User talk:Acroterion

Signpost

Gypsum Board

Like to get your thoughts on the whole Drywall discussion since I feel we have some agreement on some things and because I believe you would be more likely to have access to relevant sources (books). BTW, i'm not inclined to begin an article known as Gypsum Panels - - suggest eliminating the redirect from Gypsum board instead, so as you have been suggesting, information about the material might be migrated. What kind of act of god would need to occur for that? Looking at the history, it has been opened up and re-merged before; suppose those arguments have been lost into the Wiki history long ago--Teda13 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Making Gypsum board into an article from a redirect is fine. The history's just that one move, and I don't find any sign of a discussion apart from the bold move itself and the edit summary. I'd organize the new article into a general discussion, followed by sections on interior and exterior products. Glass-fiber facings deserve mention, as they're replacing paper. Most of the materials we have in our library are elderly, as everything's available online in updated form - the big wall of binders is getting smaller, much as the Sweet's Catalog went from 100 lb of green books (one delivery guy who'd carried the boxes up to the third floor thought we'd ordered some particularly dense candy) to nothing. But at least I know the (North American) players and will chime in where I can - I'm way too busy in real life to do anything very ambitious here on the wiki. Acroterion _(talk) 22:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

... another matter if you don't mind? maybe you could put on your Admin hat or refer it to someone - - the latest revert by user:Ahering... : (→Fire resistance: Removal of weasel clause tag: The verbiage used is identical to building code language and the references match. Standards + codes are correctly referenced.) what do you think about this? my reading across some passages of this article is that they have been ripped and slightly reworded but according to this Ahering user the passage on 'Fire resistance' is word for word from the code... do you see any inline references of that? shouldn't the whole passage be eliminated if it's a copyright violation?--Teda13 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit puzzled by the weasel tag, which is usually applied when someone employs " ... some think that ... " " ... might have been ..", "sometimes", " ... is disputed in some circles ...", etc. If it's a copyvio it should be reworded or rewritten. If it's just the same terminology (which is how I read it), then it would be OK, even good. A quick Google search doesn't reveal an obvious copyvio (and removing copyvios isn't the exclusive preserve of administrators), but it isn't very digestible in its present form for the lay reader. Paragraphs and such are needed to break up the wall of text. I think the idea of the discussion is useful, as gypsum panel fire ratings aren't a widely discussed concept outside the building profession, and the discussion would be illuminating for the casual reader looking for an introduction to the concepts. References are, as always, desirable; you might want to ask him to add them. From his CV it's his field, so it shouldn't be difficult. Acroterion _(talk) 03:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks. maybe i'm reading it differently but it seems to read pretty well throughout as " force of authority to a phrase or a sentence without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable." if i'm accepting that it's not ripped from somewhere else, then the tone really seems pretty pretentious. i agree with you there are parts to it where the idea of giving a reader, not involved in the building industry, a look at boiled-down lesson on passive fire protection almost appear - and that would seem a decent wiki thing to do. i feel fairly comfortable reading dense scientific technical papers and textbooks, specification language, legal documents, the lousy UL manual descriptions, etc. yet, in my opinion, there are parts of this that seem far more complicated than they need to be to describe the subject, failing to give me an exact reference - again and again - saying "the building code", i think we know how wide and varied ocean that is, or "approved designs" or "appropriate category" written as if UL is the only authority in the world. forgive me if you disagree but the whole last paragraph flits from conclusion to conclusion to conclusion "importantly", "therefore, important" "simply" "In reality," is, therefore, counterproductive" with the ease as if it's the back of a Betty Crocker box and still no inline attribution. as i understand it... and as i'm reminded at the foot of every single edit page... "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" . The burden in on the editor and I would like to see sources - that's the wiki way - and the easiest way to separate out the original research and copyright violations.--Teda13 (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

also - - i took out two passages from the "Specifications" section because they appear ripped directly from Copyright © 2009 Handyman Matters, Inc without attribution - - you can see it's not up to the bar as a wikipedia's reliable reference considering it's an advertisement shrouded in some information--Teda13 (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. This is an encyclopedia for general readers, and whatever we can do to make it readable and comprehensible to the public is valuable. As always, if you find a clear copyvio, take it out. If you think you have a copyvio, it's best to condense and rewrite it if it's feasible. I've run into situations where I could swear it's something from a textbook - the style is distinctive - and copyedited it to something more encyclopedic. There is a certain tension between enough referencing and too much, but my personal goal is never to add any unreferenced content, unless it is in the form of a lede or summary that is backed up farther down the page with referenced material. If the subject is biographical, a more aggressive approach is demanded - no unreferenced material in biographies of living or recently deceased people, apart from a fairly concise lede. Acroterion _(talk) 12:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

i'm leaving this alone because, you're saying you will be adding the inline reference that indicates: information about drywall (not gypsum board changed to drywall) and that 1/2" is most common. thanks for the follow up by the way - - i'm glad we discussed this matter--Teda13 (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I put the information back in as a summary to make the article flow until it can get a better, and referenced, rewrite. WP:V only requires references for assertions that could be challenged and for quotes. I doubt anyone would challenge the dimensional information presented. It is possible to over-reference. However, there will eventually be a reference for this. Acroterion _(talk) 18:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)--Teda13 (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding that more than a few of the passages and an image or two in the article are transfered, word for word, from this Cull Dry Lining advertising web site without attribution of any kind.--Teda13 (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The boards are cut to size by using a large T-square by scoring the paper on the front side with a utility knife, breaking the sheet along the cut, scoring the backing and finally breaking the sheet in the opposite direction. Small features such as holes for outlets and light sockets are usually cut using a keyhole saw or a small high speed bit in a rotary tool. Drywall is then fixed to the wall structure with nails or more commonly the now-uniquitous drywall screw. - from Cull website--Teda13 (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

