Jump to content

User talk:Doncram

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CertifiedTurtle (talk | contribs) at 23:11, 28 February 2023 (→Major cryptocurrency firm article corrections and important updates: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(e)
as of Dec2010
as of Dec2014

Peer reviews with no or minimal feedback
If your review is not in the list of unanswered reviews, you can add it.

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of writers' halls of fame (January 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Pichemist were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Large, unsourced chunks of text present.
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 after they have been resolved.
Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 16:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happily, the article was just accepted by User:BusterD. Thanks! I dunno if your responding to the request that I posted at Talk:List of halls and walks of fame put you into any uncomfortable area, like whether you are super comfortable both with AFC processes and with list-article notability and writing issues, which are specialties, but especially thanks for taking a risk or whatever if that applies. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Swindler House has been accepted

Swindler House, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Doncram!

Happy New Year!

Doncram,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of swimming pools has been accepted

List of swimming pools, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:List of writers' halls of fame has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:List of writers' halls of fame. Thanks! Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 06:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your consideration on this list-article draft. A short while ago I posted a request at Talk:List of halls and walks of fame which had effect of getting another editor to accept the draft. I do appreciate what you and other AFC editors/reviewers do, despite my own perhaps-sometimes-critical tone about the topic of list-articles at AFC, in my AFC comments at this Draft or anywhere else. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:John Augustus Nyden

This draft subject was determined to be not notable. Maybe you can help with it? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To User:FloridaArmy and User:Pichemist, I just provided substantial comments at Draft talk:John Augustus Nyden, including instructions for using basic Wikipedia Library-enabled searching and for using the volunteer service to get any article or book for which you have reference details. Please do comment there. Hopefully Pichemist can just accept it now, or in a few days I will submit it again towards reaching other AFC reviewers. FloridaArmy you should at least put in request for yourself to get the bio article that I identified exists. Thank you both for participating. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: St. Landry Clarion (January 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pichemist was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This article contributes close to nothing. It is a good start but far from ready. At this point, if I wanted to learn about this specific newspaper, I'd just read the information already present in the library of congress.
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 after they have been resolved.
Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 10:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Doncram! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 10:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I resubmitted. Clearly notable. Decline lacks appropriate reasoning. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Though yikes, admonishing with "Don't be lazy and expect others to do everything for you, that's not how Wikipedia works." is harsh IMO. We each choose what we want to do as volunteers. Obviously we all could always do more, that includes User:FloridaArmy, myself, User:Pichemist. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Preserved locomotives in the United States (January 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Whether it's notable, I don't know - but a lot of it still remains entirely unsourced.
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 after they have been resolved.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mattdaviesfsic, thanks for reviewing, but could you identify any single factoid, at all, that is "unsourced" and that you feel requires explicit sourcing there? Please reply, continue at Preserved locomotives in the United States. My main point is (which I will develop there if it seems helpful) is that everything I put in comes from a source either directly identified and cited, or sources in the linked Wikipedia articles. It is not required (and it is not good IMHO) to paste in some or all of the inline references from linked article, when a Wikipedia list-article item provides a summary of the article. Not everyone has to understand this, but AFC reviewers of submitted list-articles need to be advised.
Also, the topic of "preserved locomotives" is so obviously notable, I think, that I don't think any broad discussion article about "Preserved locomotives in America" needs to be found and cited explicitly.
I am leaving this much reply here on my Talk page, to inform others of discussion there, and I will continue there. Thanks! --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my reply on the draft's talk page. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Cranston Voting House No. 12

Information icon Hello, Doncram. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cranston Voting House No. 12, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oakland, Union Parish, Louisiana has been accepted

Oakland, Union Parish, Louisiana, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 11:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Floyd Orson Wolfenbarger

This is another architect I'd be happy to hve some help on if you are aboe and willing. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:FloridaArmy, on Draft:Floyd Orson Wolfenbarger, I will take steps to get this promoted, if Floyd Orson Wolfenbarger doesn't change from redlink to bluelink soon), but could you please first try the EBSCO and other literature databases searchinng available through Wikipedia Library link (as I suggest is available at Draft:John Augustus Nyden), for this article? Please open and comment at Draft talk:Floyd Orson Wolfenbarger, and ping me from there, and I will do more. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"clannish editors"?

