User talk:Polaron

Litchfield County

FYI i opened a RFD on Litchfield County, Connecticut redirects. It's not complete just yet, will finish it today or tomorrow. Please do add your comments, hopefully agreeing with all there. I am trying to keep it to non-controversial ones. I added a couple not-as-clear items to a new Litchefield section at Talk:List of RHPs in CT. Also, FYI, i revised some other Litchfield NRHP HD articles and put up a requested move proposal for Milton (Litchfield). Feel free to browse my recent contributions. Hope you are well and have been having a good summer. doncram (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit comment here and want to point out that I was not trying to steal a march or anything, and it was not as your label worried or suggested. Please see how discussion for that one developed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 10#various Litchfield County, CT, redirects. In fact I had wanted to delete the redirect, which pointed to somewhere else, and there was no corresponding neighborhood/community article in existence. I think the "fair" thing to do here is that NRHP HD article here should be restored and a merger proposal made. doncram (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this. doncram (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

other

I wonder if we could proceed now with settling the NRHP HD open questions in one county, with expectation to discuss then to defer to a third party's decision. I suggest doing New London County, which has the virtue of having relatively little past discussion, and scanning through it doesn't look very thorny. A third party administrator there could directly perform any agreed-upon deletions of redirects, too, avoiding need to do a batch of redirects at RFD. Would that be okay? I'll suggest it also here. doncram (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we have to start somewhere and this is probably as good a place to start as any, so go ahead and initiate the discussions. --Polaron | Talk 12:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just now seeing your reply here. Acroterion did not pick up on my suggestion to start with New London Cty, and relatedly or not Orlady objected to starting with New London County. A short while ago I put in a new RFD request for the 7 or 8 New London Cty cases that appeared to me to be non-controversial, plus noted at Talk:List of RHPs in CT the about 4 cases that could require some discussion. Sorry I missed your note. I was previously intending to proceed by listing out the 12 or so situations for brief comment and relatively easy decisions. doncram (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I award you the Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I, pepperpiggle, award Polaron this Special Barnstar for all their work on Connecticut articles, especially roads, and for not getting too annoyed at me when I make mistakes. Pepper piggle^Sign! 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Connecticut Route 140

I have nominated Connecticut Route 140, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connecticut Route 140. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, first he nominated it for deletion by PROD, with notice here. Then I removed PROD with edit summary requesting wait for Polaron to be back on-wiki, then he immediately puts it up for AFD, ignoring my request. And he removed his prod notice here, in putting the AFD notice here. doncram (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Districts vs. locales

I've left a note at User talk:Orlady#Historic Districts vs. locales concerning the merger of historic districts and locales; your comments concerning Doncram's proposal are welcome. See also my talk page. Acroterion _(talk) 21:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any likely-to-achieve-consensus HD/village merge/splits that you would like to try out as an AfD-style discussion? I'd suggest that merges should be on the target page - the village - for the sake of preserving the discussion somewhere useful. Acroterion _(talk) 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Doncram's comment, I'm willing to try out New London County; his suggestion got lost in the mass of text. Acroterion _(talk) 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently no split articles to speak of in New London County but there are ones that Doncram would like to see split. I would guess that the easiest to deal with are those localities where the historic district is the only "official" boundary ever defined for the place: Poquetanuck, Norwichtown, and Quaker Hill. Possible contentious ones would be Noank and maybe Baltic. The rest of the historic districts either have no article or are such that the village is the one that redirects to the historic district article (after having been moved by Doncram -- I don't think he objects to the ones he moved). --Polaron | Talk 22:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, Quaker Hill is a postal "city," it has a fire dept. and a school, and it had to be defended by the governor's foot guard during the Revolutionary War. (My only point in saying these things is to make the obvious point that the village article can not be converted to a redirect to an historic district article. The village article has its issues, though...) --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Towns should precede HDs. I'll see what might be done and you'll see something appear on the relevant town's talk page. Acroterion _(talk) 02:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NRIS download

Do I understand rightly that you've downloaded the NRIS database in .dbf format? If so, what type of program did you use to open the .dbf? I'd quite like to have access to that information, but I don't know if I have the software to run a .dbf file. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Elkman already responded to your question. --Polaron | Talk 17:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited...

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arch Bridge (Bellows Falls)

New article. Suggestions? - Denimadept (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Stop with the reverts, neither of you are helping matters. You're at 3RR. Acroterion _(talk) 22:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Breaking a truce" does not give you a license to edit-war. Acroterion _(talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the article for everyone's good. This is not an endorsement of anyone's position; we protect whatever happens to be there at the time we hit the button, good, bad or indifferent, short of libelous. Acroterion _(talk) 22:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and Doncram are informally restricted to 1RR as a result of this afternoon's events. As I pointed out to Doncram, a formal restriction would involve a trip to AN/I, which will probably produce results that nobody will like. Doncram should not have changed from a redirect to an article; I'd asked him to do that in user space, but your repeated reverts just made things worse. 3RR is a short road to a block, and people who are certain they're right sometimes find themselves on the wrong side of the issue. I suggest that you avoid reverts altogether in any content where you and Doncram overlap.

This morning, I thought we'd made progress, but now we're back to where we started. The next step, if the merge/split matter can't come to an accommodation (or a plain truce), would be formal mediation. Acroterion _(talk) 03:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR, protected. Acroterion _(talk) 21:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a multitude of other pages are protected now. Since you and Doncram seem to be having a discussion now, I'll leave you to it. If either of you resumes reverting the other, I'll take it to AN/I, where the outlook will be poor. Acroterion _(talk) 21:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

undos

Hi, could you please revert yourself on the several CT, VT, or RI merger/split cases where you recently changed from the status quo. I had the impression you were enforcing a certain kind of ceasefire, and judging that I had violated the ceasefire at Noank and Poquetanuck so you were punishing me elsewhere. But you are several cases ahead now by your own system, given that A froze articles and i stopped reverting you. Also, since Noank seems to be resolved, where you took offense previously, can you ratchet back by one or further. doncram (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:SF CSA.jpg

File:SF CSA.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:SF CSA.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:SF CSA.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Samoa

Hey Polaron, talofa lava as they say...

Thanks for reverting the changes to Samoa's population, done by my nine-year-old son, (using my login!) I have explained to him why his precise adjustment to an estimated figure is inappropriate. I like the term "false precision" that you used.

Keep up the good work. Nankai (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirects

Polaron, I notice now you have created a bunch of redirects to NRHP HDs in Massachusetts. Could you please stop and discuss. I would like to have a discussion with you and get some input from others you might listen to. I think that these redirects violate Wikipedia policy and are not helpful. You might think that i am pro-NRHP articles, but I am not particularly that. I am for following wikipedia policies and I don't believe these redirects or redirects going the other way are appropriate. Perhaps we could start by looking at what redirect and disambiguation policies state, perhaps wp:redirect. One basic matter is that redirects should not be surprising to readers. doncram (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are well known locality names in Massachusetts whose locations and names coincide with the historic district. I am not trying to split the articles or anything. I just think it's useful to direct people looking for information on these places to existing articles about these places. --Polaron | Talk 17:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I appreciate that you are not trying to split the articles. But, reading through all the reasons for having redirects in the wp:redirect policy or guideline right now, I don't see what pro-redirect reason applies, and i see 2 or more anti- reasons which I think do apply, namely that the redirects are confusing and they could possibly be different articles. In several of the redirects that I checked, there is no mention in the target of the term that you are redirecting. Eventually, with development of the target articles, there could possibly be mention, in which case a redirect could be appropriate. I think in general redirects are not appropriate if the target article does not include bolded alternative name in the lede, or "___ redirects here" as a hatnote, or some other explanation to readers why they would have arrived at the target. I don't want to begin battling in all these target articles either. But it just seems to me that the redirects are premature and not helpful. doncram (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this will all be cleared up if and when people actually start expanding these historic district articles. --Polaron | Talk 17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. As with CT NRHPs and village/hamlet/neighborhoods/populated places, they might or might not turn out to be suitably covered in one merged article covering two topics. And in the absence of these articles being developed and turning out to be suitably merged, the redirects are inappropriate IMO. I would like to work positively with you in actually developing some articles, rather than intervening negatively on new issues raised by new redirects. doncram (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects would help point people more familiar with standard place name conventions in Wikipedia to find existing articles that they might be interested in expanding if they're interested in these places in the first place. --Polaron | Talk 17:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't see that. Just take the West Granville one for example. Someone interested in developing an article on "West Granville, Massachusetts" would easily find the existing article on West Granville Historic District. The presence of the redirect does not help them. Instead, the presence of the redirect seems to give the incorrect suggestion that previous Wikipedia editors have an informed judgment that the topic of West Granville as a village or populated place or whatever it might be, is best covered under the topic of the West Granville HD. I don't mean to say you are not informed about West Granville and the West Granville HD--I don't know whether you are or not--but there are no sources in the current article which compares them. It seems to set up future battling, as a negative, and I don't see the positive. What you just stated does not match up to any reasons that I see in the list of reasons for having a redirect. doncram (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, it is quite easy to undo a redirect if one really wants to start a full article on anything. A redirect to an alternate name or closely related topic is quite common. --Polaron | Talk 18:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But deleting redirects is very hard. And these are not redirects to alternative names, they are redirects to potentially related topics, whether the relationship is not described in the target articles. Offhand, about these, if they are neighborhoods or populated places, wouldn't it be better to mention them in the higher level geographical articles about towns that include them? Probably in many cases a redirect to a town article that mentions the name, where the town is known to wholly include the given hamlet or whatever, is more appropriate than a redirect to a NRHP HD, where the relationship is not known. But I think even such redirects to town articles would not conform to wikipedia policies, if the town articles do not have a suitable redirect target point within their articles, and I don't see the value added by such a redirect either. The presence of a redirect to a town article would also seem argmentative to future editors who might be informed and otherwise ready to develop articles on these topics, IMO. doncram (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why would you want to delete a valid redirect? As it commonly said elsewhere, redirects are cheap. These will point people to the right starting place and bring attention to articles that need expanding. --Polaron | Talk 18:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Tiverton

Is North Tiverton essentially equivalent to the Tiverton CDP? Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Tiverton is completely within the CDP. The CDP basically encloses two settlements that have merged. --Polaron | Talk 21:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions of New York

Discuss it at Talk:Administrative_divisions_of_New_York#Home_rule, please. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis Take Manhattan

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Island

Please take a look at my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Winter Island Historic District and Archeological District -- raises a general procedural question Thanks, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pequot

Would you mind leaving the reservation redirect alone for now? You and Doncram are at 3RR, and I strongly suggest that it be left as it is for now, regardless of the merits of any arguments. A slow revert war won't be a good idea either. Acroterion _(talk) 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rv

I reverted your redirect. La Grange, Tennessee is not La Grange, North Carolina. APK say that you love me 01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confused between La Grange and LaGrange. I've added a hatnote to clarify. --Polaron | Talk 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. That's my hometown. The correct spelling is La Grange. APK say that you love me 03:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's solved now. La Grange Historic District is now a disambiguation page and the North Carolina HD has its own article again. All of these towns seem to be subject to multiple spellings (La Grange, LaGrange, and Lagrange), so lots of redirects are needed. --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the historic district in North Carolina is technically spelled "LaGrange". In any case, I think Orlady has the situation fixed up. --Polaron | Talk 03:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe every spelling you find in the NRIS database (wink). It was spooky that you and I edit-conflicted when we both tried to move La Grange Historic District in order to convert it to a disambiguation page. Your move "took"; mine got logged, but it didn't actually "take." I guess maybe "great minds were thinking alike". --Orlady (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You probably figured this out already, but: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

This has gone far enough. Your actions in this matter have begun to drive editors away from the project, and that can't be tolerated. At this point, it is clear that you must both be placed under binding restrictions, enforceable by individual sanctions. Acroterion _(talk) 12:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Polaron. You are welcome to add your own comment about the 3RR case at User talk:Acroterion#Ideas for resolving the open 3RR case. Acroterion has proposed that some restrictions, enforced by admins, be used to settle down the dispute. At present I don't know what is best, but you might have some suggestions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a new proposal for a mutual restriction between you and Doncram at User talk:Elkman#Counting. (See the bottom of the thread). Please take a look and see what you think. I hope to find a version that everyone can live with. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manokin Historic District

Hi Polaron: I think what you did with the Manokin Historic District and Manokin, Maryland issue was very elegantly handled. Thank you for taking care of that!--Pubdog (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silver City HD

Why don't you add sources here when you claim to have them? Of course you're correct that it's the NRIS (I've added the source); but you could have avoided the revert war if you'd simply added the NRIS link that comes with the Elkman generator. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, could we please try to be just a bit more specific in the merger-supporting reference, rather than using the generic NRIS reference that appears in 24,000 wikipedia articles. I do accept that the NRIS text string "Silver City and its environs" that you are relying upon here is acceptable to support the merger and the statement included in the article text, but the field with that text string is not directly available in the Elkman infobox generator, and it is not easily available to many current and future editors. The text string does appear in the county NRHP list-article (but lots of people edit county list-articles so its presence there does not actually establish the text string is in NRIS), and it would appear in a fresh county table generated from the Elkman county-list-table generator (but that is cumbersome and unreasonable to check), and I suppose it appears in the mirror NRHP.COM site about this county. While you have the specific text string in NRIS at hand yourself, could you please capture it in a specific footnote, in order to settle cases like this more clearly?

For this one, how about <ref name=mergersupport>{{cite web|url=http://www.nr.nps.gov/|title=National Register Information System|date=2009-03-13|work=Describes location as "Silver City and its environs"|publisher=National Park Service}}</ref>, which displays as follows:^[1]
Reference

^ "National Register Information System". Describes location as "Silver City and its environs". National Park Service. 2009-03-13.

