User talk:Doncram

(e) as of Dec2010 as of Dec2014

Dicte (TV series)

For the record, i created an article about the topic Dicte (TV series), a Danish TV show, and it eventually got fixed with a history merge. I had created it submitted it to AFC. Another editor, unaware of the draft, later created an article in mainspace on the topic, while my AFC submission was pending. Then my AFC submission was denied. I inquired about process, at AFC Help Desk (now archived at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 December 24#05:57:03, 24 December 2014 review of submission by Doncram. Then there was an MFD about deleting the draft. The other editor, User:Jbvejle, kindly acknowledged at Talk:Dicte (TV series)#From old Draft Talk that they were not aware of draft, and they then included material from the draft into the article. (Thanks, Jbvejle!). Eventually even my original draft got fully acknowledged by a history merge performed as result of the MFD. --doncram 00:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Doncram, and I'm glad you were able to merge these pages! Jbvejle (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dicte (TV series) (December 24)

It was denied, but later accepted/merged, per above. --doncram 00:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kvng was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dicte (TV series) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~KvnG 03:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Doncram, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~KvnG 03:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Dicte (TV series)

Draft:Dicte (TV series), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dicte (TV series) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Dicte (TV series) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Resolved by history merge, fine. Thanks. --doncram 00:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Church of the Creator

What follows is some parts of discussion relating to Church of the Creator, an Oregon-based nice church, which had unfortunate previous Wikipedia treatment of its name being redirected to a not-nice racist White supremacist church organization in Illinois. I saw some of editor Bohemian Gal's good efforts to remedy the situation, without success previously, and was able to help. All settled within Wikipdia now I think, with new article on this Oregon church in mainspace and the unfortunate redirects removed, and other article edited by me to reduce unnecessary usage of Oregon church's name. Google search still shows Wikipedia's article about the racist organization, but I presume and hope the Google search results will update relatively soon. Hopefully all is good. --doncram 00:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

CoTC

Thank you thank you thank you!

It would be wonderful if you could get this published.

Not sure if you found this or not, but there is an entry on the church at the Finnish version of Wikipedia: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Creator

Let me know if there's anything you need from me.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		Thank you SO much!

I am incredibly grateful for your help. Bohemian Gal (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again

Have submitted your article, with gratitude, and will wait to hear the outcome.

Thank you again!

Bohemian Gal (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Already rejected

Your article has already been rejected. <*sighs*>

Bohemian Gal (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

CotC -- a permanent entry???

Does this mean your article is permanent now and won't be deleted???

If so, I'm literally in tears and grateful beyond words.

Thank you again.

BTW: I have been forwarded another reference citation for the Church, if it's helpful:

The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0736920110 James K. Walker - 2007 -

Bohemian Gal (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Bohemian Gal, I think the article is going to be okay now, yes, it is in mainspace (at Church of the Creator) and I think it is relatively safe now, i.e. not likely to be put up for AFD by anyone (though technically that could happen). My copying the longish just-deleted passage with 8 sources to Talk:Church of the Creator was partly to make it clear there are more sources that support the topic even if not currently in the article, towards heading off trouble. If you could add something more directly about the church rather than the trademark dispute into the article, either a direct quote in quotes or something in your own words, with source being that Walker 2007 source, that would be good, too. The Google selection of samples view that I get to see doesn't happen to show me anything about the Church of the Creator when i searched for it; maybe you have a different view allowed by Google books. It's rough getting started in Wikipedia in terms of gradually learning what is enough, with or without any "opposition"; i think this is enough to stand, any which way.