Nice ad hominem upon entry to the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Reed House‎‎. You're better than that. Toddst1 (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don't think "clannish" is a bad word. There is a set of editors who do articles on NRHPs, and have some related jargon and assumptions and knowledge, as there are sets of editors focused on other topics. What's wrong with referring to that?
User:Toddst1, and that my reference is an ad hominem attack? Upon myself? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you don't know me at all. Some definitions for the term:
inclined to associate exclusively with the members of one's own group; cliquish: as in "the clannish behavior of the original members of the country club."
imbued with or influenced by the sentiments, prejudices, or the like, of a clan.
_Of course_ i and others in this group have sentiments, and view which could be termed "prejudices". For example we all have a bias towards historic preservation, as opposed to wanting to allow destruction of cultural heritage and artifacts to make way for the new.
Maybe proving the point is my own comfortable assumption that in the group of NRHP editors overlapping with AFD editors there, that I will be understood not to be anti-preservation, anti-educational about historic places such as the Mary Reed House. I find myself possibly bristling a little about being attacked with accusation that I am making an ad hominem attack, and possibly induced into delineating me/we vs you ... :) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it, your use of "clannish" was entirely negative. Unmodified, the NRHP project members are a positive group. By labeling them clannish - it implied to me that you thought they look out for and protect each other at the expense of other goals (aka prejudiced). Why label them as other than what they are? Comment on content, not on the contributor(s).
No need to "bristle." You were not "attacked" and you should know that. I tried to politely (if not directly) point out that you were labeling a group of editors - IMHO, pejoratively (and I'm not even one of them). You still haven't realized this so my comment is apparently quite relevant. I even complimented you saying that you are better than this - which you usually are.
You're one of the more stalwart and respected editors on the project and I (incorrectly) assumed your skin would be thick enough to deal with the direct feedback.
Be better. Toddst1 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not feedback, it's judgment, and poor judgment at that. Piffle!, is what Toddst1 says on their Talk page, when others point out their attacks. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles County, California/Temp" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles County, California/Temp and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 16 § List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles County, California/Temp until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ohio Oil Company Building

Notice

The article Ohio Oil Company Building has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not explain why the subject is notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Enter Demoman (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed and resolved at Talk:Ohio Oil Company Building. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 08:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia presentation

Repeating from the general discussion page: one answer to your question - go to 'Preferences' next to your name at the top, then go on 'Appearances' and alter to taste. use the 'Preview' option to decide, Jackiespeel (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Jackiespeel, i guess, but I was not asking how to get back to the old Vector appearance/interface, in that discussion at wp:Village pump (miscellaneous). Instead I asked how I can navigate to something in the new interface, and I was given an answer, and I further commented that the new appearance/interface is growing on me. Thank you for going out of your way to try to be helpful, though. cheers, --Doncram (talk,contribs) 08:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lower Intervale Grange No. 321 has been accepted

Lower Intervale Grange No. 321, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clydesdale (1819 ship)

Hi Doncram: I reverted your edits and wanted to explain why in a little more detail. The term "East Indiaman" was a generic term for any vessel sailing to the East Indies (including non-British), analogous to the term "West Indiaman", which simply meant a vessel sailing to the West Indies. The British East India Company vessels were all East Indiamen, but not all East Indiamen were EIC ships. The EIC directly owned less than a handful of merchantmen. Most of its vessels were "regular" ships which it had contracted to have built and then chartered from their owners for usually four to eight voyages (depending on the era). It also employed "extra" ships, which were vessels that it contracted for anywhere from one to six or more voyages, but had not had built for its service. On another note, I looked at your talk page and much resonates with me, especially re AfDs and bullying. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clydesdale (1819 ship) and more. Thanks, and fine about the east india company vs east indiaman distinction u know far more about than i, but my point was a specific identification is needed. The article Clydesdale (1819 ship) is about one specific ship, not about the topic "Clydesdale". This is a problem I've noticed in many articles, and i wonder if maybe an essay or a point of clarification in the manual of style or some other guideline is needed. I don't know how to refer to this point, anyhow. You didn't completely revert me, i see, allowing it to be identified as a ship at least, and i do see it is the only ship of name Clydesdale now listed (after i just added it) to disambiguation page Clydesdale, but there are others, e.g.this one, the recently uncovered slaver(?)/plantation ship(?), and others of note show up in quick Google search. Could u please revise it further to introduce the article more specifically, eg call it "The 1819 ship Clydesdale..." or such (which would require more revision in the intro)? Thank u for posting here and your other thoughts. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Cranston Voting House No. 12