By all means, remove copy/pastes and put back a more appropriate discussion. Be aware that sometimes the reverse is possible - that another website may have copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around - I've seen it happen. But not in this case, I think. The image at 365 x 360 is awfully small to have been uploaded as an owner-generated image. I doubt the claim stated in the file release and have taggted the image. Acroterion _(talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, nuke it. It's not a difficult subject to write about without plagiarizing, but it's not an unusual problem here. Acroterion _(talk) 04:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Therefore, a fire in one room, which is separated from an adjacent room by a fire resistance rated assembly will not cause the adjacent room to get any warmer that the boiling point (100.c) until the water in the gypsum is gone. This makes drywall and ablative material because as the hydrates sublime, a crumbly dust is left behind, which, along with the paper is sacrificial." - from Cull website. I'm getting some comments from User talk:Ahering@cogeco.ca|talk about my clarifying of the 'Fire Resistance' section, so there may be some delay in processing those removals - would like to choose good references, and it's just such a thrilling subject. Noting that this other editor has a fairly contentious history when I look at the Talk:Joint_(building)--Teda13 (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Because up to 17% of drywall is wasted during the manufacturing and installation process, and the drywall material is rarely re-used, disposal is an ongoing problem."- from Cull website. --Teda13 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw the revert on the drywall image and I still think the image is fishy. Not that it's much of a unique image but I don't understand why a nearly 50 year old "dry lining" company in Liverpool would have any reason to steal images (or verbiage for that matter) from a Wikipedia article? I wonder if there is a history of an attempt to link this Cull website as a reference for the article? The website seems to go back to about 2006.--Teda13 (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's why I only tagged it rather than deleting; I wanted someone else to look at it, and right now after a night's sleep that looks like a US-spec outlet box - UK electricals are huge. I missed the earlier version, which would be consistent with an older, low-res camera. Looking at the uploader's contributions, my suspicion grows that the content on the external website was cribbed from WP, since that 2005 uploader had no connection to the text you were looking at. You might want to look around at other parts of the website to see if it's written consistently. Acroterion _(talk) 11:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced (cribbed from Wik). I'm beginning to agree with you that the Cull Website is not likely the originator, because - as you suggested - other pages on their site seemed cribbed also - - but that doesn't exclude a third source. I'm finding that the Plaster section of the Cull site is cribbed from The (printed) encyclopædia britannica available on Google Books if you want to see yourself... I haven't been all through it, but I think the wiki Plaster section should be checked against the encyclopædia, with an eye on attribution too.

Kind of like a house of mirrors, isn't it? Acroterion _(talk) 13:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the revert on the Drywall article. Do you think it's better or more accessible to the common man without the re-org? Seems like a pretty punitive move to me, like he owns the content? --Teda13 (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You're in the D phase of WP:BRD - you should discuss your edits and concerns with the other editor, who's asked, quite politely, to do so. That was an opportunity to explain what you were doing and why, including any copyright concerns, so that you might both work together to improve the article. Nobody's ever claimed that a collaborative anonymous editing environment was easy. I believe your concerns are valid (my comments above stand, but I've removed the bolding you added, as a refactoring of my comments - it's better to quote in your own comments), but you, for the sake of clarity and courtesy, should take up the offer to discuss with the other editor, who seems to have some useful insights to offer from Canadian standards. Article ownership is usually more obvious and far less politely stated, over a long period of time. Acroterion _(talk) 12:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, his first discuss wasn't polite, it was a terse shot over the bow about defending what he deems as his content, talking about "... getting into an edit war" with me over his original research... saying "personally designed and run any fire tests" saying and "can't fathom why". I don't see anything precious or dear about how the Fire section was written, and I think the part devoted to penetrants still seems heavy for the topic and presumed audience. I put "which" tags right after items that needed rewording or clarification and largely left the phrases alone. Did you look at the admin intervention dialog on the Talk:Joint_(building) article? I did, which is why I wanted to just polish up what was there, add some more worldly (than just Canada) and encyclopedic content, then move on? --Teda13 (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The first time was a bit peevish, but no bridges have been burned. As I said, my comments still stand - we must remove copyright violations, and we should avoid excessively technical discussions in a general-reference encyclopedia. I try very hard to avoid appeals to authority (as in "I've been a licensed architect since God made dirt and I tell you that I'm right ...) because that kind of discussion inevitably goes wrong, as tempting as it is, and is contrary to WP:V and WP:OR, whether I'm right or not. The first comment to you was an appeal to authority. Your objection is not whether it's right or not, but whether it's accessible and whether the language is copied. I don't endorse the reversion, nor do I endorse a policy of non-engagement .It's not beyond the point of productive discussion, and right now you're talking past each other. Acroterion _(talk) 15:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. You are reasonable to work with so I appreciate the listening. Not sure if I will continue as you suggest - it's all getting pretty tiresome since no one seems to be interested in adding or cleaning up content. I have a lot of Wiki-articles i'm interested in that I keep a look at, many of them weak - - overall edits adding content are very rare. This Gyp article with all the effort on the talk page about references, many of them available online, and no one willing to transfer that understanding to the article?--Teda13 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember that there are no deadlines here. I'm happy to listen, but I will admit to being overwhelmed by apathy at the prospect of editing articles about building construction technology - it's too much like Real Life work, which I'm pleased to say is showing signs of getting busier. We're supposed to be doing this for fun as volunteers. Don't worry too much about it and find something that makes you happy to edit, and as you correctly observe, there are lots of opportunities to do good. Acroterion _(talk) 16:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct.... and i'm glad to hear Real Life Work in your part are showing some improvement - i'm noticing that too.--Teda13 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Maine Lights

I'm in the process of adding 40+ Maine Light articles -- all of the redlinks on Template:Lighthouses of Maine. If there's anything you'd like added to them -- I can do it as part of the process.

I deliberately didn't add the NRHP infobox because none of the other lighthouse articles I've seen used both that the lighthouse infobox. I think the lighthouse information is more interesting to the casual reader than the NRHP detail.