Well it's your article. :) I'm hardly in the edit history at all now, the way it was created by copy-pasting from Draft:Church of the Creator to the Church of the Creator. No big deal. :) Anyhow you had it to this point previously, which was reasonably good for a start (though would not stand up, sourcing and tone-wise). That version has stuff that I didn't get or sort out, e.g. in its History section by the way, that would be worth working in with sources. And you did a lot right in your explanations of the situation in the various proceedings, which moved me and especially now that I have seen most of them (and itemized most of them at Talk:Church of the Creator). And you got other supporters, including Cullen278. There was help, some, within those proceedings, though you didn't get the all help you deserved, IMHO. I'm happy you're happy. Really. :) --doncram 20:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Given my lack of success with this project, I'm afraid to do anything to the article -- would probably cause it to be deleted (again) ;)

The main goal was just to get that redirect corrected, and you accomplished that. Again, thank you SO much.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

Your support, clarifications, knowledge in directing searches for "Church Of The Creator", to a Wikipedia page, information, that is related to the service and expression of our organization is most appreciated. It took a lot of effort to clarify that we are inclusive of every thinking-thought being on this planet. Bohemian Gal understood the confusion being created and relates that your effort was key to bringing that to closure within Wikipedia, a common goal of more truth for everyone. Thank you and may God Bless you in your service. Sincerely, Rev. Dr. James Germain URI, Vice-President & Director. TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family Of URI, Inc. (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much! I'm happy to have been of assistance. As I noted to Bohemian Gal already, I appreciated that she raised the issue several times, and did a good job expressing the issue and trying to resolve it properly; I'm glad I saw one of those instances and could help fix the situation. I'll comment briefly at your Talk page too. Cheers, --doncram 23:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested edits

Hello again --

I received a message requesting minor corrections to your Church of the Creator article and, given my "noob-ness" here, am reluctant to try them myself. Would you please review and make the edits as you see appropriate?

This was suggested as an introductory paragraph:

"Church Of The Creator® is a Christian-based faith organization currently headquartered in Ashland, Oregon. It is an operating name, within public ministry, for TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family Of URI, Inc. a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, first Chartered on July 14, 1975 as Grace House Prayer Ministry Inc., an unincorporated association established in 1969. "The Foundation" is notable for achieving protection of its Registered Trademark, the name Church Of The Creator® through legal proceedings, and its case is cited in intellectual property law."

Also:

If the fact that the name was changed from Grace House Prayer Ministry Inc. to TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family Of URI, Inc. is considered relevant that date is February 23, 1977

(I've been given a .pdf document verifying the 1977 date, but am not sure if that's verifiable online or not.)

Thank you again!

Bohemian Gal (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm copying this info to Talk:Church of the Creator, which is now probably the best place to discuss refinements to the article, and I will respond there. --doncram 00:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your assistance with this. Will take any further suggestions to the Church talk page. Happy 2015!

Bohemian Gal (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits

Good Morning, My apology for prior noncompliance with user name policy. Intent was to be direct, fully disclose. It appears that that prior user name is now blocked. Following suggestions given, have used a prior user name, to identify me personally, as the representative on subjects previously of record and in support to your efforts and those of Bohemian Gal.

In addition to the requested edits posted today relative first paragraph edits to Church Of The Creator, one other fact may or may not be relevant to Wikipedia, balanced edits.

•Church Of The Creator was first legally established as an ABN-Assumed Business Name, through registration by The Foundation with the State of Oregon, August 3, 1982, "Active," continuously since that date.

Online via search, current public records, Oregon Secretary Of State OR –

- http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.login

enter: Church Of The Creator Provides current verification in part: Entity Name CHURCH OF THE CREATOR Registry Nbr 255871-55 Entity Type ABN Entity Status ACT Registry Date 08-03-1982 Next Renewal Date 08-03-2015

If this method or correcting facts is helpful, I can provide small file jpg or other file types of verification documentation as sent Bohemian Gal.

Effort on my part will continue to become more aware of Wikipedia policy. Again thank you. God Bless you in your service. Michael S. Legions (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me, and great about your new username and willingness to further absorb Wikipedia policy as necessary. I replied also at your Talk page. I am copying the info about the Assumed Business Name, etc., to Talk:Church of the Creator, which is now probably the best place to discuss improvements to the article, and I will comment there. Glad you are helping. Cheers, --doncram 00:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