Hello, Doncram. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cranston Voting House No. 12".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz, could you please say more? I see that it has now been deleted. I did make effort to avoid this happening, have been deliberately trying to track any draft articles that I have out there and make edits as needed to avoid this (as well as to keep developing some of them, all the time). Are you actually sure I missed the six month mark on this one? And, I know you have declined in the past to help me in this way, but could you see your way to restoring it right now, saving time for me and saving effort on behalf of others that would have at least slightly more difficulty in restoring it than you would? sincerely, --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, please come to me with your refund requests. On the other hand, all you have to do to prevent deletion is to edit the draft once every 180 days... BusterD (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT CONFLICT: I see from my record that I tried to edit it on December 8, 2022 so it should have been okay until May 8, 2023, along with other drafts. But I see now that I made a typo in formatting this one alone on a list, so therefore I missed this one and did not in fact edit it (it looks to me like I last edited it on 2022-07-30 22:21). FYI, the set of drafts created by me is a rotating set ... I have gotten others published fully to main space at about the same rate as i have created some new ones. And it is part of developing Wikipedia in a positive way, I believe. It is positively good that I created that draft, for example, and that it was in draftspace so that no other editor would start the article without being made aware of it, etc., IMHO.
Liz, you are obviously legally allowed to delete it and I know that you know that I know that you don't have to restore it, but could you just do that, anyhow, please? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:BusterD for noticing this and for restoring it. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big fan of User:Liz and give lots of deference towards her calls. Further (because we've all been here so long) I'm aware of how you got yourself in this situation and while I'm sympathetic, I'm unable to affect the way things are. Please do your utmost to make this process as trouble free for the rest of us as possible. I value your work. I'd much rather make mistakes helping you than count on anyone else writing this valuable pagespace themselves. BusterD (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, whether it is super fair or not for me, towards making the situation entirely trouble free for others, I jury-rigged(?) jerry-rigged(?) a system which makes a manageable amount of work for myself, which should have avoided this coming up. And which I hope will entirely avoid further interactions in the future. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on truckin', Doncram. You have more supporters than you might imagine. Your vast experience is an under-appreciated resource, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia US Mountain West online meeting

Wikipedia users in the United States Mountain West and High Plains will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, articles, or photographs of our region is encouraged to attend.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who would have thought...

that our paths wouldn't have crossed before meeting at the Pullman Flatiron Building. We've both been here forever and our interests overlap. But I don't think we've encountered each other - apologies if I've forgotten. Anyways, just wanted to drop by and thank you for Historic Site(s). Historic site is actually my favourite template, and I use it for most of my buildings articles, although they are a drop in this ocean compared to your contributions. And, having done the flattery, are you able to advise on creating List templates? I may not need to, as I have already asked the favour elsewhere, but if they are not able to help, can I come back and ask? All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure i'd be glad to help, though I am not sure what you mean by "creating List templates" ... perhaps you could link me to the request(s) stated elsewhere. Flattery is good, and I think an under-utilized tool in Wikipedia! Aside: Operating here one can expect to get as much or more negative feedback as positive, while people aren't built to function that way; something like 7:1 positive vs. negative is the ratio considered normal or necessary I think. Gotta run, ttyl. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, despite my long service, I remain rubbish at Wikipedia technical matters, including their terminology. What I'm trying to do relates to this, Cadw/ICOMOS Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales. Having done some categorisation, Category:Registered historic parks and gardens in Monmouthshire I now want to create something like this, Listed parks and gardens in the East Midlands, but which taps into the Cadw, rather than the Historic England, database. My effort is here, User:KJP1/sandbox 5 Monmouthshire gardens, but the links don't work. They should work like this, Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire, but an editor a lot more tech-savvy than I set that one up. As I say, don't trouble yourself just now. I've asked for help and it may well get sorted. But it is good to have a Plan B, for which many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again - some good progress has been made, which you can see, here. Any suggestions based on your own experience would be very gratefully received. Do you think it might be worth asking for feedback at the Heritage sites project? Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Swain House has been accepted