. That's a reference named "mergersupport" which is based on the generic nris reference but with the specific text string reported in the "work=" field. The formatting of this reference could/should be improved, but it includes the text string and that it is from NRIS and that the NRIS version date is the 3/13/2009 NRIS download version that Elknan uses (and which I presume is the version Polaron has also downloaded). doncram (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the only address data in the National Register database is, "Silver City and its environs". That's in the "address" field of the "propmain" table. There aren't any other addresses for a property. I don't know where these other addresses are coming from, but they aren't in the National Register database. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elkman, the output from your individual NRHP infobox generator (which i access through your whohas tool includes " | nearest_city= Silver City, Idaho " but does not include "| Silver City and its environs" which appears only in your county list-table generator output, applied to Owyhee County, Idaho. Thanks. doncram (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Mother

Could you hold off with the redirects and such while we're trying to sort things out? I'm trying to be equitable here, and there are a few issues of basic policy concerning redirects that I'd like to research before plunging in. This process is dependent on the restraint of all parties, to a degree that might be painful. By the way, I'm familiar with Hungry Mother State Park - a lovely place. Also, as the nom is available, a referenced discussion of the NRHP district would be valuable. Thanks, Acroterion _(talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually held off and asked in cases where two duplicate articles exist. In the case of Hungry Mother, I have indeed read the nomination form and added a link for future inclusion on the Talk page. It does say that the boundaries of the historic district are the same as the boundaries of the park. I'm not sure why this is even controversial. As I've said, when it comes to making redirects, I will post requests for comments on the relevant WikiProject if there is some doubt. --Polaron | Talk 01:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this particular one as a matter of actual controversy, it's the perception of controversy, and how Doncram feels about it. Whatever we can all do to minimize drama would be appreciated, even if you are personally convinced that you are right and have the facts to back it up. There's a hair-trigger element that I'd like to remove from the discussion. Acroterion _(talk) 01:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I understand. --Polaron | Talk 01:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way, Doncram says you've partially developed a format for groups of NRHP articles to be refereed. Where might I find it? Acroterion _(talk) 01:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Doncram is referring to. If it's the 4 criteria I use to decide whether or not to merge village and historic districts in New England, it's somewhere in Talk:Poquetanuck. (I'll rewrite it if that is the case). If it's not, Doncram can probably clarify. --Polaron | Talk 02:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source which could be used to support an assertion, but there's any issue in how to form a footnote reference for it, you could follow examples in other articles. About the park, if it is in VA then possibly more than one NRHP documents and also an NRHP photo or two may be available at the VA website for the county, via Virginia dept of history index. I just added 2 NRHP documents for a different VA NRHP, showing as references 3 and 5 in this version of Oak Hill NHL. In the external links section is a link to the one VA dept of history photo available for it. Other editors might do it somewhat differently, but this has the key fields filled out. You need to know to search for the author and date which are given in Section 11 of these documents, often several pages in. I hope this could possibly be helpful. doncram (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polaron, could you comment at Talk:Poquetanuck#a specific proposal? I am hopeful that we could agree to settle the CT issues this way for now, greatly reducing the workload for Acroterion. I tried to state the proposal mostly as you were heading towards, including .2 rather than .1 distance. I think if u and i agree on that, then u and i could proceed to clear all the CT situations except perhaps a few where NRHP document might have been obtained already and interpreted differently by different people. However i think all the latter cases are in different states. I think u and i were agreed well enough on CT cases where the NRHP docs had been obtained. doncram (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelleys Island

My apology; I wasn't aware of the boundary increase, since it wasn't on the Erie County list that I checked. Not sure about you, but it seems absurd to me to restrict the location of a district that covers essentially the entire island. I still ask, however: why don't you add a source when you make a claim like this? Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would solve a lot of the current problems wouldn't it? :) I will strive to do that in future additions of information in articles. --Polaron | Talk 02:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Phil Kearny

Redirect is done Einbierbitte (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coltsville

Hi. In reply to your post on my talk page: It is my understanding that Coltsville (the historic district recently listed as a national historic landmark) includes Armsmear and the Colt Armory, as well as other properties in the vicinity. It's probably not totally identical to the Colt Industrial District previously listed on the National Register, but if it's not the same, I assume that the differences are inconsequential. I figure that an article should be written about the Coltsville district, linking to the detailed articles about the armory and Armsmear as the main features of the district, and Colt Industrial District should become a redirect to Coltsville.

However, I haven't taken the time to read the voluminous online material about the historic district(s), and at the present time I'm not particularly motivated to sort the matter out. In particular, I don't have the stomach for yet another set of hair-splitting discussions about the details of the historic district boundaries listed on different NRHP nom forms, and I think that readers will find their way to the substantive information about the Colt properties without creating new redirects. Readers who look for the area on the various NRHP lists or who search on "Coltsville" or "Coltsville Historic District" should be able to find their way to the Armsmear and Colt Armory articles, which are good and provide much of the important substance. The NRHP listkeepers have not added Coltsville to List of National Historic Landmarks in Connecticut or National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut (I don't know why not), and the "Colt Industrial District" entry on the city list currently refers readers to both the Armsmear and Colt Armory articles.

Sorry. Even though I think the Colt story is a very interesting one, I don't see this as a good time to get involved with it. --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List

Could you update User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list with any articles that you'd like to see addressed? Acroterion _(talk) 13:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. It looks like Doncram and Orlady have listed almost everything and more. I've added the missing ones that I can remember offhand (4 in VT and 1 in CT). I'll add more over the next few days if I recall any more. --Polaron | Talk 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Druid Hills unsourced assertion

The article Druid Hills Historic District just popped up on my watchlist. In two edits you revise the article to make a possibly true, but unsourced, assertion. I will revert the edits. If you have a source, please do add a sourced assertion. If an NRIS field is your source, please consider suggestions regarding Silver City Historic District NRIS reference in a discussion section above. doncram (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the link as an external link. --Polaron | Talk 18:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram: please don't automatically revert something just because Polaron did it. Polaron, can you hold off on anything having to do with historic districts vs. locales for a while? At some risk of committing OR, I can confidently assert that Druid Hills and the HD are the same place, and the Park Service's conflation of the two in the EL/ref is correct; I lived in Atlanta for seven years and am familiar with the area. It's a neighborhood in Atlanta, so there's no specific boundary for the neighborhood. Acroterion _(talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely fixing the fuzzy "in or near" assertion. I have made no attempt to merge whatsoever. --Polaron | Talk 19:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but this subject area should be avoided for the time being until consensus is hammered out and ratified. Acroterion _(talk) 19:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, with no change to my comment after ec) I see that you further added an external link and made other changes when i returned to the article. I won't simply revert it now. But I am not sure that the external link supports your precise assertion, and whether putting it in as an external link suffices. In other cases you have asserted variously that you have a source but wouldn't provide it, that you added a what you term a "source dump" to the Talk page, or that a source you name in an edit summary suffices. These are all pushing the limits. I don't care to fix up this additional case of yours; I'll add it to the list of disputed cases, perhaps for another editor to fix up if you will not. doncram (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>When I get a chance in an hour or two I'll work on this as an example of how I would reference and develop it. This one has an entire essay by the NPS, so it doesn't lack for sourcing. Given the level of sensitivity around HDs at the moment, any changes of this kind should be done with references, not just via EL, and I'd prefer that we all avoid the perception of boundary-pushing at this time. As for congruency, it's possible to demand unreasonable levels of exactitude and proof thereof, to a degree that isn't insisted upon elsewhere in Wikipedia. Acroterion _(talk) 19:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after another EC. Orlady had added a comment, which is now gone. I am not intentionally deleting it, it just seems gone) Gee thanks, everyone. Here's some more info for you. I created the "Druid Hills Historic District" article in early April 2009 while developing the National Register of Historic Places listings in Georgia, counties D list-article. I don't usually create minimal stub articles without an additional reason, like to assist with disambiguation, but here that was not the immediate purpose. It was in fact later determined by Sanfranman59 that there was another NRHP HD of the same name, so disambiguation was set up in May. Here, looking at what happened, it seems that i found my way to the existing Druid Hills neighborhood / CDP article. And there is some relationship between a Druid Hills parkways NRHP and this one. What I did was create this HD with a "fuzzy" note, and I also added "fuzzy" notes to the description columns of both the Druid Hills items in the NRHP list.

I removed my comment about the Parks and Parkways HD because I realized it was moot. I posted a note about the situation on Doncram's talk page, but since he wants me to stay away from his talk page, I'll repeat the information here: According to this page, "the Druid Hills Historic District ... incorporates in its entirety the previously listed Druid Hills Parks and Parkways Historic District." --Orlady (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy for you all to take jabs at me. Fact is, I set up a decent situation, with a couple hints for an NRHP or local editor who wants to actually develop sourced material. What i recommend to anyone who do to fix this up, is get the stupid NRHP document, which would be clear. Offhand the NPS webpage found by P is clear about some stuff, like that one of the NRHPs is wholly included in the later declared one, but it is not clear about whether the HD includes the whole neighborhood or not. Polaron is badgering me at my Talk page now, and Orlady is jumping in. If any of you are serious about contributing to wikipedia in this area, you should just get the damn information and do it right.

If you did not want other Wikipedians to jump in, Doncram, you should not have listed this topic at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list. Excuse me for living. --Orlady (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, i think a whole lot of what Polaron has been doing, in terms of ensuring that future editors will know about some hamlet of the same name as an HD or whatever, would best be done by adding notes (with links to wikipedia articles and sometimes external links to sources) to description columns in NRHP list articles, rather than replacing redlinks by redirects. Just a thot for you: if you know something, but not enough to characterize a relationship in a target of redirect, just put it in the NRHP list description, don't create a redirect, as it would be argumentative and unsupported and difficult for later editors to figure out. doncram (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said "but it is not clear about whether the HD includes the whole neighborhood or not". I agree that the source does not say that explicitly and nothing in my edits says anything about the district including the whole neighborhood. In fact, looking at the map on the Civic Association site shows that some fringe areas of the main neighborhood are not included. --Polaron | Talk 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, the original assertion you made was that the HD is entirely in the neighborhood, and that is what i meant to say, I guess, not the other way around. A historic district could be gerry-mandered to include some worthy properties which are worth NRHP listing, although they are not directly described by the NRHP HD name. For example, a ferry HD in CT where there was much bitter argument based on name alone, reasoning which turned out to be wrong. I personally don't want to judge whether the NPS source is sufficient or not for the assertion you want to make; I personally would prefer that someone get the better, free, available, definitive source. doncram (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The boundaries are well-described in that NPS feature page. One can easily overlay that to a CDP map and see that the historic district is only a subset of the CDP. The NPS verbal boundary description also matches well with the map on the civic association site. --Polaron | Talk 20:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Furman, Alabama and Furman Historic District

First, thank you for the courteous note. However, on one hand the historic district does not encompass the entire community, only the half that is north of State Route 21 is included in the HD. The HD primarily contains the old commercial district from the late 1800s to early 1900s, three churches, and a few residences and service buildings. So I would guess that the HD does encompass the heart of old Furman but not the entire area. This is speculation however since Furman went from an actual town to a rural unincorporated community in the early-to-mid-20th century. Finding sources has been extremely difficult, although a book, Palmer's A history of Furman, Snow Hill, and Ackerville (1977) has been written about the community. It is very difficult to find one of the limited editions of it but I will look a little harder. ~~If you don't hear back from me within 1 week, then merging both to Furman, Alabama would be fine by me.~~ Altairisfar_talk 07:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thought after browsing the conversations above, please don't merge the articles into one. I really can't fathom why you're still focused on merging HD articles into locales with all that has gone on recently. Please give it a break until some sort of real consensus can be reached within the project or, barring that, the issues on this subject between yourself and Doncram have been truly worked out. The articles will still be there, waiting to be merged if that is what needs to happen. Doncram may have a few opinions that I don't happen to agree with, but I tend to agree with most of his points on the merger subject, as well as most of his opinions project-wide. Continuing down this path is leading credence to the assertion that you all are continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia and project just to make some sort of point. Instead of seeing who can outlast the other, why not drop it for now and take Elkman's suggestions to go write some articles or take some much-needed photographs instead? If you can't do that, at least please leave me and my contributions out of it. Life is too short... Altairisfar_talk 08:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Polaron. You have new messages at Talk:Schoodic Peninsula.
Message added 18:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Baileypalblue (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Metropolitan Areas

The US Census Bureau ranks metropolitan areas by their MSA not their combined region/area so the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area would be more suitible because thats in fact the metro that its talking about/refering to. The popultaion also seems to match (be closer to) the MSA rather than the CMA. The San Bernardino-Riverside Metropolitan Area is independent from Los Angeles so it would not make sense to use the Grater LA article when it's only refering to the LA Metropolitan atricle. What you are doing is mainly giving credit to the wrong place. Its like if Los Angeles is givin credit for be the metropolitan area of southern california or the main city when it is composed of 4 metropolitan areas, 3 of which are major US metro's and in the top 20. I reverted you, but feel free to revert me if you find a better source or explaination, I just want to let you know I'm not trying to cause an edit war or problems. Thank-You! -House1090 (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"missing" in NRHP lists

I'm confused: do you mean that the NRIS lists these parkways in these municipalities and that we've somehow left them out, or that the parkways actually go there but the NRIS doesn't realise that? Nyttend (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a bit of both but I have not checked to see which ones are NRIS errors and which ones are our errors. You should probably involve Jameslwoodward to verify that the things I listed should indeed be on the list and are not currently so. --Polaron | Talk 15:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I think these d--- parkways are more trouble than they're worth!
Here's the facts. Polaron is right that our lists omit all of these, although some are in the jurisdiction for very short distances. I've checked various appropriate maps in each case

Name	missing from Wikipedia list	NRIS location	NRIS should be	Comment
Alewife Brook Parkway	Somerville	Cambridge	Cambridge and Somerville
Blue Hills Parkway	Boston	Boston and Milton	OK	a few feet in Boston
Fells Connector Parkway	Medford	Malden and Medford	OK
Lynn Fells Parkway	Essex County	Melrose, Saugus	OK
Revere Beach Parkway	Suffolk County (Chelsea), Malden	Chelsea	Chelsea, Malden, Revere
Stony Brook Reservation Parkways	Norfolk County (Dedham)	Boston	Boston, Dedham	short distance in Dedham
Truman Parkway	Milton	Boston	Boston, Milton
VFW Parkway	Brookline	Boston	Boston, Brookline	1,500 feet in Brookline
West Roxbury Parkway	Boston	Brookline	Boston, Brookline

Talk:Historic district (United States)/GA1

I have left comments at Talk:Historic district (United States)/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not cite information?