(moved by doncram) Thank you for the review, edits, posting to talk page. We will follow up as suggested and appreciate the opening paragraph changes and accurate information. Michael S. Legions (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, good. I do think the opening paragraph could/should be improved, but didn't understand facts and what is documented by sources well enough to do better. Do please discuss improvements at Talk:Church of the Creator. Thanks, --doncram 22:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Doncram - today I noticed two edits by user Maproom, first deleting the ® symbol in the paragraph relative litigation establish Church Of The Creator® as a "descriptive", "distinct" name and within the Opinions of the US Court Of Appeals, the little symbol ® has a huge meaning within law. I do not want to argue with anyone about who recommended that this be deleted, but, it seems to overlook the symbol has legal weight, meaning, especially within an Appeal Court ruling on intellectual property issues. The Other Deletion of a spelling that is incorrect in the source "Mariam" corrected to "Miriam" can be verified in many on line searches of the same case by other sources, or by other Court Orders that established the name. I am writing here because I do not want to stir up anything with anybody at Wikipedia. Do what is best, as wisdom supporting Wikipedia, its policy, truth. Thanks for listening. Michael S. Legions (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

logo image

Church Of The Creator® Logo, Dove/Star Seal graphic is now uploaded, as well as other information relative to its creation, history, representations, on Church Of The Creator talk page. Michael S. Legions (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Doncram - just found this message at my user talk page and responded to Stefan2 pasted below. I am not quite sure what category grants the license for use of the logo/graphic/Trademarks, as long as it is associated to the page Church Of The Creator, or other appropriate use by Wikipedia. Let me know what needs to be done. I have the approval for Wikipedia use. Thanks for the support, as I travel the learning curve of image upload. "Orphaned non-free image File:Church Of The Creator© Dove-Star Seal Logo.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Church Of The Creator© Dove-Star Seal Logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Stefan2 - Found your message. Uploading was requested for use with Wikipedia Page "Church of the Creator" to be coordinated, with user Doncram. The intent in providing the image was use by Wikipedia, to be associated with the listing. If the "non-free" status needs to be changed to a category, that is a license for use by Wikipedia from the owner of the Trademarks/Logo, then I am authorized to change the category from "non-free" to a different category, but, not to void exclusive use by the owner, unless license for specific use is granted as the intent here. Let me know what I need to do, and I am ready to authorize or make changes. Please send a copy of this to Doncram and see other relevant information on Church of the Creator talk page. Thank you. Michael S. Legions (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Stefan2 - Found your message. Uploading of graphic image was requested for use with Wikipedia Page "Church of the Creator" to be coordinated, with user Doncram. The intent in providing the image was for use by Wikipedia, to be associated with the listing. If the "non-free" status needs to be changed to a category, that is a license for use by Wikipedia from the owner of the Trademarks/Logo, then I am authorized to change the category from "non-free" to a different category, but, not to void exclusive use by the owner, unless license for specific use is granted as the intent here. Let me know what I need to do, and I am ready to authorize or make changes. Please send a copy of this to Doncram and see other relevant information on Church of the Creator talk page. Thank you." Michael S. Legions (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Michael S. Legions! Okay, I added the image to the article Church of the Creator, so it is now used in an article. Apparently one policy is that non-free images are not wanted if they are not used in at least one article. And I tried refining the fair use statement that you had put into the image uploading, and I removed the complaint there that the file was unused ("orphaned") because now it is used. I wonder if the image should be replaced by a lower-resolution version of the image; that would apparently be better for use of a non-free image. If so, some editor here can probably reduce the resolution. Not sure who/where to ask for help with that right now. Hmm.

By the way, it looks to me like I or anyone else could have taken the image from the church's webpage and uploaded it (preferably a low-resolution version), with "fair use" justification. I feel it was better that you uploaded it though, thanks. I am not very familiar with use of non-free files; I have myself uploaded a lot of pics of historic buildings to commons.wikimedia.org for use in Wikipedia articles, but I uploaded those under a version of a free license, e.g. the Creative Commons license or another. --doncram 03:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

--doncram 03:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Doncram!

Happy New Year!

Doncram,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Sent using Mass message sender. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from User:Northamerica1000/Mailing list.