If, however, there's any consensus for using both, I can easily add it, but I don't have the strength to look up the add date and reference number... If you can provide them easily, here they are:

1. Baker Island Light
2. Bear Island Light
3. Browns Head Light
4. Burnt Coat Harbor Light
5. Curtis Island Light
6. Doubling Point Light
7. Egg Rock Light
8. Great Duck Island Light
9. Grindel Point Light
10. Hendricks Head Light
11. Heron Neck Light
12. Indian Island Light
13. Libby Island Light
14. Little River Light
15. Lubec Channel Light
16. Manana Island Sound Signal Station
17. Monhegan Island Light
18. Mount Desert Light
19. Narraguagus Light
20. Perkins Island Light
21. Petit Manan Light
22. Prospect Harbor Point Light
23. Pumpkin Island Light
24. Ram Island Light
25. Saddleback Ledge Light
26. Seguin Light
27. Squirrel Point Light
28. Tenants Harbor Light
29. The Cuckolds Light
30. Whitehead Light
31. Winter Harbor Light

Also, I don't understand the speedy deletion beef (and you seem to agree.Jameslwoodward (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to take the NRHP template off: it doesn't add that much, and as you say, it's not commonly used on lighthouses, although the blue bottom NRHP template is. I find it handy to track the HRHP nomination number,which helps in finding the Park Service documentation, but there are other ways to do that. The speedy tagging was a misguided newbie; I've seen a lot of that recently and have been aggressively declining them. I think I'll put the nomination and ref in the article next to the NRHP mention and ditch the infoboxAcroterion _(talk) 23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can find all the dates added to NRHP quickly in NRIS by searching State=ME and Name=Light, which gives me a list that includes the 31 names above. Is there an easy place to find the nomination numbers -- five minutes on NRIS doesn't turn up an obvious way there. If you'd like the numbers included, I'd rather add them as part of the creation process (I use an Excel text generator for this sort of thing, so if I have the numbers, they can be added with no extra work at all). Then, as you suggest, I'll use Burnt Coat Harbor as my model. Jameslwoodward (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A Small Favor

Could you do me a favor? Could you move WPCN to WVRR? The station moved it call sign in the past couple days and I attempted to do it myself, but it is currently in used as a redirect. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. It appears to have been a redirect its whole life and had no meaningful history. I assume you'll tidy it up to the new letters, etc. Acroterion _(talk) 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That I will :) I am in the process of going through the West Virginia stations and updating them with logos, new infoboxes, updated information and the like to give all the pages a more uniform look. Took me a year to do the Virginia pages (mostly cause I took a couple breaks) but the WV stations are going quicker. Many thanks for the move. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We West Virginians don't have quite so many radio stations as those fancy Virginia folks. All their NPR and all ... Acroterion _(talk) 00:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse, me, sir/madam.

You have deleted my wiki page, RobloxFever. It was a site made by me, and I would like to know why it got deleted.

I read A-7, but I assume you deleted my page because you didn't know I made the site too... Anyways, thank you.

Cool33333 (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted because it made no assertion of notability and because it was borderline advertising. If it's your site, you have a conflict of interest, which accounts for the inappropriate promotional tone of the article. Acroterion _(talk) 11:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mummy Cave

On August 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mummy Cave, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 08:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work! Nyttend backup (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the push, and it's been rated as a B-class article. Acroterion _(talk) 16:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the real Gerard. Just trying to create my page without knowing what im doing. Ill send my real email or fone if u want to verify me xxxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcotter (talk • contribs) 03:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jerkin'

hi, I noticed you were on the deletion logs for this page.. it seems to be salted. I'm not sure if you know but there has been some local coverage in the LA Weekly about this "trend", and it appears there is an interest in this article to exist. Can you restore the article so sources can be added and it can be brought up to standards? thanks riffic (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any of the deleted revisions, which is strange, but I can tell you that if there had been a reference, I wouldn't have deleted the article. I seem to recall that it was unreferenced and short on substantive content. I'll keep looking, but something funny's going on with the deleted revs. Acroterion _(talk) 18:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Fort Laramie Three-Mile Hog Ranch

On August 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fort Laramie Three-Mile Hog Ranch, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 08:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Old Ponce Casino

hi and thx for adding the info box to old ponce casino article. I have now created article PONCE CITY HALL and added an infobox as you did. However, i couldn't find the NRHP Reference#: that displays at bottom of infobox. can you help? thx. btw, I intend to create a handful more similar nrhp articles, where can i find the nrhp reference number? thx. Rob99324 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(I'm butting in here because I'm watching Acroterion's talk page.) I have a download of the National Register Information System, the database that lists properties on the National Register. I had to do some looking, but I found the reference number, which is 86003197. I added it to the article.

I have a number of query tools for the downloaded database at [1]. However, the query by city tool doesn't work for cities in Puerto Rico, because I don't have "PR" listed as a state. Here's a workaround, though: If you use the query by city tool and manually enter the city and state parameters, you can get a listing for what's in Ponce, PR. That's kind of a hack, but at least that should get you going on Ponce. I'll fix the query tool sometime this evening. (Also, I know that Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, not a state, but the National Register database lists commonwealths and possessions as states.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Elkman! from Rob99324 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, from me - Elkman's toolbox is where I'd have pointed you as well if he hadn't been stalking my talkpage already. Acroterion _(talk) 21:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lighthouse discussions (not on NHRP)

Dear Acroteriion, Thank you for correcting my errors. Doing this many discussion pages inevitably involved some errors. Happy editing.

In making this edit I encountered a difficlty in that the edit summary did not display. This was odd, and I could not fill it out. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

You're welcome, I appreciate your hard work. Sometimes it's hard to tell whether National Register status is appropriate, especially if the property is part of a historic district, so don't worry about getting it wrong - there are a lot of that sort of thing and I've been trying to make a stab at sorting them out. As for the edit summary problem, that's a new issue that I haven't seen before, but there have been problems recently with some of the servers that deal with the editing and uploading aspect of the encyclopedia, so I'm not surprised. Acroterion _(talk) 15:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, when I began my project of stubbing out all of the redlinked Maine lighthouses, I did an NRIS search on "State = Maine" and "Name contains 'Light'", so I thought I had a list of all the NRHP lights in Maine. I've noticed that you've added the WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|class=stub template to the discussion pages of several that do not appear to be on the NRHP --- (Eagle Island Light, Dice Head Light, and Blue Hill Bay Light). Since you're an expert and I'm a newbie, I'm reluctant to simply remove the tag. Are they very recent adds? NRIS is down right now, so I can't check there, but they don't appear on Elkman's tool. Jim a/k/a Jameslwoodward (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I may have done the NRHP assessment without specifically checking those for NRHP status, since I've generally added the NRHP bottom template if it checks out. I've been going through the unassessed NRHP category, which is based on the talkpage wikiproject listing. It's easy to forget to check for NRHP status. I'll have a look at those, thanks. Acroterion _(talk) 12:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Croterion, I also have put project banners on all of the lights in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesolta, Illinois, and Ohio. Thanks for all of your hard work. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

