation? Why did you not use a Notability Markup like other articless? I could have improved the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uacomm (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 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)

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)

Snake River Ranch

I am curious...what is your interest in the Snake River Ranch and how did you come by your knowledge of the Resor and Hauge families?

--The Outhouse Mouse (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was writing a series of articles on the dude ranches and vacation ranches in Jackson Hole; this was one of them. As an architect, I was intrigued to discover that Mies van der Rohe had worked with the Resors - something I didn't know. The information came entirely from the sources listed in the notes, particularly from the National Register nomination form (ref #4) and from the NPS essay on dude ranches (ref #3). Acroterion _(talk) 21:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Berzertian inquery

I am unclear as to the reason for the deletion of mine article. would you be so kind as to explain it to me.

Danteysidro (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not post hoaxes or things you've made up; they're deleted as vandalism. Acroterion _(talk) 12:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Berzertian inquery 2

im sure there was a way to simply reply... but i couldn't find it.

I assure you, it is not a hoax, i had just created the page, and was getting my reliable sources in order when it was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danteysidro (talk • contribs) 15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And those would be? This gets zero hits on Google, something of an accomplishment. Acroterion _(talk) 19:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

in order for google to get any hits, someone must first reference them smewhere on the web. most MICRO-subcultures are not eferenced on the web; due to the vast number of them. berzertians in particular, as they try to blend in, as stated in my article.

my references include berzertians themselves, includeing several membrs of the main branch famiy.

can you think of a better reference then from the horses mouth?