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

redirects/AfDs

Hi! You commented on an AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Park Academy with the caption "(Redirect, and try something other than a bunch more AFDs, please.)". As far as the Buffalo Public Schools article is concerned, I am not personally anticipating any more redirects or AfDs as most of the remaining schools are likely notable (there are some leftover blue links that could still use some cleanup), but in future situations what other avenues would you suggest? The article had already been redirected appropriately, and as that redirect was overridden, it seemed appropriate to bring it to AfD for consensus. Discussions about the notability of someone's dear old elementary school very often become irrational, which is why OUTCOMES deals with them as it does. All that aside, I'm interested in other options, it is certainly not my intent to be "hurtful" by bringing articles to AfD. Jacona (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jacona, for contacting me; i appreciate your concern not to be hurtful and I appreciate your interest in other options. In general, I think AFDs are by their nature hurtful, as calling for deletion of work. I was not aware until now that you had redirected the article before, and I see now that in this edit you did so with a polite edit summary. Then in the article's history it looks like D-Day might not have noticed that, but returned on December 27 with some update information that they might have come across, about change of principal, and they restored the article and made the update. I think then it might have been better to open discussion at the Talk page of the article or otherwise contact D-Day, perhaps, but I agree it is also okay to open an AFD for fuller discussion. Anyhow then you pretty promptly opened AFD and also about then you opened AFD about a different elementary school, which I had noticed at D-Day's talk page already, which i think has closed as redirect already. One thing about the AFD on North Park Academy, if I recall correctly your nomination was/is calling for deletion, not redirecting to Buffalo Public Schools, while it sounds like you could support redirecting in fact. Calling for redirection rather than outright deletion would have been "nicer" in my view. Also I don't think it is likely that D-Day has irrational view about the one school; they created and/or have maintained numerous Buffalo school articles, not just the one, which I presume was done as a public service, as a volunteer like you and me, serving the public. I was also fearing that there would be a bunch more AFDs, yes. If you view the other elementary school articles as okay, that changes things somewhat, in my view. Is it the case that you reviewed them all and view all but the two as okay for mainspace? What to do now, as alternatives, would depend a bit on that. For one thing, that could be conveyed to D-Day and that would probably change the experience for them. By the way, I have not heard from D-Day (although I invited them at their Talk page to comment in the AFD); my views about what is "nicer" and what matters are informed by other experiences, not from any specific knowledge of D-Day's experience. I could comment more, but could you reply more specifically about the other school articles in that template? Thanks again for your concern. Sincerely, --doncram 19:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

While the articles generally don't have good independent sources, most of the remaining k-8 schools date back at least 50 and in some cases well over 100 years (Dr. Antonia Pantoja Community School of Academic Excellence has roots dating to 1848). I'm betting that someone with the inclination to do so can find some reliable sources. I think I wasn't at my best that morning, my procedures were a little different than I would have liked. I would not normally take a school article to AfD unless it had been redirected it at least once. Jacona (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of books about the September 11 attacks has been accepted

List of books about the September 11 attacks, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

An issue about article deletions and infoboxes

(Though this section contains negativity, I am choosing to keep it here on my Talk page for now. Not calling for or against further discussion, but if there's further discussion please keep a constructive, civil tone. The initial posting is, in my view, an example of a personal attack. I'll delete this if it seems unhelpful. Retitled from "Strong warning" to by me. Don't change the title. --doncram 00:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC))

1) Stop stalking my edits.

2) Edit summaries like "Speedy deletion request with false statement of purpose" and "deletion nominator goal, unstated, is..." are blatant faslehoods, and an egregious breach of the warning given by User:Gatoclass: "you are hereby reminded that comments on contributor rather than content may result in the imposition of sanctions".

Revert the relevant edits immediately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy didn't list all uses of {{infobox}} so that he'd delete all articles containing it. His intention is to replace bare {{infobox}}es with more suitable ones. In going through what is a very long list, he did inevitably stumble on some articles he thought should be deleted. I think it'd be helpful if you were to retract your accusation. Alakzi (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Alakzi, I believe you are trying to intervene helpfully. Thanks for constructive interaction at a Talk page about one speedy delete tag removal. Your interpretation of editor Pigsonthewing (P)'s intention is charitable; I think the past record and recent actions are more simply explained as an over-focus on one goal of dubious value, at odds against other better goals, with implementation damaging to content and editors/community.