Here I go stalking Acroterion's talk page again. :) Some time ago, I found a reference that would help: Inventory of Historic Light Stations, part of the NPS Maritime Heritage Program. It lists lighthouses in each state and identifies which ones are on the National Register. It turns out that Eagle Head and Blue Hill Bay Lights aren't on the National Register, but Dice Head Light is a contributing property to a historic district. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My wiki page states that you deleted it

I would like to know why you deleted my article on the clan "Blue Dawn Gaming" it is a real clan (website www.bluedawngaming.com) and contains true information. I would like it to be restored if possible. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDGAchilles (talk • contribs)

The article described a club or organization for which no assertion of notability was made. In general, gaming clans do not meet Wikipedia's general notability standards. In general, you'd need to have received non-trivial mention in multiple media outlets with a reputation for fact-checking, of more than purely local standing. In other words, there'd have to be several newspaper articles about the clan. Acroterion _(talk) 02:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Abubakr Buera‎

Is there anyway you could be the ax down on the Abubakr Buera‎ article? It looks like an unremarkable person, has alot of personal information (address, email, etc.) that shouldn't be in the open, among other things. The user continues to remove the db-person tag. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Professors are generally considered notable, but not when the article's their resume. Acroterion _(talk) 03:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 'DJ Frayz'

This was unwarranted as the article was not yet complete; editing was in-process and was suddenly deleted. Not appreciated. Ryanfaricy (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-name

Minor point. Your username, Acroterion, is the best name I have ever seen on Wikipedia up to this point in time. Bigturtle (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? I've come to think of it as a bit too grandiose-sounding, myself. On the other hand, it's a minor Greek architecture widget, sort of like a Greek gargoyle, so that's kind of cool. Thanks! Acroterion _(talk) 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Port Austin Light

According to the Coast Guard, the light is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, but it has not been listed. Michigan Lighthouse Conservancy, Port Austin Reef Light. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

I've run across some like that; the Pasadena Freeway is eligible, even applied for, but not listed (in that case because Caltrans is opposed to it). I'd think that virtually every 19th century light station is eligible, but there's no consensus to include eligible properties as part of the NRHP project, especially since there are 60,000 fully registered properties with no articles yet. Maybe there should be a template or something that states that "this property has been determined by Agency X to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but is not listed on the Register. Acroterion _(talk) 13:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't insisting. Just thought you'd like to know. I understand. I've got 150 plus lighthouse aricles in Michigan alone that need more work or need to be created, so I simpathize.

I understood your meaning, and you're doing a great job. I'll reply to the items below in a short while. Acroterion _(talk) 15:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. These lighthouse articles are one of many backwaters in WP. I don't know that anybody (except for me and a few editors I've been working with) notices or cares. And building these up is a long journey, with occasional side trips to other Great Lakes states, and even such places (Tenants Harbor Light (which I thought was pretty neat -- the links to the paintings are better than any of the associated lighthouse websites). Anyway, I digress. I've got to get out of here, and will have limited access to the internet for he next ten days or so. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

Talk:Peninsula Point Light

Pllese take a look at this. I don't know that the changes I made again (the server didn't pick up an edit) will affect your rating. But the article is more complete. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC) stan

More detail is good. To generally answer the question of rating, I evaluate on the basis of the class B criteria:

• Suitably referenced? Your articles are well referenced. I've rated a lot of articles as Cs when they could be Bs with a broader range of references, but sometimes the refs simply aren't available. Some of my own articles suffer in that way.
• Reasonably covers the topic? It's always hard to tell about this, and I think some expansion concerning the design of the lighthouses themselves would be welcome. I'm an architect, and I'm biased in favor of a discussion of the structure, not just the characteristics of the light. More history would be good, if there's history to be had.
• Defined structure? More detail allows more structure, but your articles are pretty well structured.
• Well written? I think the White Shoal article is a little informal in places, but the overall writing is acceptable.
• Supporting materials? More images, drawings from HABS, maps and so on are welcome.
• Accessible? No issues there.

In general, if an article is close to meeting all the B criteria, but is missing in one respect, I rate it a C. If it's two criteria, I make it a start (unless I feel otherwise, etc. I do not claim to be totally consistent). In the general case of the lighthouses, more supporting material and more detail would boost the rating. Also, keep in mind that I'm rating articles from the point of view of the NRHP wikiproject, so an article on a school, for example, would lose credit for completeness if it focuses on the organization and minimizes the physical structure. Lighthouses have fewer problems in that respect. I think Peninsula Point could use more content, in summary, if there's any to be sourced. Acroterion _(talk) 15:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's good to know the rules. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

White Shoal Light

Please let me know what I might do to boost the rating? This is a good article in terms of lighthouses and the available information (albeit I have not plugged in a lot of books yet). Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

Starting with the above discussion, some of the informal language in the how-to-see-the-light section could be rephrased. The light required some detailed engineering. More content on that would be good, and a less list-like format would help the flow. There is a lot of general discussion about lighthouse preservation in Michigan that, while not unwelcome, doesn't contribute much to the article and could apply anywhere. There are a few issues with inappropriate capitalization. Your sourcing is excellent. There doesn't seem to be any HABS or HAER information on White Shoal, but you should check for that in general, as their drawings are excellent. A map would be nice. Hope this helps, and I hope you find this encouraging. There's been a lot of good work on Michigan NRHP articles recently. Acroterion _(talk) 16:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The best drawings are in the Putnam National Geographic article that is cited. Worth the look. Awesome article. Thank you again for taking the time and offering the valued advice. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

Thank for the updated info. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

Outhouse

As a primary contributor (under this name and a numbered IP), I think this artilce is underrated. Anyway, I'm not unbiased. Have a good weekend. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

The main body of the article seems a little under-referenced and the latter part is in list format, which isn't desirable. I think there's a pretty decent article in there, but it needs some reformatting and references for the early part of the article. Acroterion _(talk) 20:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I can't get to this till next week. Real life intrudes. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