Why add information at the talk page for Wood(s) Heights but not on the article? I'm tired of having to do your work for you. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't. Nobody is forcing you to add a citation for me. That is not "my" work. If reverting to an outdated fact is easier for you then do so. Editors on Wikipedia will do different things depending on the circumstance. People who think it is uncontroversial will leave it alone. People who think it should be cited will add a citation. People who are purists in terms of citations will revert. People who think the statement is true but prefer it be cited will add a citation needed template. This is the essence of Wikipedia. Let people do what they're good at. It will all eventually get sorted out in the end as Wikipedia is a collaborative thing. The change I made is so easily checked by anyone who has any familiarity with place articles that it should be uncontroversial anyway. Just do what you think is appropriate and stop complaining about other users' preferred ways. If it's a lot easier for you to revert than to add a citation, even if you know the statement to be correct, then revert. No one is forcing you to do editing that you don't want to do. --Polaron | Talk 14:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron, the need for verifiability by means of citing sources is a guiding principle in Wikipedia. It would avoid a lot of aggravation if you were to adopt the habit of citing your sources when you add information. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Borgnine

Thanks for fixing the errors in his high school history. I didn't think Wilbur Cross H.S. was right, but it didn't dawn on me that this is because the school wasn't built until the 1950s (and before that, Hillhouse, which lacks an article, was the city's high school). The Wilbur Cross article doesn't say when it opened, though -- do you happen to have a source for that? --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately I'm not familiar with when the Wilbur Cross High School opened. --Polaron | Talk 18:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for US places

Hi. I'd like to make sure that you are aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. According to that convention, most U.S. cities, towns, and villages should be named in the form "City, State", even if there is believed to be only one place in the world with the particular placename. I renamed Poquonock Bridge accordingly. I would rename Poquetanuck, but everything about that article is toxic right now.

PS - Do you really believe that sentences that say "The village and the historic district are essentially the same.^{[citation needed]}" make sense in the context of articles, or are you tolerating them in order to avoid triggering retaliation? --Orlady (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using one of the two neighborhood naming conventions, which is "neighborhood name" if unique and "neighborhood name (city name)" if disambiguation is needed. Also, I fully agree with you that the "essentially the same" statement is not necessary and actually detracts from the flow of the text but I think I can tolerate leaving that statement in as it would reduce unnecessary edit warring. (It is true anyway but there is just no explicit way of citing it even with the NRHP nomination form, which usually just freely interchanges between the two concepts). --Polaron | Talk 18:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About neighborhood names, it is in fact unfortunate there is not a unified policy on U.S. neighborhood names. This is subject of stalled discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Specific U.S. neighborhood proposal (focusing on neighborhoods within cities). The policy is clear that towns (and i think other incorporated places) in the U.S. get "Name, State" format names, and I personally think to be consistent that this should be extended for neighborhoods within cities to be "Neighborhood, City, State". For isolated hamlets and other non-incorporated places in county or town areas, i think "Place, State" is most consistent and appropriate. Per Orlady's aversion, I also don't care to argue about all or any of the CT ones, as indeed too much else is going on about these.

About the "substantially similar" statement, I have indeed understood that P would prefer not to have such a statement, but agreed to it as part of a compromise. There are parts of the compromise which i don't like, and would drop if I could, and there are parts of the compromise which P would prefer to drop. That's the nature of a compromise agreement. I have done some defending of parts of the agreement that I would prefer were not necessary. I would apologize, myself, to P for my also having criticised some parts of the agreement. Sorry, but I felt i had to in order to counter some criticisms by O of the agreement.

Also, to reiterate what is given in the proposal itself, the "substantially similar" statement could be dropped from any one article if someone would make a small effort to obtain the free NRHP document that is available and that in most cases will clearly describe the relationship between place and historic district, both in terms of geographical areas covered and in historic associations covered. In CT NRHP documents I have obtained, there are maps and clear descriptions which would enable anyone interested in developing the articles to describe geographical overlap and to characterize what part of a place's history is embodied in the historic district's contributing elements. doncram (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] I'm not aware that any naming convention was ever adopted for neighborhoods. An interminable talk page discussion is not the same thing as an adopted convention. If articles about large-ish U.S. cities with unique names like Tuscaloosa, Alabama and Tucson, Arizona are required to include the name of a state in their article names, it is inconsistent (and not entirely rational) to say that obscure places (neighborhoods like Quinnipiac Meadows and villages like Poquetanuck) within the United States do not need any further identification.

[EC] Thanks for explaining your perspective on "substantially similar" and "essentially the same." The more I see those statements in articles, the less I like them. Not only are they the result of original research (notwithstanding situations like Hallville and Poquetanuck, where sources clearly indicate that the village is listed on the National Register, except Doncram rejects the sources for being mere local people and not the civil service employees in D.C. who maintain the National Register), but viewed outside of the context of the talk page discussions of geography in which the concept of essential similarity was hatched, these statements actually make no sense. (They do not so much as hint as to what it is about a village and an HD that makes them "similar".)--Orlady (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was there have been two conventions in actual use (this is way before the current naming convention discussion): the double comma notation and the disambiguate only when needed convention. As I don't like the double comma convention (it's not used in real life), the other widely used convention is the only other option. Now if the village/neighborhood is a CDP or postal town, the regular "placename, statename" convention would be ok. --Polaron | Talk 22:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hey, yes, i was just studying the time-stamps upon seeing O's comment at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Specific U.S. neighborhood proposal, and I was just seeing your comment was in fact before, hence not responding to, my comment above. I completely agree with your comment/suggestion there, O. :)

This is actually not the first time that Doncram and I agree on something. :-) One thing that colors my thinking on this is the realization that many now-obscure dots on the map were at one time postal towns or otherwise thriving communities that still show up in local histories, genealogical research queries, old newspapers, etc., as "Placename, State". And geographic names were transitory in past centuries, too: Poquetanuck shows up on some of the very old maps of New London County (as a protected saltwater harbor, it apparently was an important shipbuilding site in the 18th century, when most of the historic homes there were built), but there is no mention of Poquetanuck in the 1922 online book on the history of New London County in which there are several mentions of Hallville (which was then important as an industrial center). --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About clearing the "substantially similar" from one or two specific articles, I will repeat that I will agree to mediator Acroterion's judgement, if he wishes to accept a different source than the NRHP document (although for the specific instances, I think the alternative documents are not entirely clear). And I don't understand why no one other than me is willing to obtain (and share) a NRHP document.

As I have stated elsewhere in other words, I don't give a flying fill-in-the-blank about Poquetanuck or Hallville, but have only researched them because you announced that these were the topics to focus on as the basis for addressing some generic issues about article scope. Your priorities aren't my priorities. --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could entertain some change from using the "substantially similar" phrase that O objects to, but it is rather the point, that the entire merger is in fact a bit of a problem, when so little information has been obtained. In the compromise, I am willing to accept P's judgment that there should be a merger for a defined set of CT NRHP places, but "insisting" that it be labelled mildly as being not properly supported (by use of the "substantially similar" and citation needed). O's perspective that the "substantially similar" is OR is sort of true. That is my point! I would prefer for there to be no merger where there is just OR available. But the compromise is to accept the personal knowledge / potential OR, in terms of allowing the merger, while giving the article the mildly problematic "substantially similar" statement. For CT articles, it seems good in some sense to leave the problematic statement there, as an obvious call for someone to do the research (get the NRHP document) and to develop the article more properly. doncram (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you have heard, I think these sentences are an embarrassment, and I see absolutely no need for articles to contain such statements. It is not necessary for articles to explain why the topic of a village and its associated historic district are discussed in the same short article. --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, i just ran into Template talk:Did you know#Hallville Mill Historic District, in which O, P, me are credited for a DYK! Well, that sounds positive. I would like to cooperate in developing/improving these articles. doncram (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I wondered how long it would take for one of you to notice that. --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hallville Mill Historic District

On November 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hallville Mill Historic District, 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.

So Why 01:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Norwich

Hi. I see that after the redirect was deleted, you re-created Downtown Norwich as a disambiguation page. I don't believe that the page has value. The chance that someone would seek an article about "Downtown Norwich" without finding their way to Norwich (disambiguation) or Downtown Norwich Historic District is vanishingly small. This article gets in the way of prospective users by placing an extra step between them and the content they seek. To avoid yet another contentious (but fundamentally pointless) discussion, would you please consider flagging it with {{db-author}}? --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Downtown Norwich" is primarily used for the Connecticut neighborhood of that name as evidenced by Google Books and News hits. I would consider recreating the redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District as the primary topic for that term. --Polaron | Talk 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding earlier -- I was thinking about what to say.
Considering that the "Downtown Norwich" redirect was just recently deleted following a CfD discussion, recreating the redirect would convey a very negative message regarding your opinions of Wikipedia policies and conventions.
Although the fact that a pair of words exist as a potential search term does not justify creating a wikilink for that pair of words, the redirect was (in my opinion) harmless. Unfortunately, however, the disambiguation page could be harmful -- it creates problems for other users. People who click on a 'downtown Norwich" link in the articles that have such links are now taken to a disambiguation page, when we all know perfectly well where they should be pointed. Those links should be piped so as to take the user to Downtown Norwich Historic District. If they were piped, then there would be no need for either a redirect or a disambiguation page.
Goes off to pipe those links... --Orlady (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, requiring a permanent red link is unprecedented (or do you know of a precedent?). If a disambiguation page is harmful (I don't see why that would be or there wouldn't be disambiguation pages), then just point it somewhere and add a hatnote for other uses. --Polaron | Talk 02:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation question

Just curious — until I looked at this edit, I'd never seen punctuation at the end of an automated edit summary. Do you choose the way that edit summaries are formatted, or does Twinkle do it automatically? I've never used tools such as AWB or Twinkle. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Twinkle does that by default as I didn't customize the setup. --Polaron | Talk 16:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wallingford dab page

OK, I have moved the dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Please don't rollback non-vandalism edits (such as this: [1]) without leaving an edit summary or a note on the talk page. henrik•talk 19:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islandia?

How do you know that Islandia is no longer incorporated? You do not cite any source of information. Inkan1969 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Downtown Norwich

Downtown Norwich, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Downtown Norwich and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Downtown Norwich during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown Norwich. Cnilep (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at my talk page

In an effort to create a navbox for urban parkways in the Boston metro area, I have come to the realization that what is really needed is something that ties together the entire system first envisioned by Charles Eliot in the late nineteenth century. I feel that this should be a cooperative effort, probably created as a subproject of WP:MASS. However, initially I am seeking comments and/or assistance from several editors that have contributed in various ways to elements of the scope of such a project. This note is being posted to the user pages of Beland, CaribDigita, Denimadept, EraserGirl, Grk1011, Hertz1888, Jameslwoodward, Markles, NE2, Polaron and Swampyank. I apologize in advance to anyone who wishes to comment that I have left off of the list of users, as I may have unintentionally forgotten them and others. Please feel free to comment on my talk page under the heading I have created, linked here. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Haven Line article

Hi. Any reference to Springfield Terminal in the New Haven Line article is a reference to the PAR subsidiary. Any separate article about it would have to be about it before the company became a Guilford/Pan Am subsidiary (as the corresponding Boston and Maine Railroad and Maine Central Railroad articles are]]. As such, the separate article would never be an appropriate link for the New Haven Line article, as the independent company never operated over the NHL. Also, I believe that there's no real reason in an article about the commuter line to go into any detail over the way that PAR structures their subsidiaries, which is what mentioning ST instead of PAR does, in my opinion.oknazevad (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't necessarily refer to the parent company when talking about specific operations. For example, if talking about cars, we use "Kia Motors" when talking about that specific subsidiary rather than parent company name "Hyundai". This is the same situation here. The railroad in this context operates with a Springfield Terminal name and reporting mark and should be the name used in the article. --Polaron | Talk 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falls Village doc

Hi, i noticed you added a NRHP document reference to the Falls Village, Connecticut article ( David F. Ransom, National Register of Historic Places nomination: Falls Village District, (October 6, 1978) ). I wonder if you obtained an electronic version of the document from the National Register. Could you possibly please email me a copy? Thanks, doncram (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, I can look at NRHP nomination forms from 1984 and earlier on microfiche. I could print it out ($0.25 per page) and scan it (the microfiche reader does not have a screen capture capability) if you really need it but it will probably be easier if you request the electronic version directly. --Polaron | Talk 16:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for explaining, requesting an electronic version from the NR would then be best. I was just thinking I could help develop the article somewhat, perhaps in particular to focus on further clarifying the relationship between village vs. HD. I do appreciate that with this article you are basically following our agreed procedure. Thanks! doncram (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coos County, New Hampshire

Thanks for catching the article name move. Although I commonly use the umlaut in cases like this, I was quite surprised that this is a common enough usage for this county that the county website uses it. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28A

Before we go into a full out edit war and break 3RR, would you be willing to discuss the existence of this article? I support the existence of this article because every road with that level of notability. There are multiple articles out there on the Route #A version of the road. It doens't hurt to have the page as it helps to expand knowledge of the area. To those on the Cape, it helps to show the history of the road as well as explain knowledge about it. I disagree with your claim that the Route 28 article covers it as the 28 blurb is a lot less than is in the article. Because of the fact that every road on that level should have an article, it seems meaningless to have this one as a redirect. I'm going to leave things as is until we reach a consensus, but I think a merge template would be the way to go with this so that we can get the input of others in the community as they will help to keep this from being a dispute between two people. I look forward for your input, and I would like to keep this from becomming a full-out war. Thanks for your time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Census designated places

