User talk:MrBill3

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is MrBill3's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Mr B ill3 is bu s y in r e a l l i f e and will only be here o n and o f f and thus may not respond to messages quickly.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 7 sections are present.

This editor is a **Senior Editor III** and is appropriately old.

References

One of my primary activities on WP is working on references. I frequently verify and improve references on an article that has drawn my attention. My idea of improvement involves using templates and uniform formatting, being up to date and accurate, and hopefully archived.

If you use a reference I have provided through these resources please include the url to the reference and appropriate credit to that resource.

Tools

I use Twinkle. Actions I perform with Twinkle are usually carefully considered and taken within articles that I have read carefully and at least perused the talk page of the article. If you have an issue with something I have done using Twinkle post on the talk page of the article or here. I use AutoWikiBrowser. Actions I perform with AutoWikiBrowser are usually considered but I may not have checked the talk page of the article. I am bold in my approach to using AutoWikiBrowser to "clean up" the format of articles and references in them. If you have an issue with something I have done using AutoWikiBrowser please post here. I use STiki. STiki is an anti-vandalism tool that I use boldly. I evaluate the text STiki presents with a basic editorial eye if it looks like a duck it gets reverted. I revert unsourced additions boldly with STiki. If you have an issue with something I have done using STiki feel free to undo my edit and if needed post discussion here.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
6	Kundert Medical Clinic (talk)	Add sources
32	Texas Historical Commission (talk)	Add sources
5	The Last Wright: Frank Lloyd Wright and the Park Inn Hotel (talk)	Add sources
8	Titche–Goettinger Building (talk)	Add sources
10	Sacramento Masonic Temple (talk)	Add sources
6	Lawrence Memorial Library (talk)	Add sources
30	W. H. Adamson High School (talk)	Cleanup
188	Dripping Springs, Texas (talk)	Cleanup
21	Historic Washington State Park (talk)	Cleanup
25	Park Inn Hotel (talk)	Expand
11	Granjeno, Texas (talk)	Expand
22	Transportation in Dallas (talk)	Expand
174	Deep Ellum, Dallas (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
727	Evaporative cooler (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
39	Jerome H. Lemelson (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
160	Iroko (talk)	Merge
17	Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, JavaScript Adaptation (talk)	Merge
15	National Neuroscience Institute (talk)	Merge
20	Child of the Sun (talk)	Wikify
90	Cool Air (talk)	Wikify
3	Mount Zion Presbyterian Church (Chandlersville, Ohio) (talk)	Wikify
4	Oak Cliff Masonic Lodge (talk)	Orphan
49	Attra (talk)	Orphan
3	Allianz De Architecture (talk)	Orphan
6	Como Orchards Summer Colony One-Room Cottage (talk)	Stub
5	Augspurger Schoolhouse (talk)	Stub
5	Charles C. Vineyard House (talk)	Stub
4	Eighteenth District School (talk)	Stub
3	John Vaughan House (talk)	Stub
4	Frank Sander Residence (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

wtf bro u took out my edit— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.73.147.110 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2017‎

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

recent edit "joe Scarborough"

gawker.com/…d-intern-was-found-in-joe-scarboroug.

Reiki dispute resolution

== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding NIH definition. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Needs Work".The discussion is about the topic Reiki. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Pamxz (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bert and Fay Havens House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lake Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher: National Park Service vs. National Archives

Hi, I am very glad to see numerous edits by you popping up in my notices and/or my watchlist, where you have been adding NRHP nomination document references and expanding NRHP articles. I see in some cases like this edit for Bert and Fay Havens House you've added the NRHP nom doc made available by the National Park Service (NPS). In general usage we all have been saying that the publisher for that is the National Park Service, as you did. In some other cases, such as this edit for Ebenezer Andrews House and others in Ohio where the NPS has not made NRHP docs available, you found the newly (or relatively newly) available National Archives versions. I would say those are published by the National Archives, which I believe is not part of the National Park Service. That's how I set up example references in various places with wp:NRHPHELP resource. It's a small point in the grand scheme (it is way more important that a good source is being added), but when the source is the National Archives could you give them credit as publisher, going forward?

Or, if you are deliberately trying to make a point that in your opinion the NPS can be regarded as the publisher, could we cooperate in having a central discussion about the technically right thing to do? In my usage, and enshrined in wp:NRHPHELP and/or wp:NRHPFAQ directions, when a state system provides the document, I term the state as the publisher, because it made the document available, etc. Perhaps some could feel differently because it is a filled out NPS form that was produced, or perhaps one might assume that the NPS provided (published?) the forms to the National Archive? (But in fact I think Ohio and Louisiana and other states likely provided the documents to the National Archive for it to publish them.)

Eiter way, thanks for doing what you do! --Doncram (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Doncram. I suppose I will head over to the appropriate talk page and make my case but I think it is pretty solid.

The NRHP nomination forms are submitted to NPS and then edited until a decision is made. The nomination form then becomes an inventory form and is published by the NPS, this is done in several ways including as an announcement in the Federal Register and some other official government publications/documents. So the nomination form for a registered property becomes an official US government publication of the NPS. I believe it is even the technical term that it is published in the National Register.

Convenience copies archived or stored and provided on the web are copies of an officially published document (or it's draft). Neither the NARA nor the State Historical Societies are the publishers of the document in an official sense.

I think the issue you raise can be addressed using the via parameter of the cite web template. In fact I think that is exactly the purpose. Let me know if this seems like the way to go. If we agree it should go to the right talk page etc.