We have no deadlines here, I'm happy to say. I'm not opposed to lists where they're appropriate, but on this particular topic I think it could be presented as prose. I'm resisting the urge to indulge in outhouse-related humor, so I'd better stop here. Acroterion _(talk) 20:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of your professional background, you might be just the one to edit this. Kind of give it a high colonic, so to speak. Sorry, couldn't resist. In many respects, because I edited it so much, I have no objectivity, and not much energy for this project. Indeed, I thought I pulled together more on the subject than one can find on any on line source, and there are a hell of a lot of links and sources cited. It is much more dense than you might think, as there is a lot more than the scores of references. It was my first real effort in wikipedia, and is very name was a metaphor for my then anonymous efforts. Not that anyone cares about the subject matter or . . . but I digress. I actually think that the subject matter is important, both as history, and in light of the fact that much of the world still uses outhouses in one form or another. I thin that the three areas that it is weak on (substantively) are the technical way outhouses work and need to be maintained, and some greater recognition of standards for their construction and maintenance. I had tried to get a couple of friends (one a public health official, the otehr a retired Lt. Col. from the army) to put in some material (no pun intended), but to no avail. Likwise, during he New Deal there wws a concerted effort to get farmers to alter their practices -- particularly distance from potable water sources -- which conferred a large benefit on public health. Best to you. All of this is well outside of my job description or expertise. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

I've actually encountered that New Deal program in other research. I'll have to go look for its name. I'll have a go when I get the chance, but that makes at least three tasks other people have asked me to undertake in the past couple of days, so it might be a little while before I'm able to approach the seat of ease. We'll see how it comes out. Acroterion _(talk) 20:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase a great philosopher, "We're not on a deadline here." 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

Mount Hope Estate

Thank you for your assessment of this newly-created article. I've expanded the "Architecture" section, and added a section about the outbuildings. I have no background in architecture, historic buildings, or anything of the like, so I don't know if the points I've chosen to mention from the NRHP nomination form are really the important ones, or if I'm skipping something important. Could you take another look and let me know what you think? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The NRHP nom is a perfectly valid source, so you should note it as you already have (as reference 1). I think you could go into greater detail, particularly where the interiors are concerned, as it appears to have a very significant amount of period detail and materials. If I get a chance I'll have a try myself. I certainly wouldn't go into the level of detail in the nomination, but the fact that the information was presented in the nomination to that degree is indicative of its importance. Acroterion _(talk) 12:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a try regarding the interiors, but it could probably use a reworking by someone who understands architecture a little better than me. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

favor

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

Yes, I'd be willing to help out. I've watched portions of this from the sideline, and hope that we can move on from here. Am I to understand that a merge to the parent town/village/hamlet would be appropriate when the HD and the settlement more or less coincide? Acroterion _(talk) 19:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. Approximately yes.

There are some cases where the NRHP HD borders are pretty much defined as a village's limits, i.e. where both are defined and are the same. There I think we all agree a merge is usually okay. However even then there could be reason for an editor developing NRHP HD material to want to choose to have a separate NRHP HD article (e.g. if the village article goes on and on about non-historic stuff or different history than is exemplified in the artifacts that compose the current HD, and/or if an editor wants to describe in detail many contributing properties which would go beyond what is appropriate in a general village type article). For such cases, there was discussion and some agreement that putting a new template in the Talk page which conveyed/encouraged the option (like that if someone wanted to develop a detailed NRHP HD article they would be welcome to do so, perhaps with pointers to a developed example or two) would be suitable and okay. Such a template could go a long way to settling many cases where borders are not known.

About cases where borders of a non-incorporated hamlet are not defined, including cases where the existence and notability of a neighborhood or hamlet is solely or mostly documented by the NRHP HD listing itself, it is not so clear. There is tacit agreement that having an NRHP HD-named article, with neighborhood or hamlet name redirecting to that, is okay in many cases, between Polaron and myself, I think, but that is complicated by others' entry into some of those cases. There are also many types of cases where there previously was contention between Polaron and myself where there would not now be contention at all between the two of us, including town green HDs and town center HDs, but where others' entry also may complicate. Between P and me, on cases where the borders are clearly different, I think there is agreement that the articles should be / can be different. doncram (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there any existing examples of this sort of article in the wild yet? Acroterion _(talk) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Of which sort? Do you mean where there are same boundaries, both known? I checked the "Resolved issues" archive for List of RHPs in CT, and find none there. In the RFC at Talk:List of RHPs in CT Daniel Case pointed to Chautauqua Institute, i pointed to St. Elmo Historic District (St. Elmo, Colorado). There is discussion there by Daniel Case and Polaron that even if a Borough is coterminous with a NRHP HD, there should/could be separate articles, because there is current government stuff to cover in the borough article, and mention specifically of Litchfield Borough vs Litchfield Historic District being coterminous but to have different articles.

Of a second type, where unincorporated hamlet without clear borders might or might not be same as an NRHP HD, there are many open issue ones, among those listed individually at Talk:List of RHPs in CT and NH and RI. The resolved items archive has just one, Stafford Hollow, Connecticut (undefined hamlet assumed to correspond more or less to historic district), where I agreed for that one to go at non-NRHP HD name. Actually I am not so sure that merger should have been forced, but it was far superior to initial merger target, and the discussion had been confusing. Not sure how much identifying of examples of types is helpful. The open issue ones have discussion sections open. Perhaps could browse and try to identify some possibly-easier-to-settle ones? doncram (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess my real question was "do you have an example of a successfully resolved disputed merge?" I'll have a look around through some of the places you've mentioned tomorrow to familiarize myself with the discussions.Acroterion _(talk) 03:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of examples now where former disputes were quietly resolved, some being cases where an article recently created at "X", the name of a nonincorporated hamlet/village, was moved to "X HD", and assent has been suggested by further edits. I asked here if we could try going through one county, and i suggest doing New London Cty, which has the virtue of having relatively little past discussion. You could directly perform any agreed-upon deletions of redirects, too, avoiding need for a batch of redirects at RFD. If it's ok, could do the discussion at the Cty's Talk page. doncram (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As a statement of my personal preference, which appears to be in line with consensus, any HD that substantially coincides with the settlement should redirect/be merged to the place; i.e., Podunk HD should point to Podunk, Connecticut. The difficulty (consensus-wise) is in determining whether the coincidence is correct without having local knowledge. I will warn that I have not done much in the way of history merges, so I'll proceed cautiously, as it's hard to undo a complex merge. I'll study the topics listed at Talk:List of RHPs in CT and propose a couple to start with. Before I do anything I'll check in with Polaron and Orlady. Acroterion _(talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Subdivision 1

Lucky you, Acroterion. There are a quite a few articles, article pairs, and redirects that were the subject of varying degrees of contention, and now await closure -- or at least review of a closure that was done by one of the parties. IMO, it makes sense to conclude these existing discussions before starting to tackle any whole new lists of articles. Here are some of the candidates for you to start looking at:

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

Not done yet because of factor-of-ten discrepancy between listed HD and asserted are in discussion. Acroterion _(talk) 02:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Left as is. Bedraggled can be fixed, the geography of the islands is distinct from the HD, if only a little bit. Acroterion _(talk) 02:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Peace Dale, Rhode Island and Peace Dale Historic District were the subject of a lot of reverts and currently exist as two articles displaying merge templates, but people quit engaging in the various discussions (on the Rhode Island NRHP talk page and both article talk pages) a while back.