I see you are now going into multiple states and adding a village category to census-designated place articles that say nothing about their being a village or neighborhood or whatever. Villages are not synonymous with CDPs and neither are neighborhoods. CDPs are set up the census bureau for its own administrative purposes and may overlap any local geographic area where people live. The articles that only say the place is a CDP means that the place is a census CDP and nothing more. Please cite your sources/arguments for such changes in general and each change in particular. I see nothing in Census-designated place that can justify such editing. If no citable justification can be provided, then your edits are simply your WP:OR being added to WP, and cannot stand. Hmains (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way around this is to simply ignore whether a place is a CDP or not and categorize according to what the place is locally. The CDP category can then simply be added to those areas that also happen to be CDPs. For examples, as long as all village articles (not just the non-CDP ones) appear in the Village category, then this should be OK. I've added village categories to those villages that also happen to be CDPs where such categories have not yet been added by other editors. --Polaron | Talk 16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense as long as you do relate the census-designated place categories to village, neighborhood or unincorporated area categories. Such relationships make no sense in view of the discussion of CDP found as Census-designated place. But the other problem I see with edits is that the articles do not state that the area in question is a village or neighborhood or whatever. Categories are supposed to be based on article content, not just statements made by an editor, any editor, in their edit summary. A further problem is that most of the articles currently have few references/citations for their current content; if you just add the word 'village', 'neighborhood', or whatever to the article as further unreferenced/uncited content, you are not improving the situation any. Hmains (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I don't think there is any justification to saying that CDP places are 'Unincorporated communities'. They are just CDP places, that is all. They are not 'communities'; they are just geographic areas for the census bureau to count. Hmains (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interject in a discussion on another's talk page, but I must point out that a village in the state of New York (and many other states including Missouri where I am currently located) is an incorporated place with a legal definition. CDP's are by definition NOT incorporated nor can they include land that is within a village or city. To label an article about a CDP in the category of "village" is wrong and I know will see quite a bit of resistance on certain articles. A CDP is not a village, it is not a town, it is not a settlement, it is not a neighborhood, it is not a community, it is a CDP; CDP's may cover more than one "hamlet" or neighborhood, or community, it may even cover one and part of another, or may cover three seperate hamlets each with their own identity. CDP's arent well-known, though they may coincidentally share the name/names of one or more locally used names, ZIP code, school district, etc.Camelbinky (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron: I see you have quit this conversation. I also see you still insist on your misguided attempts to alter the content of WP and its categories without having any citations to support your actions. Hmains (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I haven't done any changes recently. I'm not sure what you're talking about. --Polaron | Talk 15:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I know what you mean. I've changed it back with a reference to what are the "standard" villages in New Hampshire. --Polaron | Talk 15:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now for cleanup instead of reverts. The following are CDPs and no indication in the article that they are anything else. This makes the Category:Unincorporated communities in New Hampshire unsupportable. If you have found references that these are something that could support Unincorporated Communities, please fix the articles; otherwise, the unincorporated cat has got to go. East Merrimack, New Hampshire Conway (CDP), New Hampshire Groveton, New Hampshire North Conway, New Hampshire Pinardville, New Hampshire Suncook, New Hampshire Tilton-Northfield, New Hampshire West Swanzey, New Hampshire Woodsville, New Hampshire. Can you do the same with Connecticut and Rhode Island Census-Designed places (for unincorporated communities, neighborhoods or villages or whatever) without my having to list each of them for you. Article content (valid content) must exist to support any categories used Hmains (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the matter of the articles directly in Category:Villages in Rhode Island. I did not move these to their village county subcats because there is nothing in the article content to indicate that the area is actually a village. Each of these needs to have reference determination as to what kind of area they are so the content can be changed and the article then placed in proper categories. Hmains (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on fixing the articles next week as I have limited time available the next few days. I'll just go through everything in the CDP categories. --Polaron | Talk 15:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Hmains (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you now understand that a CDP can be, and often is, just that a census-designated place? Articles with their demographic information on the CDP are just about the CDP and therefore must only be in CDP categories. If, by census bureau plan, the CDP occupies the same geographic area as a recognized village, neighborhood or whatever, then the article needs to state that additional fact with references showing it to be true (general refernces to the nature of villages, etc in New England or any particular state are not sufficient) and only then can the article be in village, etc categories as well. This also means that many CDP redirects are wrong and misleading since the article itself is about the CDP, not something else. Do you now agree with what I have just stated and will fix these articles to match and stop your reverts of my work which follow these rules? Hmains (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR edit warring, actually 4RR

I requested administrative intervention to stop your edit warring, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may wish to comment there. doncram (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm trying to encourage people to write substantive articles instead of creating three-line stubs, reverting an editor while he's trying to do just that is rude. The content that was developed can be incorporated into the town article, if the consensus is to merge, but that should happen via a merge discussion. Reverting in the middle of active edits and breaking 3RR in the process isn't acceptable, and it's guaranteed to irritate anyone. There's plenty of time for a merge discussion, and I'll add it to the Big List. Acroterion _(talk) 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all instances, I have added his content verbatim to the other article and have asked him to add his content to the other article. Anyway, this is moot as I have decided to let Doncram get his way in which topics get what articles. I will just make sure his content is accurate and not redundant. I may also expand his content using other sources for clarification. I apologize for dragging you into this but Doncram is being unreasonable and I guess I just have to adjust to his whims. --Polaron | Talk 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that both you and Doncram should be blocked

A quick look at WP:AN3#User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: ) indicates that both you and Doncram have gone past 3RR at Preston City Historic District. Please explain why the admins should not block both of you for 24 hours. Previous discussions, however sincere, do not give either of you a license to break 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right that Doncram and I have both technically gone over 3 reverts. If it helps, I will just let Doncram have his way regarding article structure and just fix/improve content and remove redundant content regardless of where it is. He seems to be more liked in the community anyway. --Polaron | Talk 16:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you agree to this restriction: You will not convert an article into a redirect or a redirect into an article for six months, in any situation where a historic district is involved? The exception would be if you can find at least one other person who supports your change on a talk page. If you get support for your change you should make note of that fact at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list so that others can locate the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Doncram agrees, then that is acceptable. --Polaron | Talk 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to add your own comment at User_talk:Acroterion#Doncram.2FPolaron_3RR_case? I want to be sure that Doncram has correctly summarized what you are agreeing to. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, based on your further comment at Acroterion's talk, I understand you are agreeing to stop converting articles into redirects or vice versa, when historic districts are involved, unless others support your change, per the text I proposed above. This voluntary restriction is for six months, and will expire at 17:06 on 30 June, 2010. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPS Focus

I don't know if you heard, but all NRHP noms for CT NRHP properties appear to be available on NPS Focus, along with NC, AK, ND and the previously-available HI, NV, UT, WY, KY, DC and DE and the state sources for places like VA and WV. There may be some NY docs listed as well. I haven't thoroughly tested all cases. Acroterion _(talk) 21:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting NRHP HD articles

Hey, my watchlist is lighting up with new edits by you that are redirecting NRHP HD articles to village/hamlet/neighborhood articles. What's going on? I'm not seeing discussion or notices or consensus or anything.

If you're taking any old, previous opinion as meeting the term of your editing restriction, I don't think that is right. The situation is different now that NRHP docs are easily available for most or all of these.

Recent edits:

#  Simsbury Center (CDP), Connecticut ‎ (+cat)  (top) [rollback]
# 12:29, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Hazardville, Connecticut ‎ (+cat) (top) [rollback]
# 12:25, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Broad Brook ‎ (+cat) (top) [rollback]
# 12:18, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Simsbury Center, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Simsbury Center (CDP), Connecticut) (top) [rollback]
# 12:17, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Simsbury Center ‎ (←Redirected page to Simsbury Center (CDP), Connecticut) (top) [rollback]
# 12:16, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Simsbury Center Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Simsbury Center (CDP), Connecticut) (top) [rollback]
# 12:14, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Plantsville ‎ (templates) (top) [rollback]
# 12:14, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Plantsville Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Plantsville) (top) [rollback]
# 12:13, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Plantsville ‎ (merge)
# 12:00, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Table of United States primary census statistical areas ‎ (Reverted to revision 330331883 by Buaidh. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 11:59, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) List of countries by population ‎ (undo CIA figure)
# 11:46, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Marion (Southington) ‎ (←Redirected page to Marion, Connecticut) (top)
# 11:45, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Marion, Connecticut ‎ (nav template) (top) [rollback]
# 11:44, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Marion, Connecticut ‎ (→Rochambeau visit)
# 11:44, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Marion, Connecticut ‎ (cats)
# 11:43, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Marion Historic District (Cheshire and Southington, Connecticut) ‎ (←Redirected page to Marion, Connecticut) (top) [rollback]
# 11:42, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Marion, Connecticut ‎ (merge)
# 11:27, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Taftville Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Taftville, Connecticut) (top)
# 11:26, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Taftville/Ponemah Mill National Register Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Taftville, Connecticut) (top)
# 11:25, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Quaker Hill Historic District (Waterford, Connecticut) ‎ (←Redirected page to Quaker Hill, Connecticut) (top) [rollback]
# 11:24, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Quaker Hill, Connecticut ‎ (merge) (top) [rollback]
# 11:16, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Round Hill, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Round Hill (Greenwich)) (top) [rollback]
# 11:15, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Long Ridge, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Long Ridge Village Historic District) (top) [rollback]
# 11:14, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Huntington Center, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Huntington Center (Shelton)) (top) [rollback]
# 11:14, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Huntington Center, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Huntington center (Shelton))
# 11:13, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Greenfield Hill, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Greenfield Hill) (top)
# 11:12, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut) ‎ (←Redirected page to Georgetown, Connecticut) (top) [rollback]
# 11:12, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Georgetown, Connecticut ‎ (→External links) (top) [rollback]
# 11:11, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Georgetown, Connecticut ‎ (→History)
# 11:04, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Rockville Historic District (Vernon, Connecticut) ‎ (←Redirected page to Rockville (Vernon)) (top) [rollback]
# 11:01, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Little Haddam, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Little Haddam Historic District) (top)
# 11:00, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Highland (Middletown) ‎ (←Redirected page to Highland Historic District (Middletown, Connecticut)) (top)
# 10:59, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Highland, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Highland Historic District (Middletown, Connecticut)) (top)
# 10:56, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Pomfret Center ‎ (retarget) (top) [rollback]
# 10:54, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) N Dayville (Killingly) ‎ (←Redirected page to Dayville Historic District) (top)
# 10:52, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Sharon Valley ‎ (dab) (top) [rollback]
# 10:49, 4 January 2010 (hist | diff) Hotchkissville, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Hotchkissville Historic District) (top) [rollback]

Also there are redirects to NRHP HDs, such as the Dayville (Killingly) one, which seem counter to the editing restriction too.

Anyhow, what is going on? doncram (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These satisfy the the criteria for retaining a merge. I did mention this a few days ago on Acroterion's talk page. --Polaron | Talk 20:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention I see was part of the 12/30 discussions, and it was non-specific. Acroterion _(talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you must be referring to your statement: I would just like to request that all existing stubby historic district articles that do not currently meet the criteria of the so-called "Poquetanuck agreement" should be merged until such a time that they meet the criteria. Once that is done, I will not initiate any mergers myself for a while but I would aggressively support any previously uninvolved local editor who wishes to do so.

And i further stated there: Okay, good, I basically agree with that. About merging the stubby ones, I assume you mean that you'll do re-mergers where the Poquetanuck 3 somewhat arbitrary criteria for having merger are met.

But, I would very much like to first understand what are the places you are identifying as meeting the merger terms, and have the opportunity to sign off on those. There should be no rush in doing these. Can you please take the time to note these out, organized by county. Otherwise this is going to be / already is highly confusing and cause more tracking work by me, Acroterion, etc.