This relates to an ongoing Administrative Enforcement proceeding, see Statement by Doncram (where I tried to express my concern, with diffs) and some response by Thrydulff

You may have noticed that I replied, partially, to P at his talk page, another editor commented, and the section was removed with an edit summary being a partial response Okay.

"Direct calls to Infobox" section at an uninvolved editor's Talk page

Just noting for the record, in my view there have been two unjustified personally directed negative statements, which I think amount to personal attacks (by P in the opening statement of this sectionas insulting, disparaging, and false statements, and seeking to intimidate me obviously; by T at the uninvolved editor's page,violates "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence").

I simply disagree with Pigsonthewing's assertions above. As I noted at P's page, P knows that following anothers' edits is allowed explicitly, when there's reason for concern. I've expressed reason for concern, at the AE with tons of diffs, and then P proceeded to demonstrate more reason for concern.

I may or may not comment further. --doncram 00:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'd not realised quite the depth of this veritable rabbit hole. I don't think that Andy, for wanting but being unable to remove the infoboxes, would rather have the articles deleted. It sounds ludicrous. Alakzi (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Doncram: Despite the above warning from me, and clarifications kindly provided by User:Alakzi, you not only refused to revert your edits, but have now repeated your false assertion about my motives, in no less than four further locations:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boss_of_the_Pool
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clark_Manning
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boy_Overboard
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lord_Abbett

(At the same time, you canvass discussion, for which you have also been previously warned. In two of the four cases, your statement about the infobox used is also false.) Desist immediately from such unacceptable behaviour. (CC User:Gatoclass). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your perspective. Your commenting here is not entirely welcome, but it is better to discuss your view in any detail here (or in a dispute resolution venue) than at the AFDs you link.

About bad faith and personalizing, you posted accusations at 3 AFDs, e.g. this diff,

It seems that you need to be reminded that you were warned "not to approach discussions confrontatively [sic]... not to comment on contributors rather than content, and not to assume bad faith."; and that User:Gatoclass similarly told you: ""you are hereby reminded that comments on contributor rather than content may result in the imposition of sanctions". Yet you continue, despite being told otherwise, repeatedly to falsely assert that I have motives which are alien to me.

That is an obvious violation by you, of what you assert to decry. You are commenting on contributors rather than content, and you are assuming bad faith, and, arguably, I'll say now (not at an AFD) you may be explicitly lying--in any common English understanding of the term--about your interest in removing infoboxes that you don't like. Do you seriously assert that you don't remove infoboxes you don't like? Do you seriously assert that you haven't gone to articles on your worklist of articles having {{Infobox}}, at User:Pigsonthewing/Direct calls to Infobox??? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pigsonthewing/Direct_calls_to_Infobox&oldid=643088112 permalink to current version), in order to remove infoboxes from them? As you know, your doing so, by either editing the articles to remove an infobox you don't like, or by pressing the deletion of the articles, is covered, with diffs, by my statement within "Amendment request: Infoboxes" AE discussion(permalink). Seriously?

Nonetheless, I'll try to consider if you are right about my edits. Looking at the Manning AFD, it looks like what sets you off is the following that I wrote (I don't see anything else that it could be):

*Keep. Note the article appears to be targeted for its using {{Infobox}}. The deletion nomination shows no evidence of performing wp:BEFORE; the nom spends more time/text complaining about removal of the prod, which was by me. It's not "bogus" to point out the apparent purpose of removing infoboxes the nom does not like. The nom was indeed working from this worklist of articles having "direct calls" to infobox template. I note related AFDs above. [continues with more specific discussion of sources and content]

I do not see how that constitutes a violation of commenting overly about editors rather than content. It doesn't name you explicitly. It responds to your alarming, extraordinary assertion of "bogus"-ness in the prod removal, which seems appropriate, while acknowledging I am the party that the nom referred to. It is extremely common in AFDs for editors to comment that it appears wp:BEFORE was not performed by the nominator. Others do, e.g. this comment by another editor agreeing wp:BEFORE appeared not to be complied with, at the Lord Abbett AFD just before it was closed "Keep". If the quality of your nominations is poor, you are not exempt from that being noted, in AFDs, at your Talk page, elsewhere. At the Manning AFD (as at the others), I responded to your personally directed accusations by this edit directing discussion of the accusations to here, instead. I think this is overall appropriate and either entirely non-violating or at least milder, much-less-violating-than-yours. Do let's tone it down in inappropriate forums. Note, it is my belief that I have been courteous and patient with you--definitely milder than you--in some previous interactions where you made overly strong accusations.