• Looks like a village core merge. Acroterion _(talk) 02:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• Carolina Village Historic District and Carolina, Rhode Island are currently one merged article (at Carolina, Rhode Island), but the merged article still displays a merge template, and I think it's possible that Doncram is hoping to have them split again. Discussion was on the Rhode Island NRHP talk page. --Orlady (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Merged from last pre-redirect version of the HD article, mostly just infoboxes. It's clear they're the same place. I see little difference between this kind of article and, say, a lighthouse, where the NRHP data defers to the parent topic, in this case, the village. I think the infobox is valuable, as it provides concise data, but in this setting the Big Map of Rhode Island is obtrusive, so pulled it out. I've placed a notice on the talk page of the redirect. Acroterion _(talk) 12:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Without getting into specifics yet, these examples appear to represent a fair cross-section of the simpler issues. I understand Doncram's concerns regarding future development with contributing structure listings and so on. However, there are very few HDs where every single structure is worthy of inclusion here. Within the small-town boundaries we've set for this matter, few HDs will have more than a dozen to two dozen major contributing structures, and the most significant of those might warrant their own CP articles anyway. I very much doubt we'll end up with excessively lengthy articles in any time horizon within reason, considering that the unincorporated villages and small CDPs simply won't generate enough verifiable content to threaten to rival Philadelphia, and HDs aren't the only candidates for daughter articles if that turns out to be the case. We can have, if the need arises, History of Podunk, Cuisine of Podunk, Great Fire of Podunk and so on. We can't anticipate all events.

Daniel Case's Hudson Valley articles do represent a good model for dealing with contributing properties; I should know, I've seen enough of them in the past couple of weeks as I've gone through the article rating backlog. None of them are all that long, and any CP worth more than a paragraph might have its own article eventually. Nearly every HD has non-contributing structures, sometimes many, and I see little difference between those intrusions and a (modest) fringe of newer development that is almost guaranteed in any place but, say, Waterford, Virginia where the county keeps the lid screwed down tight (and there's one we'll have to confront eventually). A contrary example is Shepherdstown, West Virginia, where the HD and the town are very closely related, but where the town's extent is significantly greater than the HD (our article's statement not withstanding, the town has suburbs now). Depending on the information available in that case, we might falsely believe that the HD should be merged with the town. We also have to realize that boundaries of towns change, and that annexations or development may eventually require a split. Acroterion _(talk) 03:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments... None of these examples involve official, legally constituted places. These are unofficial villages/sections/neighborhoods within legally established New England towns (actually, about 3 of them cross town lines and are in more than one town). Thus, there are no legal boundaries to contend with, although a few of these places are treated as CDPs by the Census Bureau and a couple of them are postal "cities" with zip codes. All of these except Southport and Stony Creek-Thimble Islands were industrial villages, which generally are listed on the National Register not for being collections of individually significant buildings, but rather for the historical significance of the village as a coherent whole. Typically, the historic district for an industrial village might include one or more factories, worker housing (usually owned by the company, and typically built according to a few common designs), the village streets and the village's overall layout, and some company-established community facilities. Some of these industrial villages do also contain the home of the factory owner and other architecturally notable buildings (among the places on this list, Peace Dale stands out as having several significant buildings -- all built by or in connection with the family that owned most of the village). --Orlady (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I want to make my views on the general subject clear, in advance of any actions on my part. In the absence of statutory boundaries, there shouldn't be much controversy, since the industrial village tends to be, by definition, the HD. It gets murkier in the circumstances I laid out, and I'm personally guilty of creating some articles that could be merge candidates - see Thurmond, West Virginia/Thurmond Historic District, an obvious merge candidate, and Jay Em, Wyoming/Jay Em Historic District, which is not necessarily a candidate, as the essentially vacant historic core is apparently surrounded by more recent development (which might amount to a dozen houses). Acroterion _(talk) 04:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Subdivision 2

Adding still more smoldering situations needing to be resolved:

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

I corrected the acreages for the Ludlow Village and North Bennington HDs. --Orlady (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Progress

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

Company wiki page deletion

Hi,

How do legitimate companies get on wikipedia without deletion for "advertising and promotion"? I recently posted a company with objective content so people wanting to find out about the company could find out more about them. Why was it deleted? Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulWhitfield (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All articles must be written in a factual and informative manner, preferably by an editor with no conflict of interest. All articles on companies must meet Wikipedia's general notability standard as well as notability for corporations. The article was deleted because it was promotional in tone, and failed to assert that the company was notable. To be notable, one must in general have received multiple non-trivial notice in independent media with a reputation for fact-checking, of more than a purely local basis. Acroterion _(talk) 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Business Postings

Why are companies such as Much Music able to post their entry and not other businesses? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulWhitfield (talk • contribs) 19:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See my answer above. Much Music is clearly a notable organization with wide exposure. Acroterion _(talk) 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The article MuchMusic was started years ago by User:Xaviere, an editor (now retired) who seems to have had no connection with MuchMusic - which is exactly how we like it. What is your connection to Peashooter Media? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Blender enclosure

you suggested that my article was meaningless...? would you elaborate? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? i will repost my article and will search out your work and postings to delete them.... how about that?