And, at least some of these edits do not meet that criteria. Your creating new redirects like Dayville (Killingly) for example, which goes against Acroterion's previously stated judgment on those in the issues list and which is explicitly counter to your editing restriction. doncram (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron, please post a list of any work along these lines on the discussion page in my userspace before you proceed, and allow time for it to be reviewed; Doncram's been doing that and it's worked well. Acroterion _(talk) 20:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Also, I don't see how redirecting "Simsbury Center Historic District" to "Simsbury Center (CDP), Connecticut)" is going to make sense, also (it would seem to me that one article at "Simsbury Center, Connecticut" might be best). Hmains is already disagreeing with you about CDP articles in the same way that I have disagreed about NRHP articles, I've noticed. Simsbury Center is just an example, which I don't want to discuss out here this out here, but maybe the better way to go would be to do a decent starter NRHP HD article right away, rather than merging and expanding edit warring over CDP article categories. Can you state out at the county list-article talk-pages (like at Talk:List of RHPs in New London and Talk:List of RHPs in Fairfield what you want to do, mergers wise, first, to allow for some discussion like for the Simsbury example. Pretty please :) doncram (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. After ec, noting what Acroterion requests, perhaps talking out at the NRHP county-list articles could be done some, first, and then a brief notice given at Acroterion's list, to avoid prolonged discussions there. I think the Talk:List of RHPs in New London example stating what are the temporary/permanent merger cases is helpful for other future editors, while Acroterion's list is specifically for mediating. doncram (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, once these are done, I would not initiate any new ones. This is pretty much it for Connecticut. If you expand the articles to the point that a split is warranted, then I'm not going to go against that. I don't see much point in more long discussions. All anybody has to do to unmerge is to write an expanded article. --Polaron | Talk 22:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will not convert an article into a redirect or a redirect into an article for six months, in any situation where a historic district is involved. That is the restriction, which you have violated. You may indeed be right in your assessment, but we do ask that you discuss these actions first. Acroterion _(talk) 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I agree to that on the principle that any existing stubs that meet the criteria would be merged. I think I mentioned specifically that once that is done, then I won't initiate new ones in Connecticut. If I was mistaken in what I agreed to, then we should re-discuss. --Polaron | Talk 22:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, but you still need to announce your intentions first so we can avoid misunderstandings. I'll happily reinstate your preferred version if we can get a consensus. Connecticut has NRHP nom information easily available now, so while there are a number of places where merges make sense, the possibilities for sourced, expanded HD articles are much greater than they were a week ago when this flared up. I'll take a look at the notes you're leaving on the discussion page; thanks for commenting there. Acroterion _(talk) 22:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron is continuing to edit in explicit violation of the editing restriction he agreed to. this diff, for one example. There is no way that creating new redirects like this is allowed by the editing restriction. This is adding more mess that is going to need discussing. Stop it! And, shouldn't there be consequences. I think Polaron should be blocked for a period now, if possible to block him from editing anywhere but here, just to prevent more construction of more work for us all. doncram (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the harm with that redirect? It allows for easier linking and automation. --Polaron | Talk 22:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate, direct harm is that it demonstrates you are not taking seriously the editing restriction that you agreed to. I don't have time for this. I thought you were offering/agreeing to cease with the contentious edits and give us all a break from what has been a solid 6 months i think now, of extending edit warring. It's simple: you agreed to an editing restriction, and that edit and others are in direct violation of it. Your response here does not respond to that. doncram (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I must have misunderstood. I said I agree to do this voluntarily once the stubs have been merged and that I will not initiate conversions of redirects to articles and vice versa once everything is in its proper place. Also, the specific thing you mention is a new redirect that is not harmful in any way at all. I don't understand what is wrong with that redirect at all. Please stop reacting negatively to my edits. They are meant to consolidate information. --Polaron | Talk 23:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're reinterpreting ex post facto a narrowly-framed side deal you made with Doncram. You were still obligated to seek agreement on these, specifically with Doncram, who appeared to be supportive of those terms until you made undiscussed changes on a broad set of articles. Doncram doesn't feel you've observed the conditions set forth, and you made further unilateral changes after I specifically reminded you of your obligation to seek consensus. You are at this point in violation of the terms to which you agreed, and subject to sanctions. Acroterion _(talk) 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely was not trying to dupe anyone, and I don't think anyone has been duped. In the User talk:Acroterion#Doncram/Polaron 3RR case discussion, I did notice that there were going to be some logistical issues, just after I posted "Okay, good, I basically agree with that. About merging the stubby ones, I assume you mean that you'll do re-mergers where the Poquetanuck 3 somewhat arbitrary criteria for having merger are met.". I noticed that, while Polaron had not said he himself wanted to make those re-mergers, and he would technically not be able to do so under the editing restriction just proposed, that I was seeming to give approval for Polaron himself to do those edits. It wasn't really my place to have done so, to have suggested a change to the deal P was negotiating with EdJohnson. I should have said "I assume you'll want for there to be re-mergers where the 3 criteria", instead, and I could have offered then to do the implementation. IIRC, I considered revising what I had written, right at the time, but I decided it was better for someone else to comment there (either to confirm or deny my "assumption" that P would want whatever, or to point out the apparent inconsistency), or for no further comment to be made. I get that you want less talk. Me too. I resolved that I would do whatever it took to help make the new deal work, which would probably obligate me, later, to help with the re-merger edits that I was willing to agree to. About what you negotiated directly with EdJohnston, that was your job to make sure you edited the agreement to incorporate that qualification of your editing restriction, if it was important to you. You could have pointed out that I had indicated my approval. I guess I probably noticed that you didn't but thot it was not important, that we would work it out, doing lists of the remergers county by county in an orderly way. And, if it turned out that it was easiest for you to be doing the actual re-merger edits, I would have been agreeable to that (to fulfill my stated approval, which I did not want to amend).

But what happened instead was that you started editing, and I asked politely enough what was going on, how could this be consistent, and I think the key thing is you did not answer. Or, you answered too tersely. You did not respond at all to my pointing out that I thought the new redirect edits were in violation. With your continuing edits, it seemed to be confirmed to me that you were deliberately in violation. And given that, I am like most people going to focus immediately back on what was literally agreed to. That is how contracts work: terms of a contract in any business relationship are not always held to strictly, unless there is a perception of one side taking advantage, and then everyone goes back to literal interpretation, what was written exactly.

About what to do now, I remain committed to making the old Poquetanuck agreement work and to making the new deal you made work for you too. It seems like noting items for re-merger within Acroterion's Big List is working. If we don't have to rush about this, and I don't think we do, we should be able to proceed using that. The implementations of the re-mergers do require some attention, like for providing Talk page notices to other editors as envisioned in the Poquetanuck agreement. Some remergers like Plantsville, where no substantial info was developed and nothing will be lost by remerger, will be easy. In other 3-criteria cases I am concerned that good info which was developed should not be lost. I'll keep returning to the Big List, anyhow, and will respond to your re-merger notes there. Again, hopefully that will work for meeting your basic intentions, knock on wood. doncram (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing restriction

Polaron, please explain why you are violating your editing restriction:

OK, based on your further comment at Acroterion's talk, I understand you are agreeing to stop converting articles into redirects or vice versa, when historic districts are involved, unless others support your change, per the text I proposed above. This voluntary restriction is for six months, and will expire at 17:06 on 30 June, 2010.

This is my summary, still visible higher up on your talk page. Such a restriction is entered into voluntarily, but once it is established, it is enforceable by blocks. It is not optional for you to follow the restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think I mentioned that I will agree with conditions, which I listed on Acroterion's talk page. My reading was that Doncram agreed as well so had gone ahead with what I said I would do. If it is the case that Doncram did not actually agree, then there is no agreement as of yet and we are back to the way it was before. --Polaron | Talk 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear as to what Doncram agreed, and I would have to ask Acroterion to interpret it. But your editing restriction is very clear and you can be blocked if you don't follow it. (You made no objection to the summary that I left above, at 02:22 on 31 December). That one is independent of whatever Doncram does. You can't be released from your own restriction without going through an appeal process. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. I guess Doncram duped me on this one then. Oh well, life goes on. --Polaron | Talk 02:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly say you were duped: you just need to communicate with Doncram. You've worked together productively before, and I don't believe that there would have been this discussion if you'd specifically brought up the points you wished to make (the "three conditions" for merge/split) ahead of taking action. Acroterion _(talk) 02:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked in vain for documentation of what Doncram agreed to. Could someone please provide a concise summary of the agreements and editing restrictions that are believed to be in place? --Orlady (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron was asked to accept, and accepted, the editing restriction quoted in this thread. I, doncram, was not asked to accept any editing restriction, but at my Talk page (within User talk:Doncram#Please explain why both you and Polaron should not be blocked) I chose to reiterate my intention to abide by the Poquetanuck agreement (which focuses on mergers/splits when info is lacking), and I elaborated slightly further (that I would abide by Acroterion's specific judgments on merger/splits). EdJohnston correctly-in-my-view summarized at end of 3RR, (now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive119#User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: Negotiation)) that Polaron's is a formal editing restriction to be enforced and my offer is not. I did not intend to agree to a formal editing restriction, and did not. You just have my word that I am trying to abide by what I thot was agreed between P and me at Talk:Poquetanuck, and what i further promised at my Talk page. doncram (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean that statement quite that literally. I had assumed that Doncram would have simply re-split each of them by making expanded articles rather than reacting negatively about them. I had read Doncram's agreement to the conditions I listed incorrectly it seems. So technically, I had assumed too much good faith and have apparently trapped myself into something that I don't agree with without the listed conditions. --Polaron | Talk 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your intentions in the matter - that you were amenable to appropriate splits at some point in the future - but that wasn't the best way to approach the issue. My advice would be to review the CT NRHP noms that are now available at NPS Focus and work from there, stating your intentions and allowing time for response and discussion. Separately, and not entirely related to the matter at hand, I'm confused about your approach to naming for some of these communities. Have you established a hierarchy for neighborhoods/villages/towns, etc.? Some qualifiers are parenthetical, some are after commas, and I don't quite understand. I'd really like keeping terms like CDP out of a title, as it's meaningless to most readers. Acroterion _(talk) 02:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Connecticut subtown localities (i.e. villages or neighborhoods or sections of town) used to be uniformly named like most other Wikipedia articles: <placename> if it's unambiguous or <placename (dismabiguator)> if ambiguous. The dismabiguator is either the containing town (if ambiguity is with other places of the same name) or with the term "village"/"neighborhood" if the ambiguity is with a different class of thing. This is basically one of the two widely used conventions for naming neighborhoods of an incorporated place. Some people are put off with this convention and prefer the <neighborhood/village, statename> convention and have moved articles accordingly even though that doesn't make sense for many cases. But I haven't bothered to maintain internal consistency. --Polaron | Talk 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron, you need to grow up and stop edit warring. You never use the talk page. You dont own wikipedia. For example, Largest Metropoltan Area's: Look at the populations, Greater LA has almost 20 Million People, while LA Metro has closer to 15 Million. Greater LA is a combination of metros, while the LA metro is the metro it self. I honestly am tired of this and will be in favor a block against you. You were given a chance and did not take it seriously. I am asking you to please stop acking like a 5 year old and listen to what people got to say, rather than by force wanting it. House1090 (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you've even looked at the study in that list. They're using a definition that's neither the MSA nor the CSA. However, parts of their area do extend into the Inland Empire so the larger division is more appropriate to link to. This is not about edit warring but about ensuring correctness. --Polaron | Talk 14:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

back off!

Hey, ur crowding me, and I think u r violating the spirit if not the letter editing restriction u agreed to. This edit by u is a redirect of an NRHP article to something else. I dunno, it is not a NRHP HD article, maybe ur restriction is just for that.

But, good grief, i was obviously trying to sort out facts on HABS pics in Fairfield County (in edits of mine u have seen), and setting up this NRHP article which would hold, at least temporarily, the NRHP doc for "Fairfield Railway Stations", is part of that. It would be reasonable to post a merger suggestion, but not to abruptly revert my work in progress.

Don't be a jerk. doncram (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it standard practice for NRHP-listed active railroad stations to have separate articles? Why not just add your pictures and references to the already established article? I am correcting incorrect information. Please don't take it personally. --Polaron | Talk 03:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Your edit] moving the infobox from Fairfield Railway Stations to the other article lost material, specifically the NRHP document that is the definitive info source which may, yes, establish that the two should be merged. This seems just like all the other NRHP HD battles. You are too quick to stop work in progress, way to quick. Forcing redirects of NRHP HDs to hamlet/village articles is just like that, u r preventing development that would in fact allow for lots of good stuff to be accumulated, too soon before u know anything. You're just interfering, tearing down, when u do this. You need to use Talk pages and Merger proposals and Requested Move proposals like civil editors do. doncram (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After edit conflict. No, it is not standard practice. I didnt say it was. It has happened before, a NRHP article has been created before or after a different article on same place was created. And obviously they get merged, there is no problem. But it is a problem how u r interfering, rather than pointing out a link / probable need for a merger. In this case i even had the link there, i am not stupid, it needed to be sorted out, but i was certainly going to finish developing the NRHP document. It is also irritating to get edit labels about content forking, which is part of language used viciously in 6 months of NRHP HD contention. doncram (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need a formal article to sort it out? As I said, there is nothing preventing you from adding information to the already existing article. It couls use a nice discussion of the station buildings, which appear to be your main concern. Also, you are making a second article about the exact same thing. That is the definition of a content fork. Again, please don't take it personally. This is how Wikipedia works. --Polaron | Talk 04:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO, the way civil editors in wikipedia work is by making suggestions, etc., not communicating rudely by redirects and terse edit summaries. In particular, you could politely make a merger proposal, or just comment at a Talk page. Only if it doesnt get sorted out would u move on to start an AFD. Your implementing a redirect and losing material is just rude. I thot u were going to be helping build content, not contributing by fighting on structure and causing contention. doncram (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, why don't you politely suggest a split rather than forcing your own view. If losing content is your problem, then we can just add it to the existing article. Please be reasonable. If you really believe this should be separate, you should have politely asked via a split proposal. --Polaron | Talk 04:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not forcing any view, i was gathering information and building material which could indeed possibly best be merged, later, depending on how the information turned out. Just by the NRHP name, "Fairfield Railway Stations" it sounded more plausible than not, that the NRHP could cover multiple railway stations in Fairfield county. I was just coming across a number of them in HABS searching on Fairfield that i was doing. And the way that I am efficiently accessing the NRHP documents (and allowing others to get easy access to them too) is by pasting in a blank reference into a suitable article, and in several edits, filling out the reference, working back to explaining the NRHP's significance, etc. If it turned out the NRHP listing was covering multiple stations, or if other eventualities turned out (perhaps a whole ton of detail that would swamp the other article about the modern railway stop, however unlikely that is), keeping a separate article and editing the other one to coordinate would make sense. Did you read the NRHP doc by the way? I have not had time, I have been interrupted from an orderly process of incremental info-gathering, to be involved in this and other non-productive stuff instead. :( Again, a milder option for you would have been to put a merger note in the two articles. It is premature for u to judge that no how, no way could anything i was developing possibly be legitimately separate. I didn't even have a proper chance to read the NRHP doc that i gathered. I was busy searching the HABS stuff. doncram (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is premature for you to write an article without knowing what the topic is about. Can you name any other NRHP railway station that is structured as two separate articles? --Polaron | Talk 05:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has asked my opinion, but I'll offer it anyway. This edit by Polaron was appropriate, as it eliminated a page that consisted of cruft that never should have been created in article space. Content like that should be kept in user space, at least until it is sufficiently developed to see the light of day in article space. --Orlady (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my equally unsolicited opinion. It was RUDE. Whether you agree with the another editors development style or not, the way to deal with it is not to just delete it less than 20 minutes after they last made an edit. MAYBE if it had been sitting there a couple of days or something, that could be valid. But, especially in the context of this ongoing dispute, it seems inappropriate to me for an admin to proclaim the appropriateness of RUDE behavior. Lvklock (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One should still not make content forks in any case and one should still not create articles until one knows what the topic is about. --Polaron | Talk 15:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield Railroad Stations looks like a content fork to me and is contrary to established practice wherein railroad stations have NRHP-related content added to the individual article. I can't find a rationale for anything beyond a redirect from the NRHP nom title to the commonly-used, current name. Acroterion _(talk) 16:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to respond about wanting content forks or not. I have explained that when i started the article i believed there was no current article on the topic of the multiple historic railroad stations of Fairfield County, Connecticut. The NRHP name "Fairfield Railroad Stations" seems pretty obviously about more than one railroad station. I was surprised to find, once I had pasted in a blank NRHP doc reference, filled it out with proper refnum, saved the article, and checked the document, that it did seem to be about just the two railroad station buildings and surrounding area at one place. Then, it seemed better to develop some decent material there rather than immediately switch to working in the existing article, where there would be other editors watching and perhaps interfering or raising concerns before the material got developed properly. For example, whether an evolving discussion about architecture was too much already or not, when good wording had not been worked out. It seems like bad faith or something for several people to be making overstatements about what they think I am wanting or doing, and to be interfering with work in progress. It seems unfair, that perhaps Polaron was so sure I was wrong for having started the article, only because i had put the NRHP document in the article and had just begun consulting it. It is unfair pre-judging that no how no way could I develop anything useful. Another direction it could have gone would be to write a more general article about the architecture of Fairfield County railroad stations, what i thot the NRHP listing was about. There does in fact seem to be a lot of material available, including the HABS/HAER pic sets and reports about multiple other Fairfield stations. I reiterate, it just seems rude to interrupt rather than to make a suggestion and have a civil discussion. I commented in the merger discussion now at Talk:Fairfield (Metro-North station) and probably won't comment further here. doncram (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US AND CHINA SIZE