William Swain House, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to self

Please don't insert notes and queries like "always pretty ugly? enough of a flatiron to keep or is it just a quadrilateral?" and "Billed as smallest building on west coast? F. Manson White, Chicago School??" in live articles in mainspace, as you did in List of Flatiron buildings. I've noticed you doing this before, and it's a bad practice, since any reader who happens to view the article before you deal with the matters will see the notes. That sort of thing is OK in drafts and sandboxes but not in article space. Can't you just keep notes on a sheet of paper? Also, when you're making a series of edits to an article over a (relatively short) period of time, it's a good idea to slap an {{In use}} template at the top of it, so neither you nor other editors will experience irritating edit conflicts. Deor (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing some en-dashes to em-dashes in the article, and some similar other small changes. After I brought it from this version earlier today (but with more redlinks than show now) to this version. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Deor's point was to not make notes to yourself in article space, I know you've done it at other lists and articles as well. The state of the Other Information column in the table at List of wedding chapels in Las Vegas is really bad right now. Could you please not add irrelevant commentary on entries in article space? Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Philipnelson99, I recognize that you had and continue to have concerns about that list-article, which is in unresolved status at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wedding chapels in Las Vegas (2nd nomination) currently. We obviously disagree about much there, as you had deleted and I restored a number of entries in the list-article. But I appreciate, I seriously do, your participation in the article's editing, in the Talk page discussion, and in the AFD. Before or during while an AFD is going on, it seems to me usually better for all participants to allow arguably marginal material to remain in place (or to be added) and improved, so that all can conveniently see and hopefully so that some criticisms can be resolved by improvements. In this case, I believe that at least some of your criticism there has been fully resolved (by elimination of all external links which were present in the article before the AFD). I appreciate your not just re-deleting material, and IMO it is also fair and constructive for you to make further comments and requests at the Talk page, or here, about the material you view as marginal.
About the info in that column, there were two questions stated there until I eliminated them just now. I (obviously) didn't know how to handle one case of a "chapel" that might not have a physical chapel. And during a period of active editing where I added specific addresses, I had noted that several differently-named services were in fact at the same address. I addressed that then by combining and eliminating duplication, but failed then to remove the note of question. That's done now.
I will volunteer that the list-article;s column for description or other information is still not great, and that I am at the moment unsure what should and should not be presented there. Hopefully the resolution of the AFD will resolve some uncertainty. Again, thank you for your participation in all that.
To both of you, I do agree of course that editing type questions should not be left in mainspace articles, or at least not left there long. No one is prevented from stepping in to address them, though. I don't know my using "under construction" or "in active use" type templates more than I have used them solves everything or anything. It seems to me that others object to those templates being on pages, e.g. by entering to dispute whether a given article is still being edited, sometimes expressing that by removing the template. In the past I have sometimes restored such a template, only to encounter their removing it again. In practice there seem to be good reasons not to use them. The list of wedding chapels article is pretty clearly in flux, anyhow, as it is labelled by the AFD notice and anyone can read the ongoing discussion there. I presume that resolution of the AFD will allow and lead to further editing.
Towards actually addressing real editing issues that exist whether or not there is a question mark existing for a while in a mainspace article, it is always an option for editors such as yourselves to comment and/or make requests at the Talk pages of the articles. At the wedding chapels list, after Philipnelson99 making a comment that I feel was largely resolved, I asked questions to which no one has responded; at the flatiron buildings list there is a comment I made in 2010 and a few others' comments up to 2016, but no recent ones. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting into unrelated territory but I haven't replied to your discussion on the article talk page for the Las Vegas list because I'm not sure where to start with that discussion and am waiting on a resolution the AfD before beginning a potentially futile effort. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I agree it seems reasonable to wait for the AFD to be finished, although I presume/hope discussion will be productive rather than "futile", e.g. perhaps towards lessening coverage of lesser entries somehow without becoming indefensibly selective. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of museum ships. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been undone by 2 editors so far (myself included), and from what I have seen on the talk page you refuse to discuss the issue. Please self revert... the list of former museum ships has been absent from the article for months now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense that I "refuse to discuss"...I opened the discussion at Talk myself, after seeing back-and-forth editing going on with nothing posted at Talk. As a responsible type of editor, you should have opened Talk. I will get to the discussion sometime, shouldn't spend any time on this today though. There should be no rush to resolve everything opened up, there is no deadline, there's no copyvios or BLPs or any other urgent problem.
I came to the page upon noticing the recent big deletion of material by you, and I see one other person, then you again (o i c u r not claiming 3 editors have done the big deletion, it is just u and one other. Well 2 editors, me and one other, restored it, so there.
I gather that you or someone else got away with deleting the big passage 2 months ago, stealthily, and no one immediately picked up on it and reverted the undiscussed big action. U are hanging on a technicality (what's it called (trying a link: "wp:wikilawyering"?) to assign blame to others perhaps less well versed in Wikipedia technicalities and unwritten practices. You or whoever shouldn't have gotten away with that, and the status quo should be the version which I believe has been in place for years and years (i am not now checking).
I'm not reviewing everything that's happened there and at related other places (wasn't there a related AFD?), but it seems possible you are engaging in a mild (or insidious, depending on your point of view) campaign of admin abuse of process, abuse of newbies perhaps, etc. Admin abuse is characterised by admin editors pushing limits and arcane weird "rules", in acts where each one does not quite rise to the level of being a super-obvious violation, either for apparently nefarious purposes (to get their way in a content dispute without due process or against apparent consensus, to oppress some newbie or lower-status editor, etc.) or having similar bad effect(s) upon others.
Now you, a wp:involved admin, are threatening me (that's normal language, probably not rising to Wikipedia definition for certain purposes, don't dispute it) at my Talk page. I'd say you should be the one in danger of getting blocked from editing.
I will get to the discussion sometime. Chill out, okay? I write this post for you to take note, akin to your posting here. Don't take it too seriously, and I won't take your posturing too seriously either, if you will be reasonable going forward. I do basically respect you as a reasonable editor. I think my decent impression of you derives from past AFDs in which we both participated in. If we had other significant interaction in the past I would be happy if you would remind me of that.
--Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They aren't an admin. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 01:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-national natural landmarks