Thank you for your response 74.81.245.147 (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Goalseeker

See my response on your IP talk page. Acroterion _(talk) 21:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Newcomer message

You may wish to respond to this on the user's talk page. JamieS93 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

His phone bill comes from Mars?! Acroterion _(talk) 00:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thurmond, West Virginia

Good call on the merge from the Historic District. The updated page looks great. BTW, have you ever checked out WP:WVA? youngamerican (wtf?) 12:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Given my de facto participation, I should probably add my name to the list over there. While Thurmond is merged, I'm not satisfied with the way the page flows and the level of detail offered, but the merge has the side benefit of revealing such shortcomings. Acroterion _(talk) 00:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Question for Ya

I was wondering, do you think the Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District needs its own page or should it be merged into Stephens City, Virginia where a section (with a link to the district page) already exsists? I am wondering as I have seen more and more historic district pages be merged with their host or town articles. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You've touched on the raw, inflamed wound of the day. The lede is somewhat contradictory; I'm not sure how the central section of town can span the extreme ends of town (although I realize that Stephens City is rather linear). My first reaction is no, but further research is warranted. At the moment, I think merges should be limited to clear-cut, substantially duplicated town/HDs. A comparison of HD acreage versus town acreage will be diagnostic. Acroterion _(talk) 01:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The HD is 65 acres, but the town is 1.4 square miles/896 acres. Not a candidate for a merge under current consensus. Acroterion _(talk) 01:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually forgot I posted this here until now :S Thanks for the response. I will leave the page as is. I just wanted to make sure it was cool under the current discussion. Thanks again :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

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

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

I thank you too--Pubdog (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Really? I see no cause for outrage at politely-expressed disagreement. The term "principal community" seems a bit strained, and might be best avoided here at WP. It probably was invented by an intern. You are free to not respond to it, of course, and that's what I advise if the comment irks you. Acroterion _(talk) 15:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please understand I don't want to advocate further here or there about whether the term "principal community" should be used in a bunch of articles. I had made a comment along those lines which was an aside, obviously not needing further discussion or resolution in the context of the topic of discussion. Rather, I object to the argumentative nature of the comment, and I bring it up to you as you have enjoined Orlady and me not to engage in argument. You may choose not to interpret her comment as polite, but in the context of a long history, it is hard not to see some disrespect and sarcasm. It was a loaded, personally directed comment. In factual terms, her statement was a) negative, b) unnecessary in the context of the discussion, c) it was very specifically commenting on me, and d) in fact included two specific unnecessary enjoinders/suggestions to me. (The first is the enjoinder of her telling me not to do something specific. The second is the suggestion that I "could footnote that page as a reference citation for the sentence that says 'Podunk is a village in the town of Smalltown'. Consider this an aside: let me just note here that the second suggestion does not work. The source does not identify any of the princial communities it lists as villages; it would support statements like I had suggested but not this. I don't want to read too much into it, but why is Orlady making a suggestion that she should know is invalid? It seems unhelpful and possibly tongue-in-cheek.) I think those qualities are enough to term the comment as argumentative, and I am asking for some notice of that. I would enjoin her: if she can't say something positive, and if it's not crucial to the discussion at hand, that she should not interject comments about me or to me. doncram (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I deeply regret that my statement has offended Doncram. It was not obvious to me that this comment did not need further discussion or resolution in the context of the topic of discussion. It appeared to me that he was proposing standard language to be added to several articles. I did not think this standard language was appropriate, so I expressed that opinion, explained my reasons, and offered an alternative (i.e., citing the list as a a reference).

I suppose that it was wrong of me to address my comments in the second-person, but if I had tried to write them in an impersonal manner, I think the result would have come across as both unclear and sarcastic. Please believe that I did not intend my remarks as a personal statement on Doncram.

I agree with Doncram that the cited list does not indicate that the named place is a "village" (a term that has no legal meaning in Connecticut), but it does indicate what town it's in, so it could be legitimately be cited (as partial support) in connection with the type of sentence I suggested. --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as everybody agrees to tread carefully on eggshells, then we might call this closed. Acroterion _(talk) 19:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

[EC] Interesting. The Hartford Courant headline does call them "villages," but the article does not (it says they are "villages, communities, or simply 'sections' within their borders that often don’t appear on official maps but are named, known and loved by people who live in them"). --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That is true because those three terms are interchangeable for the most part. Different towns appear to have different usage preferences but they all mean the same thing. --Polaron | Talk 19:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a minor point, but I don't think it's purely a matter of usage preference. At least a few of the areas on the list (I am speaking of places with which I am personally familiar) never were "villages" in the generic sense of that word, but instead are suburban residential areas first established during the 20th century. Whether they are "sections" or "districts" is a matter of local preference, but they aren't villages. --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, "principal communities" seems too much like like officialese to use in the article, but as long as we're aware of the term's significance in terms of the state's distinctions between mere locales and communities of some higher standing, that can perhaps help in sorting out the issues.. Acroterion _(talk) 19:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

?

i HAVE submitted copyright validation for the page - maxheat - i've added the lisence on the webpage & sent email. what next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxheat (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Some context, please? Acroterion _(talk) 00:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've found the deleted material: it appears to be overtly promotional in tone and unsuitable for inclusion as it was written. I suggest that you take a look at WP:YFA for guidance on appropriate encyclopedic content. In short, it was advertising, as will be deleted as such if posted again. The person in question also does not appear to meet notability requirements for musical artists, another deletion category. Acroterion _(talk) 00:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Watertown, Ohio

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

Apparently his concern is with the "presumably." I think editors have to go with what they can in good conscience derive from the material available to them without wandering into OR; it's not a clear-cut boundary. When the entire NPS Focus site is up and running, I think a lot of this back-and-forth will be resolvable by reference to the usual map found at the end of most noms. Until then it's all shadowboxing and a needless expenditure of editorial patience.

In the absence of more compelling evidence that Watertown HD and Watertown, Ohio are two different things, I think the default should be to leave the town/HD article alone. It can always be split if and when more material is available, but for now it seems desirable to keep them together and have one tolerably useful article instead of two stubs. I have no idea why a second infobox was needed. Acroterion _(talk) 01:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, at least some of Doncram's additions were accidental — nobody thinks that we need {{NRHP}} or {{Ohio-NRHP-stub}} twice, and I can't imagine anyone intentionally adding Category:National Register of Historic Places in Ohio twice :-) I expect that it was somewhat of acting faster than he should have, which is an error I find myself doing rather too frequently. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done the same things where the interface has lagged - sometimes to my own edits. Acroterion _(talk) 01:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Curious — whom do you mean by "his" in your reply here? I can't decide whether you're telling others what I mean or referring to Doncram, who added the "presumably". Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

When is it appropriate....