I am jc900 and I am editing the list of country area page. My goal is to make it clearly known that the us area figure includes coastal waters. A lot of people think US is larger than China by land. lol I know. I agree that china's figure may also include coastal water but I have no proof of this. However, I wish to let the viewer know the extend of the CIA WFB upgrades. I think this is very important. I think including inland water and great lakes is perfectly valid. Including coastal water is debatable. And include territorial water is laughable. US should just include the moon since their flag is on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc900 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day NYC

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Saugatuck River Bridge

On January 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Saugatuck River Bridge, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

repeated violation of editing restriction

I thot you agreed to an editing restriction for six months, but this edit is a clear violation. You agreed not to redirect articles from NRHP HD names to/from other articles.

I don't know what you are thinking. I wonder if you project that i have some evil motivations or something, and that would justify your violating your agreement. But, I still stand by what I promised. You have other options, like communicating, to explain whatever might be your point of view. I did recreate an article there, as part of finding out what are the facts to inform decisions. I think your irate view is probably ironic, that you can only hold the irate view because I did the productive work of finding and linking the NRHP nomination form, in a properly formed footnote. I presume you used the link that I built there, to get and read the nom form, and then to judge on your own that the NRHP HD should not be split from a village/hamlet article. There is much that u and i have talked out, with others, about how the process is to work following the act of gathering information, including pointing out whether 3 criteria for a merger apply or not. I indicated in my edit summary or somehow that i did not know whether 3 merger criteria applied or not. You could contribute constructively in a discussion about what are the facts relative to content and article structure decisions. You seem to be willfully disregarding your agreement. Why should I abide by my semiformal, voluntary agreements with you, to make the process work fairly for you too, if you are willy-nilly going to violate your word, your promise in a more formal process.

At any rate, you are in clear violation of your editing restriction. This is at least the 2nd episode. doncram (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actual content trumps everything. --Polaron | Talk 05:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated your editing restriction by redirecting content in the course of development. I make no judgment on how much content there is to develop; we'll see when he's done. I imagine you're familiar with WP:INSPECTOR? Please allow editors to develop content without active interference. You are effectively stalking Doncram's edits. Acroterion _(talk) 12:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what I agreed to. I agreed only if Doncram were to follow the "poquetanuck agreement" and only after all mergers of stubby articles were finished. Since the second condition is not yet done (in fact a lot of them were reversed unnecessarily and I didn't complain except for the obvious ones) and the first one has recently been disregarded, there is no basis for me to this to follow this voluntary restriction. I think it would be well worth for everyone to discuss first before performing a split of an already merged article. --Polaron | Talk 14:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron, though I question the need for Doncram's article on the Fenwick HD, your creation of the redirect is indeed a violation of your editing restriction as written. If a redirect is appropriate, let someone else create it. There is nothing in the text of your restriction saying it won't apply unless Doncram follows the Poquetanuck agreement. Leave that to others to enforce. If you continue to misunderstand this, there may be a need for sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I was duped into this agreement because I assumed Doncram would stop. If the letter of what you think I agreed to is more important than the spirit, then I guess it is my fault for assuming too much good faith. --Polaron | Talk 15:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bus routes OK?

I thought they would be disallowed per WP:NOT#DIR? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There'a a whole category of them. Disallowing one while allowing others seems unusual. If you want to change existing practice, a wider discussion is probably needed. --Polaron | Talk 22:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I was not aware of those. Thanks for the info, and no, it doesn't bother me enough to start a discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreement

Hey, i think we've been making a lot of progress in actually developing articles. Please let's try to stay constructive. I don't want my own edits to devolve negatively. About this edit in Lakeville though, can we pls. not remove the "substantially similar" unless we add a sourced statement or two comparing a village vs. an HD. Your edit is asserting you have read the nom, but you are not adding a ref so far. I think that does not comply with our agreement. And please, could you develop a proper reference and make a proper statement with footnote even to the relevant page of the nom? --doncram (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a statement that it represents a certain area of the center of the village, which is based in the nomination form. --Polaron | Talk 13:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you added that after, thanks. --doncram (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CT principal communities

Just a thought: Why not proceed to develop articles on all the CT principal communities? It seems odd to still be hashing out whether NRHP HDs must be merged to CT community articles, after 7 months, and there still not be CT community articles to consider as possible merge targets, and to accumulate info about the communities. It seems negative to address CT communities only when the legitimacy of an NRHP HD article can be questioned. More positive would be to develop the CT communities articles systematically. Are there any good sources having info on all of them? I know there is a list of them but am not familiar with what more info on each one will exist somewhere. Other CT editors could be recruited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut. --doncram (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canaan edits and edit restriction

I notice your edits to the Canaan (CDP), Connecticut article, and setting up new redirects to it.

I appreciate that your intent in this edit was no doubt constructively meant, to give a more precise statement than the deliberately ambiguous "substantially similar" statement. However, by the terms of the Poquetanuck agreement between you and me, the "substantially similar" phrase is only supposed to be replaced by a sourced, more specific statement or passage. Could you please add a proper source? I do appreciate your effort in trying to be more constructive than a just previous edit by O, which I had reverted. The constructive thing to do is develop a statement like you have, but make it sourced.

Also these two new redirects you added seem counter to the spirit of the edit restriction you agreed to.

# 08:54, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Canaan Depot ‎ (←Redirected page to Canaan (CDP), Connecticut)  (top)
# 08:54, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Canaan Village ‎ (←Redirected page to Canaan (CDP), Connecticut) (top)

I don't think it improves wikipedia for readers to add redirects from phrases that are not used or explained in a target article. And in this case if the terms actually refer to the historic district which may well end up getting split out, you will have created confusion and more effort, setting up possibly more battling. It seems, broadly, part of battling to force redirects and article mergers, on basis of your private beliefs, in absence of developing sourced information that others also can consider. And, redirects are easy for you to create but hard to remove. In this case there is no information whatsoever about "Canaan Depot" in the target article (the word "depot" does not appear), and the only "Village" mention is in the name of the historic district, which perhaps should be split out anyhow. I would probably not object if there were development about the two terms in the article and if they appeared in bold in the lede of the article. Please consider developing material first, before creating redirects.

Please note, if I or another editor redirect those terms to Canaan, Connecticut, the town, which I will consider (and I will consider requesting deletion of them in an RFD, too) then it would definitely be a violation of your edit restriction for you to revert.

Sorry to be coming down on your well-meant edits, but I hope my being prompt in these feedback comments is better. --doncram (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC) --doncram (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a few more new redirects created by you, and then just one more, clearly after i had posted the above. It gives the appearance that you are now embarking on a new spree of editing in order to act out, or to extend controversy, or otherwise, rather than discussing an issue civilly.

# 10:10, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N The Hollow, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Lime Rock (Salisbury))  (top)
# 10:09, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Lamb's Forge ‎ (←Redirected page to Lime Rock (Salisbury)) (top)
# 10:04, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Jordanville, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Jordan Village, Connecticut) (top)
# 10:00, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Housatonic Falls ‎ (←Redirected page to Falls Village, Connecticut) (top)

Of the above, i checked the last 3 and there is no content in the last 3 targets relating to the redirected terms.

I'm sorry, but I am going to ask at an Admin board to have you blocked for a while. I don't know whether that will be successful, but I am doing so because I believe your edits are counter-productive to the development of the wikipedia. From past experience with you, I know that you have gone on very extensive editing sprees in response to other requests or actions that you took offense with, so the likelihood that you are doing the same now is pretty high.

Please respond here or at my Talk. --doncram (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now i see you are further continuing. I checked the first one following and find no info at link target.

# 10:31, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Peantam ‎ (←Redirected page to Bantam, Connecticut)  (top)
# 10:30, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Bantam Village ‎ (←Redirected page to Bantam, Connecticut) (top)
# 10:30, 2 February 2010 (hist | diff) N Bantam Falls ‎ (←Redirected page to Bantam, Connecticut) (top)

I do ask that you stop. And, I ask that you abide by mutually requested mediator Acroterion's previously stated judgement, that such redirects should not be created. You could just stop, and agree to discuss with A. You have previously agreed to abide by Acroterion's judgments. It seems unhelpful, at a minimum, for you to embark on a spree now, rather than accelerate in response to a request to stop.

To others who might view this, these redirects are similar to many hundreds of previous redirects created by Polaron that have been addressed in about 8 batches of redirect deletions at wp:RFD, and which are the subject of about 7 months of running contention and discussion. Polaron and I both agreed to request and abide by rulings of then-third-party mediator User:Acroterion. Several edit wars and wp:3RR issues have since come up. This seems like a new spree in violation of spirit of agreements made, and in violation of letter of agreement to abide by Acroterion's judgements, which include explicit judgement on this particular point. I have asked some other admins to consider this and am now looking for the appropriate general Admin board. --doncram (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be informed i have opened an Admin Needed incident report, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#preventative block on Polaron. --doncram (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wouldn't it be better to add sourced content to the target articles, then add redirects as appropriate, in accordance with WP:RS, V, SYNTH and all those other all-cap bluelinks? I see no hint concerning how Unquowa has anything to do with Greens Farms, to pick an example. Acroterion _(talk) 18:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started creating redirects from alternative GNIS names for all populated places in Connecticut. Yes, it would be more ideal to add content first but I don't see why creating redirects from GNIS alternative names would be problematic? --Polaron | Talk 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not source them first (therefore respecting WP:V), then do the redirects? Otherwise it brings little or no benefit to the reader of the actual article, unless by happenstance they are mysteriously redirected to an article that has no reference to the search term. Acroterion _(talk) 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In due time it will be. It's much quicker for me to do these types of repetitive edits as I go through a list. In any case, the GNIS is the source for everything I'm doing at the moment. --Polaron | Talk 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's an AN/I discussion and I'm headed out, can you define "in due time" and give an idea of the number of redirects you contemplate? Acroterion _(talk) 18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of years? Unless you want me to quit my job and devote my full time to this. Anyway, as Doncram says, Wikipedia has no deadline. In the end, there will probably be hundreds of these based on a rough estimate if/when random people start making articles for places that don't have articles yet. I haven't created redirects for places that don't have articles yet, of course. --Polaron | Talk 19:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restriction proposed at Acroterion's talk

Hello Polaron. Please see User talk:Acroterion#Another idea for admin action on NRHP. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram. While the RFC is named for him alone, I would expect that your behavior would be discussed as well. I would encourage you to participate in a civil manner in this discussion, in hopes of finding a reasonable resolution. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to put together an outline for an RfC on the NRHP content disputes at User:Acroterion/RfC NRHP, to be moved to some more appropriate place once it's developed. I'll be working on it in between bouts of snow shoveling, and you're encouraged to contribute as you desire.Acroterion _(talk) 17:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven, Connecticut

Thanks for improving the intro; the intros for the Connecticut lists really need to be upgraded to the styles used by many other states. I'll see what I can do today to fix that. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why reorder the two communities? It's far simpler to list alphabetically — anyone will understand alphabetical order, but listing by which has a higher percentage of the district (if that's what you meant; that's how I interpreted your words) will likely confuse some readers. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's primarily in one and only a bit in another. When you sort the table by neighborhood, you would see a more accurate grouping. Also note that in another entry that covers three neighborhoods, the sequence is geographical rather then alphabetical. If the more geographically accurate way really annoys you for some reason, go ahead and revert it. --Polaron | Talk 02:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Connecticut state historic sites

Will you please comment at Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Connecticut‎ relative to these sites? Doncram seems to think that this is an official list of sites, while I'm more and more thinking that they're not. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield County & towns

Thanks for all the helpful editing & re-verts! Would you consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut ? It looks abandoned and it would really help CT articles to have a wider editing audience. Markvs88 (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of most populous cities in India

Can you tell me why you reverted the edit on that page? I added a pic of a skyline because its an article on population.Bhonsley (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. I didn't revert you and it looks like the current version is the same as your most recent version [2]. --Polaron | Talk 18:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Paso-Juarez

Polaron, you inserted an "accuracy" banner on El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area with no explanation at all. Since this is up for DYK nonimation I have to insist that you explain this immediately or else I have to remove the banner.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polaron. You need to discuss things with other people - Instead of making sudden changes or reverting while in a dispute, you need to continue going in a dialog until your disputes are resolved. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting a copy paste move. --Polaron | Talk 21:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor excuse. You should not have moved it in the first place. Since I couldn't revert your change I did the copy as a stopgap. Given that you did the move without justification it's not my job to fix the consequences of your actions. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you could have simply moved it back by using the move function. But because you did a copy paste move, you need an admin to move it back now. And I did have justification in that the name is misleading. --Polaron | Talk 18:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello Polaron. An editor has mentioned you at WP:ANI#Help: El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete on Hubbard Park Historic District (Connecticut)