Is there a good Wikipedia page for a non-national natural monument that I could be referred to as a sort of template for a landmark that I would like to creat a new page for? OquirrhMountainMan (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there were some U.S. states having their own separate registries of natural landmarks and being covered by list-articles in Wikipedia, but seem to be mistaken in that.
For historic landmarks in the U.S. there are national programs NRHP and NHL, and there is probably a state-level separate registry in every state, and we have coverage and list-articles about only some of them. And there are numerous county-level and city- or town-level ones for which we have Wikipedia coverage.E.g. there are list-articles like List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Hollywood which cover city-level ones in each area of the City of Angels.
I don't see why there couldn't be a Wikipedia article about a state-, region-, or local-level registry of natural landmarks. Supposing you really want to write about one particular natural landmark, it still might be a good strategy to create an overview article about the registry it is listed in, and include a partial or complete list of all of the listings, in the overview article. Or the list of all examples could be split from the overview article talking about the origination and goals and history of the program. Then when you come forward with your article about the one, it can be understood in context as a natural split of a subtopic out of an established larger list-article. But, you don't have to do it that way, you can start with just the one. Likely it would relevant to include a template:Infobox protected area.
Feel free to ask me anything, and I'll try to help. I would take a look at any draft or notes you could put together in a page within Draft space or within your User space. I myself have mostly worked on lists and examples of historic sites (within the worldwide scope of wp:HSITES, not natural landmarks which would be within scope of WP:PAREAS. I'm sure it would be fine to post questions or comments or requests to wt:PAREAS; I would be willing to try to round up ppl with more relevant experience than me, if I get to know a bit more. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Collaboration invitation

WikiProject Colorado

WikiProject Colorado invites you to participate in our current collaboration to locate and document the following two original 1861 Colorado Territory county seats:

If you have any questions, please contact User:Buaidh (talk or e-mail).

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/Colorado/Invitation list. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major cryptocurrency firm article corrections and important updates

Hi, I see you’re a participant in the WikiProject for Finance and Investment and are currently active on Wikipedia. There are some corrections and important updates needed in the article about Digital Currency Group, one of the major players in cryptocurrency. I’ve started a discussion here. I have a COI, as fully disclosed on the page. Given the nature of the topic I thought this might be of interest to you as a participant in the Finance and Investment WikiProject. Thanks very much for your time. CertifiedTurtle (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doncram&oldid=1142177000"