About canvassing accusation: Again, it's not canvassing, to provide a note linking between multiple similar AFDs. For a different example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudley House (Harvard College) and related 3 other AFDs, linked by notes like this added by me. There's no objection. And I am actually thanked by the nominator of the 4 articles for the notes.

You previously accused me, falsely, of canvassing, last year, archived User talk:Doncram/Archive 24#NRHP & Recent canvassing. It was nonsense, none of the criteria for wp:CANVASS were met. I don't know whether to believe you or not, in terms of whether you yourself believe that no links between AFDs are ever allowed. It is routine practice in all AFDs for editors to add DELSORT links to other AFDs, e.g. this edit adding 3 links to the Clark Manning AFD. Especially when there is not a DELSORT category defined, as with these 4, explicit links between similar AFDs are similarly helpful. --doncram 21:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(Note: I see this new accusation by Pigsonthewing of canvassing against another editor in a TFD and I disagree that is canvassing too. For one, it is not mass notice, criteria 1 of wp:CANVASS. It's simply not prohibited to mention a discussion going on. If one editor believes appropriate mentions are wrong, they may perhaps feel justified in escalating with personal attacks or other means. But the (false) accusations of canvassing seem like personally-directed attacks, to me. Bad cycle? --doncram 00:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC))

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hårsfjärden has been accepted

Hårsfjärden, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 08:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peppercomm has been accepted

Peppercomm, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved comment

Hi Doncram, I moved your comment, I know, a big no-no, but I hope you don't mind in this case; keeping it where it was would place it in the section below, which was procedurally closed, which can't have been the intention. Please do revert if you disagree with my pawing your comments. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure where the next comment should go. Thank you for moving it. --doncram 01:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, things got real confusing there. This was the best I could make of it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing my comments

Do not, under any circumstances, ever, edit my talk page comments again. If you do, I shall revert you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Pigsonthewing, your objection noted. In general, don't edit mine, either. But do you think it's okay for you to edit others' comments? And restore your edits to others' comments after 2 others object? Seems hypocritical. I ask you to undo your twice-implemented edit (2 and 5 below) of Dirtlawyer's comment, that I undid once.

This has to do with edits at open TFD: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division. Selected relevant edits in order there:

• 1 Pigsonthewing "cc", which outdents and states "[Outdent due to more broken indenting by DePiep]", a complaint that appears salient on the page
• 2 Pigsonthewing edit "c", which a) edits comment by editor Dirtlawyer and b) inserts Pigsonthewing comment indented improperly (making it look like DePiep comment following is a reply to this new inserted comment by Pigsonthewing)
• 3 try to fix indentation problems from Pigsonthewing's last edit. agree wp:CANVASS accusation baseless.", my edit undoing Pigsonthewing's edit of Dirtlawyer's comment and indenting Pigsonthewing's inserted comment so that DePiep's does not look like a reply to it.
• 4 DePiep "Andy breaking talk flow, making others look bad", provides diff 2, and notes "Andy breaking other editors contribution"
• 5 Pigsonthewing's edit "Doncram edited my comment; I've restored it.", re-editing Dirtlawyer's comment and un-indenting Pigsonthewing's insertion

User:Pigsonthewing, would you please acknowledge this communication, and either undo your edit of D's comment or reply why you will not? --doncram 17:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of hotels in Andorra has been accepted

List of hotels in Andorra, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Rosa d'Erina

Please let me know when you're finished with this, and I'll be happy to take a look at it. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:Ssilvers, thanks for noticing, i presume from my edit at W.S.Gilbert's No Cards, and i see you're active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan. This is way out of any expertise by me; I'd be happy for any contribution you can make at Draft:Rosa D'Erina. Interesting self-styling as her being at command of royalty, though likely royalty did attend No Cards. And I find no support for styling of husband as Vicomte, as asserted in NYT wedding announcement. I think i'm about at dead end, have plowed through Google search options. I was sorta hoping to get a nice DYK-type article, but what's there is all i can find. If you have any sources, imdb.com like, for performances, or could otherwise develop, it would be great. --doncram 16:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see you got the full text to the NYT announcement, which supports vicomte claim better than what i could see. And other improvements already. thanks! --doncram 16:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing new objection and Doncram reply