I requested speedy delete for Hubbard Park Historic District (Connecticut), a new redirect that you set up. There is no Hubbard Park Historic District in Connecticut, as far as I can tell from searching in the National Register's NRIS database. There certainly is no mention of such an HD in the redirect target article, which is about a park that is indeed NRHP-listed. In general, it is my opinion that redirects should not be set up unless the redirect target shows information about the place. Otherwise, the redirect is unsupported and is surprising-to-readers. Please comment here if you disagree about the speedy delete; my comment there points to here. --doncram (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NRHP nom describes it as a "site", and specifically not as an HD. I haven't seen it done even when, as in the case of a farm or ranch, it's technically listed as an HD. The redirect seems unnecessary at best, and unsupported by documentation. As far as the speedy goes, it doesn't really fit the speedy criteria; it should go to RfD. Acroterion _(talk) 15:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been in place for a while and is not new. The existence is not harmful as it is a plausible search term but if it annoys you for some reason, I won't oppose it at RFD. --Polaron | Talk 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I did not at first see that it was not entirely new; i noticed the new redirect of redirect. Acroterion, could you please just delete this. There's no need to go to RFD for a month-long process involving other editors unnecessarily. There is consensus of 3 here, and no likely opposition. Or, any other administrator coming here from seeing the speedy request, please just do the obvious thing and delete it. --doncram (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of metropolitan areas by population

I didn't put an edit summary on the revert edit i did. My computer was being weird, i was just going to say that it's better if it says Los Angeles instead of Greater Los Angeles, all of the cities there just use the largest city name and plus there is a reference at the bottom of the page that explains it. Not a big deal but just wanted to let you know. SoCal L.A. (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirecting and edit restriction

Your redirecting Whitney Avenue is technically a violation of your editing restriction, if you do not have support from other editors. You set it up as a redirect; i converted it to an article; your redirect is the technical violation. I think that Whitney Avenue is substantially different than Whitney Avenue HD, different than how similar Hillhouse Avenue is to Hillhouse Avenue HD. I concede up front that others might possibly agree with you, but you need to get agreement and if consensus goes your way then it should be someone else implementing a redirect. Discussion about the content issue should be held at Talk:Whitney Avenue. I see you made an edit summary in your redirect, which you could use in the discussion. But for now i will restore the article. --doncram (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countries, Latvia

Your revert of my edits here: [3] were without warrant, and are disruptive. It clearly states here: [4] on the Latvian Statistics agency that the population is as I edited it. Please do not engage in further disruptive of vandalizing acts in the future. Slaja (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. You didn't change the linked source (which doesn't show the February figure) and you didn't change the date (it's still listed as January). Please make sure to source changes to statistics as these lists are very prone to random changes by various people. --Polaron | Talk 05:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wiping out NRHP HD section

Dude, ur edit wiping out the starter section about the Wooster Square Historic District, in the Wooster Square article makes perhaps a fitting end to all this contention about NRHP HDs in Connecticut. I thot that a nice list of the named historic buildings that are described in the NRHP document that i painstakingly enough added, could be given in that section. And, I hoped you wanted to develop NRHP material, not make it harder for other editors to engage. But no, your first step is to eradicate having a section on that.... :( I just find it ironic.

Anyhow, i am hoping we are done, or nearly so, with reviewing all the CT NRHP HDs. I don't see any outstanding issues in the big checklist where you would have any complaint about whether the poquetanuck agreement was implemented properly or not, or where your editing restriction interfered. I did note ur recent question to A there and responded by doing a merger or two where u would not have been able to. So I hope/trust that i have adequately fulfilled my commitment to make the editing restriction work out fairly enough. Knock on wood about being done. --doncram (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't wipe out any list of buildings in Wooster Square. Anyway, the neighborhood articles will be eventually expanded once we're agreed as to which are better merged or not. --Polaron | Talk 17:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, i did not mean to imply you had erased such a list, not yet created. I do think your erasing the section, rather than seeing its possibility (previously discussed, too) and proceeding or allowing others to proceed, is symbolic tho. If you want to develop a good combo article, Wooster Square is wide open for you. It could certainly benefit from a map showing neighborhood and HD outlines. And developing something at Neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut (currently a redirect), is open to you as well. About debating further whether various articles should be merged, i am not eager to continue. Can't we just work ahead in actually developing articles, and give everyone a break. The eight month process of reviewing all the CT NRHPs has had some benefits (some articles developed) but mostly it has cost a lot of time of editors and administrators. I am inclined to point that out and to oppose holding open further debates at least until there has been a lot of productive progress shown. You and other editors have way clear to make productive edits, with a basically stable article structure in place. --doncram (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Ave HD

Hey i put in a DYK co-nom at Template talk:Did you know#Whitney Avenue Historic District, using ur map as image. Actually i don't often have luck keeping photos included in DYKs that i submit, and doubt that the map image would fly there, in the end. Unfortunately one doesn't get any feedback about whether pic is regarded as good, until the closing DYK editor composes the next batch of DYKs, and there's no opportunity to discuss. I think we might have more luck getting an image to stay in if we used one of the HABS pics for Atwater-Ciampolini House and used an alternative hook for a double DYK. If can develop that other article quickly. Will try; any help refining current hook or otherwise, would be appreciated. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Whitney Avenue Historic District

On March 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Whitney Avenue Historic District, 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, quick check ) 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.

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Hey, you're invited to join wp:NRHP as a member by adding your name, and whether you're a member or not you are welcome to comment/ask questions at its Talk page wt:NRHP or to post announcement of your new NRHP articles or photos at its main page, in the new contributions section. You'd have been welcome to join at any time, but I don't know if you've actually been invited before. Glad to be working together on Mystic River Historic District and other articles. Cheers, --doncram (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Join the WP:USRDCUP 2010!

We're going to go ahead and try this again! The contest will begin April 1. It is a contest to encourage editors to improve teh quality of WP:USRD articles and participate in USRD. Precautions will be taken to make sure that people do not "game the system" and bring article quality down. Please sign up ASAP! Announcements regarding the contest will be made at WP:USRDCUP, Twitter, and/or IRC. --Rs chen 7754 06:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Haven or other articles

Hey, I suggested at Talk:List of RHPs in CT that it would be good to create good stub articles for CT NRHPs, and thot starting with/finishing out New Haven would be a good place to start. That's what i thot, and then i was looking at beginning of the New Haven list, and that's why i checked out and edited the Beaver HD one (which i see u noticed). I hoped we might just develop the article. Would you like to proceed along such lines, or proceed with a different CT list-article, or are you just not interested? I'll watch here, or u know where my Talk page is. Cheers, --doncram (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Littell House

Thanks for the note, but you're slightly off; all Pennsylvania townships are incorporated, so Hanover Township is the closest municipality. However, it is the closest municipality that's not a minor civil division. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the source says Hookstown. Anyway, the field is meant for compact populated places, not for municipalities; it would be rather odd to say that the township was the nearest city. I didn't realise that I'd failed to use the nearest_city parameter; I've added the township to the location field and added the nearest_city parameter with Hookstown. Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get too technical, but Hookstown (population 152) is a borough, so does it qualify for inclusion in the "nearest city" field? According to the city page on Wikipedia, "In Pennsylvania any township or borough with a population of at least 10,000 can ask the state legislature to charter as a city." 152 is a few thousand short, but I guess that's close enough for Wikipedia, haha! Leepaxton (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willimantic

Is there a reason you're reverting edits instantly, while I'm making them? Mjl0509 (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010 USRD newsletter


Volume 3, Issue 1 • April 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup This month in USRD history	Features US Roads Portal celebrates April Fool's Day Portal selected article and photo	State and national updates Project reports
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL

Did you actually read the guidelines for appropriate external links? "that the library is integral to the town" is not one of the reasons that we have for including an external link in an article. Active Banana (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The library is discussed in the article and an external link to the library is entirely appropriate. Virtually all town articles in Connecticut have library website links. --Polaron | Talk 18:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other articles contain inappropriate links does not mean that we should allow additional articles to follow their bad example. Our guidelines state: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic". (emph added) The topic of the article is the TOWN and not the LIBRARY. If the Library itself is notable, the link from that article to the Library site is appropriate for the article about the Library. The object of Wikipedia is to create Encyclopedic article about topics, not to create "User guides" for various communities. Active Banana (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no separate article on the library but the library itself is discussed in some detail as part of the town article. Since the town article is the place where the library is discussed, an external link to the library is entirely appropriate. If you feel that libraries should not be part of the town articles, you should probably open up a discussion at [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut]]. --Polaron | Talk 21:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion to the article talk page. Active Banana (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coos County

If you can provide some refs that the county government(Sheriff,Deeds,Probate,etc.) itself uses the umlaut, i'll take off the disputed tag and not move it back. It appears that I need to head up to Stewartstown in the next few days, and Lancaster is on the way to Stewartstown, so i'll take some pictures. What the county's public officials use are the authoritative spelling IMO. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the county's official website. --Polaron | Talk 22:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of metropolitan areas by population

what exactly is your problem with me changing Karachi's official statistics on area and density when i have provided references to go with them? Hrh80 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is based on a single source. That source doesn't use administrative boundaries but uses its own methodology to make figures across different countries comparable. --Polaron | Talk 15:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wherever that 'source' is from its entirely wrong Hrh80 (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood. That current source uses a methodology that ignores administrative boundaries and uses a concept based on the continuous urban area as a core and a 10% commuting criterion to determine whether outlying areas are included. There is no one true way of determining a metropolitan area but the current source is the only peer-reviewed research to date that attempts at making figures comparable. Whatever you may think, there is no right or wrong here. --Polaron | Talk 16:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ct nrhp update

I just noticed that Mechanic Street Historic District, in List of RHPs in New London, is currently a redirect. I'll start an article, okay? It seems not to have been discussed in the big issues list; i assume it is not a problem. Also, i wonder about closing up the article drive on New Haven RHPs. Perhaps i'll try to fix up the descriptions in the list-article, but otherwise not doing more for now, though there is plenty that could actually be done. Let me know if there's anything you'd like to work on there and i'd be willing to help. Am thinking about doing a different CT NRHP list, to similar degree as the New Haven one. --doncram (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Hello there! Just a quick note: only administrators can fully merge pages, as the GFDL requires us to preform a history merge. So basically what you did was fine, but next time please poke an admin so that he/she can histmerge them. :-) Many thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

AfD nomination of Upstate Connecticut

An article that you have been involved in editing, Upstate Connecticut, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upstate Connecticut. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orlady (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Unexplained deletions of New York metro area template

If you want those templates, which link to those pages removed, please discuss it on the talk page. NYCRuss ☎ 21:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has complained about this at WP:AN3#User:Polaron reported by User:NYCRuss (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bridges

Turn-of-River Bridge and Berlin Iron Bridge Co.. --doncram (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York metropolitan area composition

Please discuss this at Talk:New_York_metropolitan_area NYCRuss ☎ 21:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Preston Hill Historic District

I think New Preston Hill Historic District was one of the redirects deleted by RFD last fall, because it is on my watchlist and your edit redirecting it pops up. I think this is a redirect from an NRHP HD name, counter to your editing restriction. Can you please help remedy it, perhaps by creating an article on the HD or adding to it, if i create one soon? --doncram (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Cain Fulling Mill

You are aware, aren't you, that you've way surpassed 3RR? I'm not going to get involved with this article; you really need to work it out. Because I don't think it productive to block both you and Doncram, I've fully protected the article for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Route 104B: Where is it, and when did it exist?

I have noticed that you have one again added the Vermont Route 104B row to the List of state highways in Vermont article. There needs to either be a citation or dates as to when VT 104B existed, or I will revert the list back again, because not only is it not justified, but there isn't even a shield.

Thanks,

HighwayMaster (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rochambeau sites

Hi, i recall we chatted a while back about developing the Rochambeau's march historic sites areticles. I've started into that a bit, with March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Old Canterbury Road and another one or two. Note in the Old Canterbury Road one i have composed a reference to the MPS document. I think that each site deserves an article about what can be found there, and which can be linked from town/village articles and from county NRHP list-articles. Each gets its own NRHP nomination doc and the MPS document as two references. Of course they all should be listed / linked from the current overall article about the march (march route of Rochambeau's army, but I think that history article would be overwhelmed with unnecessary detail about areas and current status of properties. Your comments and aid developing these would be appreciated. --doncram (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to make a single article for the Connecticut route as a whole? I've looked through the nominations and there isn't much that makes each site distinct from others. It will probably be better for the readers to be able to view the set of sites as a whole. The only reason the sites are listed is because they are the ones that have not undergone much urban development. I can help with making this unified article if you like. --Polaron | Talk 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding to the Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route article. (Hmm, is that titled well? Offhand it looks odd.) I appreciate your trying to weave mention of the modern-day sites into the narration of the 1781-1782 marches. Currently i think that is basically working, but i wonder if slightly less mention of the modern-day sites would work out to be better, leaving more burden of describing the modern-day sites to a different section of that article and to separate articles about the sites. What is your source by the way? I notice no footnotes but imagine you are working from one text or another.