To refactor another editors talk page? [[2]] I have left a lvl 1 warning on this page for refactoring another users talk page that was clarly not vandalism. I have since been told that because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning. I would like to have a few admin go and comment one way or another to this as I believe my actions were not only appropriate but very moderated. Thank You.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the situation if you wish, however the prevailing opinion has been if you make 60,000 edits it's ok to discount others polite opinion because "they have bit a newbie (once) and have poor grammer." This wasn't a personal issue but a disturbing attitude trend.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Coming somewhat late to the party, it appears that all has been sorted out. As far as your "colorful history", I'm aware of it, as I'm aware of your work since then. We should strive to treat everyone equally, and it's always been a struggle. I think it's about the same as it's always been in that regard. Acroterion _(talk) 01:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Zion NP

Have you asked Doncram? He's done much more with AFDs for these articles than anyone else I know. Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've only twice been involved in AFDs for NRHP properties — once when I nominated Big Horn Academy building (the first time I'd heard of the NRHP), and this AFD back in March, in which all participants advocated keeping per its NRHP status. You may want to use this one as an example, as Elkman and I are the only project members who participated. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

:)

No not terribly often. I still utilize the wiki when I need that information rush, but I try to avoid it if possible, I might somehow get pulled back into active editing! :P 98.220.45.32 (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (KOS)

And remaining an IP helps to curb those twitchy fingers, no doubt. Good to hear from you. Acroterion _(talk) 22:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Same here my friend! Cheers. 98.220.45.32 (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah thanks for this too. BTW did you ever get that best buy discount? ;) 98.220.45.32 (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Since Circuit City went belly-up they seem to think they can do what they want, despite my shilling for them here on the wiki. Acroterion _(talk) 23:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

where

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcats_By_Christine_Yang

Hi, Acroterion:

I just found out today that my daughter posted this entry detail information of her and our family. I notice that you deleted the entry a week ago, but I can still see it on the cached page.

Please delete this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcats_By_Christine_Yang and this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Yang as well.

thanks

Christine's Mom

Cyang1999 (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it lives now only in the local cache on your computer. Try control-r or control-shift-r, depending on your browser, and see if it doesn't disappear. Also, you might try on another computer and see if it isn't gone. I imagine you've had the chat with Christine concerning Too Much Personal Information on the Internet by now. Acroterion _(talk) 01:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal question

This is not a request for legal advice, I have always wondered about this type of situation even before I went to the ER. How difficult would a case of implied contract be to prove in a court of law? It seems like that would be a big hassle and certainly not a straightforward certain outcome as the case would be with a signed contract. Can a company use an "implied contract" to negatively effects one's credit? It would seem not, otherwise any entity could report whatever to a credit burea under the guise of believing they have an implied contract...

I would think that any istitution would just give up and not persue debts in this type of situation, unless the amount were signifigantly large, as if they report to a credit buruea without proof of debt, they could be liable for any harm they do to a person's credit? Or am I way off here? XM (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You've passed my limit of legal knowledge, but in general, the more paperwork, the easier enforcement. Hospitals take collections very seriously, and unless someone's positively indigent, they'll pursue collection. They know you were there and can prove it, so the court is likely to find for the hospital, particularly if there's evidence of intent to defraud. I've been in courtrooms and listened to the litany of hospital collection actions, accounting for half the cases. Acroterion _(talk) 04:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

spammer

User talk:MillionDollarDare Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Bagged, tagged. Thanks, Acroterion _(talk) 03:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Shoemaker

Any way of identifying this users IP and banning that too? Frmatt (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is evidence that they have abused multiple accounts or IPs, that is certainly possible; have you seen this? WP:SPI is the place for that kind of issue, but only if there's evidence of continuing abuse. Otherwise, autoblock and account creation blocks will kick in and prevent abuse for a tim. Acroterion _(talk) 12:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mongoos1111

Mongoos1111, who you have warned previously, is making pointless additions to the page on William Ellis School. The nature of their additions suggests they are a pupil there. Could you intervene? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExLibre (talk • contribs) 13:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

question

why do you people keep deleting my article that im trying to create. this is a legitimate band page, not some kind of joke Carpion (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the band doesn't met the requirements of WP:BAND, the inclusion criteria for musical performers. I'd guess about 100+ bands get deleted a day on that basis. Mere existence isn't enough for inclusion, or we'd be Bandipedia. Acroterion _(talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

here is a link to clear copyright infringe

http://maxheat.com/bio.html

for the page -- maxheat --

the license is at the bottom of the page

thnx

mm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxheat (talk • contribs) 02:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, no copyright violation. However, the material is unsuitable for use in an encyclopedia as written: it is overtly promotional and does not indicate compliance with WP:BAND, the Wikipedia notability requirement for musicians. I would also note that you have a conflict of interest.Acroterion _(talk) 03:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We got the funk...gotta have that funk OHHHHHHHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcblair (talk • contribs) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please put back Stacey Jackson

Please put the article Stacey Jackson back on Wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidzy (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, the article failed on three or four fronts. Acroterion _(talk) 14:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

need to ask you something

Why did you delete my page? I was doing it for my friends and I. Our web show for some reason started to get popular and many kids from our schools (we go to different schools) want to know about it. We started to get questions like:

How did it start and why did you start it? What made you want to do it?

So we told them that we would start a Wikipedia page about the Nicknames and catch phases and things like that. Due to the fact that I had to go somewhere i did not have enough time to finish, edit, upload a picture, or create the tags. Which is why Put down "More information will be add as soon as it becomes avaible"

If it is of any use to you, I couldn't call the page "The Talk"; which is what it was going to be called; I couldn't figure how. So I called it by one of the nicknames that one of us have. Which is "Ieat6pies" Hence the reason the article was called "Ieat6pies"

I wasn't advertising anything. So please tell me why this was done.

      Unsane33.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unsane33 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC) 

I left you a note on your talk page the first time you asked. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service for articles about you and your friends. Please read WP:WEB for criteria for web notability and WP:NOTE for general notability. Notability means that you ahve received coverage in independent media, preferably of more than purely local standing; in other words, can you cite two or three newspaper articles on the web show, or the Web equivalent? The article was promotional in tone, and inappropriate material for an encyclopedia. You have a conflict of interest; you are strongly discouraged from writing about subjects with which you are directly, personally involved. Acroterion _(talk) 19:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

reasons

reasons on deleting my page? please explain