You have just again removed one of my comments. Desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That's about Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Quote. Actually, I saw you and another edit were edit warring there, and I sought to stop it by stepping in as a 3rd person, while you each were at 2 reverts. I am surprised you pushed it to 3 reverts by you....you are definitely edit warring. I did not see it as me editing your comment, because in my 1 revert there I restored the page to showing the other editor's preferred display, which happened to leave no comment by you. I certainly did not edit within your comment. But since you object, I can see your point. So I won't revert you in a discussion and I likewise request that you not revert me. And, on my Talk page, you can comment but do not change a discussion section title; i retitled this one. And as you see, I did comment further at Signpost/Quote, not reverting your 3rd revert.

Also I have to say that it's weird seeing you disputing there about where a discussion should take place. Not long ago, with me, you disputed whether and/or where a discussion was taking place. As detailed at location of discussion issue (archived). --doncram 20:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I note your objection "Do not hat or remove other's comments" there, but you are obviously disrespecting my attempt to manage a discussion section to keep it focussed. You should expect your off-topic comments to be hatted along with others. You seem to be trying to abuse the concept that you and I should not edit each others'm comments. I do not agree that you can do so; i do expect to hat there soon. I am being nice in not hatting already, will do so soon. I hope you will cooperate in trying to make an informal agreement between us work. --doncram 22:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt:

• Do not edit my comments
• Do not move my comments
• Do not remove my comments
• Do not hat my comments
• Do not do the above to anyone else, unless they give you permission to do so
• Do not move, remove, or change comments (even your own) to which I or others have replied
• Do not complain if your new comments made while doing any of the above are affected by people reverting you.

And you are correct; I have no respect for your ham-fisted attempts to do these things. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Feb 2015 Warning

Doncram, Andy is correct here. You were told at 21:46 not to edit other's comments.[1] You returned and did so at 21:56.[2].

See: WP:TPO. Specifically: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. ". You were not elected to be Wikipedia's Chief Discussion Manager, and none of the listed exceptions apply here. If you continue to do this, you may be blocked. — Ched :  ?  22:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ched: I DID NOT. Your first diff shows Pigsonthewing's addition of "Do not hat or remove other's comments." Your second diff shows me leaving that in place. I stated an intention to hat the entire off-topic discussion soon, but I did not do so, leaving his comments exactly in place, not changing his meaning at all. This "warning" is off-base. --doncram 22:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a second part to that: "...or move". If someone places a comment where they feel it belongs, you are free to request that they move it, or noting that something is wrongly placed in your own comment; but you should not be doing the moving yourself. Your disputes with Andy are well documented, and this can be viewed as an antagonistic approach on your part. I would hope you will be more careful in the future, but the choice is ultimately up to you in the end. — Ched :  ?  23:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ched: Huh? You pose as a quote "...or move" when what was said is "...or remove". I did not intentionally move Pigsonthewing's or anybody's comments in any way that would change any meaning. As I already acknowledged, I was incorrect in perceiving that an inserted section moved the "location" section. It was in fact a subsection, not a section inserted out of order, so I should not have moved it, I was mistaken when I attempted to restore the order of sections. I don't need to be warned about that. Pigsonthewing's blatant disrespect for what I think was a decent attempt to have a focussed discussion in the "location" discussion, including edits removing my statements (contrast my care not to remove his) and his hypocritical and over-reaching dictate to me above, should be viewed as antagonistic on his part. I do appreciate your trying to be helpful here, and your tone. But I think you should "warn" Pigsonthewing about his actions, else you yourself are being one-sided, unfairly, and throwing around your admin status improperly, with apparent bias. --doncram 23:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete-by-stealth