I'm sure it would be technically possible to create separate sections about each of the modern Connecticut sites in the history article, and redirect from the NRHP listing names to those. I think that would undermine the quality of the history article, though. Don't you agree? I also see one could create a separate list-article about the historic sites in Connecticut. Is that what you are suggesting as an alternative to having the separate articles? Offhand I believe that brief mention in the history article, and separate articles, would serve well. I think having separate articles is better for allowing local editors or visitors to add several photos for a given site, and to cover local newspaper mentions of how a town/village views its local site, and otherwise for allowing locals to embrace their historic site. If coverage is forced into the history article or a Connecticut-wide article, then expanded coverage for one local site is discouraged, i think, because it would be natural to force relatively even coverage. Currently as you know i am working on starting the Fairfield County articles, and I would specifically like to encourage the one CT editor who has offered to visit sites and take photos, to visit the 2 Rochambeau sites in the county. And to use all of the photos in its article directly or in a photo gallery. I would rather let this development process go on, and to take advantage of the opening that Wikipedia-notability for a given historic site offers, rather than cut it off by consolidating fledgling info into one article. I am aware that you have believed in other cases that redirecting multiple separate sites to a bigger article is better for informing readers. Here, though, I would hope we could allow separate articles to grow and attract local information that is good for split-out articles but inappropriate for a bigger state-wide one. If you feel strongly otherwise, I guess that could be discussed with other Connecticut editors, but I would wish for plenty of time, first, to develop out the articles separately, first. It may happen to be the case that plenty of local info will come to light, resolving the issue if there is one. I'd rather not have merger tags and contention marring the articles that I am trying to work on, and trying to allow CT editors to embrace. So I appreciate our talking here, avoiding that.

Basically, i think the Rochambeau sites are tres cool, and every town/village having one should be very proud. They are neat ties to national-level history of much wider importance than most local historic site articles. I'd like for the locals to be able to embrace and build on them, linking in local historical society stuff and photos and quotes from speeches back at their bicentennial and so on. And adding maps showing the route maps locally, etc. The more that people know about the sites, the better for their preservation and general appreciation, I figure. --doncram (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to you for the next few months. But if no local people come and develop the article to substantially more than what is in the meager information in the NRHP nomination forms, I'll propose a unified article to the Connecticut WikiProject then. This whole route after all is more a statewide thing than a local thing. --Polaron | Talk 19:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, it is a national history level thing, involving RI, CT, NY, NJ, MD, and more specific states. Can you help note other NRHP-listed sites in states other than CT, by the way, in your developing the march route article. As was the case for CT, where there were 5 or 6 Rochambeau route-associated houses already NRHP-listed before the Rochambeau route MPS was written in 2001, I imagine there are multiple houses or other NRHP-listed places in RI, NY, elsewhere, which might be mentioned in whatever is your source for your narrating. I'd like to add those. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities proper by population

I have reported the reverts to the administrators and asked for resolution. I do not want to be drawn into an edit war. -- BsBsBs (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced info

Polaron, I've been happy that you've watched my edits starting articles on NRHP-listed places in Fairfield County recently, and that you have often clarified wording and/or added further info from the NRHP nomination docment for the place. However, your adding info not from any source is not helpful IMO. We're trying to build an encylopedia of sourced info. It's nice that you have your own sources or knowledge about many Connecticut things, but i hate it when you put that into the wikipedia. For example, in the Rockrimmon Rockshelter article, how do you know it is the town of Stamford or in particular its northern part? You've added such assertion a couple times now. And, I don't think it is appropriate, for many address-restricted sites, to provide specific location information, anyhow. I dunnno, I could raise this to an ANI incident and ask for the article to be blocked from further editing, but it just seems lame. --doncram (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a reasonably well-known tourist attraction. What makes you sure it is not in Stamford? The Connecticut NRHP lists were modified a while back to use town locations using an official list from the state. This is consistent with that list. Please be reasonable. --Polaron | Talk 12:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are really good at making mountains out of molehills. I have added the source citation to the article. It wasn't hard to find it, nor to add it. The same source could be added to many Connecticut NRHP articles, especially the stubs that only cite NRIS -- as a supplement to NRIS. --Orlady (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Orlady for revising the article and adding the CT list source which shows well enough that it is in Stamford, and also for adding the further reading. Thanks, that seems to settle this case of unsourced info being added.

About NRIS-only-sourced articles in Connecticut, there are currently still a good number in the Fairfieldd list-article, I've noticed. Adding the relevant NRHP nom doc would usually better, since these are usually available for CT sites. I have added NRHP nom docs to all Fairfield articles I've created except in 3 cases where the NRHP nom doc is unavailable (for the Rockrimmon archeological site and for two recently-listed places). Plus I've added NRHP nom docs to some other Fairfield articles created by others previously. If Polaron adds stuff to an article and the NRHP nom is already there, I probably usually assume the info he adds is covered in the NRHP nom. When there is NRIS-only sourcing however his addition of personal knowledge stuff stands out clearly as being unsupported. And yes, the CT list source could sometimes usefully be added, if town location is not clear and if that is what Polaron is adding about. It's a matter of personal judgment how to deal with an editor adding unsourced info. After a year of this I think it is best to delete the unsourced info promptly, but it is nice if you are willing to take the time to do the research and add the source that someone else should have added. Thanks again. --doncram (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, since the NRIS source that you are citing in the new stubs you are creating is basically a dead URL (and thus likely to be challenged by the folks who now on the warpath against NRIS), I think it would be a very good idea to provide an additional citation to that state list in every article you create about a property that is included on the list. --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To avert additional edit-warring, I trust that Polaron will be providing for a source for his addition to the article that says: "The site is significant as an early Native American shelter and is centered on a boulder about 60 feet high that was used as the shelter. Native American tools and points were discovered at the site during excavations in 1975 and 1980." --Orlady (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you about to add a source for material added to The Allen House (Westport, Connecticut) article? Could you add it sooner rather than later, please, to avoid confusion about your intentions. --doncram (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you have it in your power to end these continuing skirmishes.

Doncram can put at stop to this silliness by refraining from creating stub articles for which you have no information. The entire basis for the Allen House article seems to have been this announcement of new NRHP listings, which gives only the listed name of the property, the street address, the listing date, and the NRHP ref number. That is not sufficient basis for an article and you should be ashamed of yourself for creating dreck like that.
Polaron could stop the insanity by taking the time to cite a source when adding substance to Doncram's inadequate stub articles. I had no difficulty adding a source for part of your additions to the Allen House article, and I fail to understand why you didn't do that yourself. --Orlady (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cities proper

The situation there is becoming intolerable. Do you think some sort of conflict resolution steps (an RFC on BsBsBs, for instance?) would be in order? john k (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits

In several recent edits, including this one, you've been striking out mention of one or more bridges named Devon Bridge. There is sourced information that there are at least 2 such with articles. Please stop making edits reverting sourced information in favor of your non-sourced views on this point. AThis is same old same old with you, i guess. You get an idea and you just implement it willy-nilly, regardless of sourced information? Or, explain how it is not that.

Anyhow, if you wish to eradicate the Devon Bridge disambiguation page, please do not redirect it, but open an AFD about it (which could conceivably lead to it being redirected). That is the way to get a consensus of other editors. I do predict the AFD will fail, if you open it however. But if you don't care to open it, just desist, don't be a jerk. --doncram (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one article that is clearly named Devon Bridge. The railroad bridge is not primarily known by that name and a hatnote is sufficient. --Polaron | Talk 22:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to AFD then, please. Please try to secure a consensus of editors in that, the appropriate forum, rather than try to get your way by repeatedly making the same edit redirecting a valid dab article. --doncram (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also vallid to use a hatnote when there are only two articles and one of them is a secondary usage at best. --Polaron | Talk 22:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report regarding Devon Bridge

I am just now filing 3RR report for your edit warring on Devon Bridge disambiguation page. Same old same old. --doncram (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I inquired at the Disambiguation project about what the current practice is in similar cases. --Polaron | Talk 22:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too little too late. Asking other editors to join in a civil discussion at an appropriate forum (perhaps an AFD, perhaps at a Talk page of the article in question), rather than edit warring, would be a good idea, as a substitute for edit warring. With you though, your impulse to try to force your way multiple times tends to turn me off strongly. I did file the 3RR report, and I do suggest you respond there. --doncram (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were also edit warring.I don't get why you keep on insisting on an AFD. I want the redirect to exist not be deleted. --Polaron | Talk 22:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several key differences. One, i know what the dab policies are, you are operating out of your knowledge zone. You should think a little, and listen to others, when you have good reason to know they know more than you about some wikipedia policy. Note you have already been given rply at Disambiguation talk page, that you were wrong. Two, your edits are nearly vandalism, wiping out content by redirecting a page. Also be conservative about such drastic changes. Three, you are typically attempting to convince/communicate only by your insistent edits (and perhaps terse edit summaries), while i opened discussion here and elsewhere. Your opening a question at a disambiguation policy page is a good step, but you shoulda done that after the first revert by an experienced editor (me), if you wished to doubt that person, not fight through more of the same edit. Your repeating yourself is obviously not going to convince anyone who knows enough to revert you on sight of the edit. Think. --doncram (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dab page of 2 entries, with one being a minor usage. There's nothing drastic about redirecting to the primary usage. Calling it "nearly vandalism" is an insult. And the reply at the Dab project page supports my position. --Polaron | Talk 22:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole situation is ridiculous. I predict that sooner or later, there will be enough articles to justify a disambiguation page, and that no one "Devon Bridge" will be found to be the primary topic. Until that time, however, there is no purpose to this discussion -- other than to get under each other's skins.

And, BTW, the main contender that I've identified for the third use of "Devon Bridge" is a bridge across the North Saskatchewan River in Alberta, Canada. See http://www.rivervalley.ab.ca/media/uploads/rva-early-settlement.pdf . --Orlady (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. The easy way out would have been to create a third article. Being reverted just because someone doesn't like me is petty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs)

Also, BTW, given the number of railroad bridges that cross the Housatonic River (List of crossings of the Housatonic River), I predict that the name Housatonic River Railroad Bridge is going to need to be replaced by more specific names, like Metro North railroad bridge (Housatonic). --Orlady (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't that many that have articles. In fact, only this one has and the others are not particularly notable. When disambiguation becomes needed as articles get created, then yes we must rename. But the time is not yet now. --Polaron | Talk 23:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, now that you have intervened, where/how do you suggest that this be resolved. I suggested strongly to Polaron that he should open an AFD as an obvious forum to focus discussion on this issue. I can't fairly open such an AFD as I do not honestly support the deletion/redirect of the dab page. Orlady, you re-closed the 3RRNB discussion and posted here. Thank you for doing a little research (as I had done a while ago) and finding other Devon Bridges. I happened to recall one historic one in England as likely being the most primary, but that doesn't matter. Now, there are scattered discussions, and the article in question is a redirect. Orlady, could you please yourself restore the dab page and allow opening, or open yourself, discussion at the Talk page of that article, so that hopefully-civil discussion could proceed there? Or, please advise where else the topic of the primary usage status of the Washington Bridge (Connecticut) article as the primary usage of the term "Devon Bridge" can best be addressed. --doncram (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the AFD. I don't want it deleted. I want it to point to the most appropriate existing article. If there are other usages that are more signficant, then articles should be made about them and a dismabiguation page established. But as of now, a redirect to the most significant usage is the most appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 02:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave things the way they are, until such time as there is an actual need for change (which might be never). This is an unbelievably trivial matter to get so exercised about. --Orlady (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that wasn't very helpful. It tends to reward Polaron for edit warring rather than participating like a normal editor to raise questions and seek improvements, sans contention. You yourself agreed that the Washington bridge one is not primary usage. It woulda helped to call the behavior what it is, rather than say the behavior doesn't matter.. Anyhow, the dab existence seems eventually resolved as I restored it, with some further shenanigans drummed up of course by P. --doncram (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the Washington bridge isn't the primary usage. I don't know what the primary usage is, and I DON'T CARE. I just wish that certain people wouldn't behave like 5-year-olds fighting over a toy. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What shenanigans? Are you insulting me? --Polaron | Talk 17:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I can't tell what is going on inside Doncram's head (I don't want to go there), but from his edit summary I think he might be referring to the fact that you didn't cite references when you started the article for Devon Bridge (Alberta). (I added the reference.) --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no sources for redirects, again again

10:12, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) N Washington-Devon Bridge ‎ (←Redirected page to Washington Bridge (Connecticut)) 
10:08, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) N Devon Railroad Bridge ‎ (←Redirected page to Housatonic River Rai

In a couple edits I see you created redirects, as typical with no support in the target articles for those names being alternatives. As usual, other editors cannot tell if you are making up s*** again, or if you have a source. I put in speedy deletion requests, which i see you are reverting. Is it necessary to open an RFD or a RFC/U on your behavior, or what, to get you to support your edits with sources. The way you work seems deliberately calculated to cause others to doubt the accuracy of your edits, and to cause great amounts of others efforts to get sources added where you could simply add them when you have them. --doncram (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are redirects. I've given you sources when I removed the speedy deletion tags. These aren't speedy deletion candidates anyway. --Polaron | Talk 17:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Canaan, Connecticut‎

I reverted your edit re: the fire department as a seperate volunteer group working outside of the union seems notable. Do you disagree, or can that stand? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably okay for now. However, I think that the separate volunteer group can easily be discussed within the context of a single overall article on Fire protection services in the town. When I have time, I'll start a separate fire department article and merge the volunteer company into it. --Polaron | Talk 15:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan to me. Usmchummer also mentioned he'd work on it at my talk. Markvs88 (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, given [Category:Fire departments in Connecticut], wdyt about removing the notability tag? Markvs88 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gents - sounds good to me. If you like, I will create a "New Canaan Fire Department" page and combine the two. It's always very sensative when talking about volunteer/union departments - so I am trying to use great caution in representing the institutional structure factually correctly. I also have numerous pictures to add of apparatus, etc. My thought is a "FIRE DEPT" page, then have subordinate to that the "FIRE COMPANY" and the "PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 3224" Usmchummer (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I think the best presentation would be -- an overall article on the fire department and an explanation of the individual groups within the department. Please proceed.

OK, will do. When I am done I will let you know so you can blow up the old "New Canaan Fire Company, No. 1" page. Additionally, I will add the images when I am "autoconfirmed" in a few days. Thanks for the understanding - I am new to editing on Wikipedia, but am trying to add this to our other media updates (like our website). Usmchummer (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Gentlemen, take a look. Should be good to go. Usmchummer (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1]