• "Delete-by-stealth" tactics noted, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Weeks with the Queen. --doncram 02:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of National Register of Historic Places listings in Talbot County, Georgia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article National Register of Historic Places listings in Talbot County, Georgia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register of Historic Places listings in Talbot County, Georgia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Richard C. Stone (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This nomination appears to be the work of a vandal. See their history for further evidence. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 05:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I see they were stopped and followed. Hey, I'd say they're new at least, not sure i'd label them a vandal, as some/most/all the edits reverting theirs did. I did object at their page first, i think, seeing a spate of AFDs, which did not seem proper. But the Talbot list is actually all red-links, and does seem kinda weird, from point of view of a new editor, i would grant them that. Thanks, anyhow. cheers, --doncram 23:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Computer Economics

May I ask for your help in reviewing and revising the article about Computer Economics? I am a COI editor and should not edit the page directly, but I have left some suggestions on the article's talk page. Fscavo Fscavo (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

request

Since we reevaluated my request for deletion, could you give your input at the talk page regarding your view on GNG? Thank you. EricJ1074 (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't actually follow enough to have an informed opinion, and am bowing out of that discussion. I hope my participation was helpful in a limited way at least. --doncram 03:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

re problems with redirect

Hi,

I finally saw the complete error message. I get the error because I'm not an AFC participant. I guess the for the subpage to be reached, via the wikispace redirect without an error message, it has to be approved by an AFC participant. EChastain (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This is about soft redirect that I set up, wp:kaffeeklatsch, which is under discussion in an ongoing RFD. Actually, EChasutain, the problem could be that it was I who started the page, and it does need some approval for the message not to show. My account status is deficient in that I don't have "auto-patrolled" right and/or some other right. I'll ask for an AFC person to approve it anyhow, hope it will get fixed. --doncram 03:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added the second redirect to the discussion category, as it is listed also at the top of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Wikipedia:KAFFEEKLATSCH along with the first. Also, it's not a project page, so it's incorrectly categorised. EChastain (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi EChastain, I asked at User talk:Ivanvector#RFD help for them to remove the tag(s) added to the soft redirect, because it is messing up the use of the example. I'd like for you to accept that too, please see th,at request. Also by the way in this diff at the RFD you slightly miss-state what I said above. You don't need to bother fixing it there, but I do have perfect right/ability to create the redirect. You are perhaps suggesting that I did something wrong, which I did not. --doncram 04:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pioneer Bridge Co.

The article Pioneer Bridge Co. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William 17:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, WilliamJE. I created that article apparently in October 2012 but am under an NRHP-related editing restriction which prevents me from editing the article to improve it (using sources that probably have become available online, since 2012). And it probably prevents me from removing the PROD or participating in discussion at its Talk page. I would appreciate if you or anyone else would remove the PROD and either leave it or take it to a full AFD if necessary, to ensure some wider attention is given. Either way, thanks for the notice. --doncram 17:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here, but since user:WilliamJE has not responded I decided to remove the wp:PROD tag from Pioneer Bridge Co.. If someone feels strongly that this page should be purged from Wikipedia they can go ahead and wp:AFD it.

For those curious about my motivation here are a couple:

• I am an wp:inclusionist
• I have run into WilliamJE before at Detroit bankruptcy. From what I can tell this editor is convinced that his confrontational approach is bettering Wikipedia. I hope he is interested in feedback.

Apologies to DonCram for using his talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Asking for your attn/eyes on the Sageworks company page

Hello Doncram. I'm currently engaged in several back-and-forth edits with a few users on a page that you have reviewed, when it was nominated for AFD. The page in question is Sageworks. My view is that these editors have a clear WP:COI and grudge against this company, and are making uncited, unsubstantiated claims, in violation of several Wiki policies (ED, WORDS, NPOV, etc). I can make a case for why I think I'm right, but I'm also a new editor, and I could be totally off. I was hoping you might be open to taking a few minutes to review the page to ensure that these editors are not in violation, or if I'm doing something incorrectly (I'm certainly open to that possibility as well). Either way I think a senior editor would be beneficial to all involved. Are you willing to take a look? I've reached out, with this same message, to the editor which closed the AFD discussion, Sandstein. Thanks very much -- 77 woodmont (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)