Thanks for your collaboration and contributions. MrBill3 (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for your reply, and then yes i think it should be discussed centrally. I'd like to attract at least some attention from non-regular-NRHP-editors, and after browsing a bit in the Manual of Style and elsewhere, I think that Help talk:Citation Style 1 is the right place. One is redirected to there if one tries to go to Template talk:Cite web or Template talk:Cite report. By the way I think "cite report" is what we should be using rather than "cite web", technically, for NRHP nomination docs. This came up several months ago and is likely not reflected in NRHPHELP or elsewhere, but I would now use "cite report" everywhere. I have not been aware of the via= parameter, by the way, but I don't see how it could specifically help.

Could you please clarify, here, with an example or two, how you think that the via= parameter could be used?

About how the terms are used, I do think that each new NRHP listing is indeed announced in the Federal Register, I suppose after the Keeper of the Register signs approval of the listing (i.e. accepts it), but that does not mean the NRHP nomination document is published. I regard the nomination document as a report that is filed, yes, and it is true any one can make a request to the National Register to get a copy of the file. But I don't say it is published by the NPS unless the NPS clearly publishes it, i.e. by putting it forward to the public by making it available online. For Ohio, Missouri, New York, and various other states the NRHP document has generally not been supplied to the public by the NPS, but rather has been made available online by the state or a specific department or agency of the state or an associated state historical society or other body; I call that publication by the state or department or agency or society. In many cases when a nomination is provided by multiple sources, the versions provided are somewhat different. E.g. whether the document is stamped by the state or not; or whether the photos submitted with an NRHP application are included or not in the same PDF or in a separate PDF or not at all; or whether a PDF provided includes copies of correspondence between state and NPS or whatever.

By the way, there is a related question, of how we should give links to multiple URLs where identical or similar versions of the same NRHP document are available, and how to indicate any differences.

I would like to open a central discussion myself at Help talk:Citation Style 1 if you are okay with that, and give notice of the discussion at wt:NRHP, but first could we cover whatever you mean about the via parameter? --Doncram (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of the via parameter in cite web.

{{cite web|url= https://catalog.archives.gov/id/71986910 |title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Ebenezer Andrews House |publisher=[[National Park Service]] |work=[[National Register of Historic Places]] |location=[[Washington, D.C.]], [[United States|USA]] |last=Giffen |first=Daniel H. |date= 25 Jul 1974 |accessdate= 22 Feb 2020 |via= [[National Archives and Records Administration]]}}

yields:

Giffen, Daniel H. (25 Jul 1974). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Ebenezer Andrews House". National Register of Historic Places. Washington, D.C., USA: National Park Service. Retrieved 22 Feb 2020 – via National Archives and Records Administration.

@Doncram: please give an example of the what you propose. I think that will help us be clear when discussing in a different forum. I will add to or clarify my thoughts.

1. I believe a nomination form once the property is entered into the register becomes a part of the National Register of Historic Places which is published by the National Park Service.

2. The Keeper of the Register exercises editorial oversight in that nominations are revised until accepted then signed by the keeper at which point they are final.

3. If we are citing the National Register of Historic Places it is only appropriate to cite the publisher as the National Park Service. The existing standard cites the nomination as a title within a work, the work being the National Register.

By all means I welcome you to open a discussion in the appropriate forum. Personally I'd like to give my opinion then step back from discussion and if a consensus emerges just follow it. I prefer to focus my wiki time on working on content, but value the process and community. That said, you have raised an excellent point regarding links to multiple urls. In particular for different versions. I have noticed that not all copies at state historical societies are the final copy. In this case I believe the publisher is the State Preservation Officer of the state where the property is. Although nomination forms can be filled out by anyone, only the SPO for the state can nominate a property. The nomination form submitted to the NRHP is edited and signed by the SPO. For a nomination that does not bear the state stamp/seal/signature I think that is published by the website making it available as it has not passed through editorial oversight on state or federal level and is not an official published document. I also think if it is not signed by the keeper we should not list the source as the National Register. The NARA PDFs seem to include the photos submitted, perhaps that could be mentioned in the citation but it's not necessary. Likewise additional content, if one isn't citing the additional correspondence there is no need to put it in the citation. When they are separate PDFs at NRHP a few words for the additional link are needed for explanation and provide an opportunity to credit the creator, and specify the date. I think the link to the images should be included. My personal preference would be to cite the NRHP if available, next NARA, then state societies and others. I haven't encountered a nomination available at NRHP that there was a more complete copy (pix) elsewhere, but if I did I would cite the source with the most content (as long as it included the nomination as entered into the register).

Well I hope this is useful in improving the encyclopedia. It's a shame WP:NRHP isn't more active, we should be having this conversation somewhere over there and hearing from others with similar editing interests. By all means open a discussion anywhere you think it would be of interest, useful, appropriate etc. Feel free to quote, paraphrase, mention anything I've said in this discussion if it helps present a complete, clear, concise question. I am glad you appreciate the editing I have been doing in NRHP. My goal is to inspire and provide the source. There is MUCH MORE that can be pulled from most nominations and I INVITE YOU and anyone you might encourage to dive in and add some content.

Thank you for your contributions and for the collaborative effort. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saint Paul's Episcopal Church (Columbus, Ohio), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source for many Ohio NRHP articles

Hi, i noticed your edits at Masonic Temple Building (Zanesville, Ohio), in which you apparently tried to add NRHP nomination document sourcing, then realized it wasn't available from the National Park Service after all. Please see wp:NRHPHELP#Ohio about using an Ohio-specific source, the Ohio Historical Places Dictionary. My quick look shows that on its page 1100 is coverage of this building! --Doncram (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greets, Thanks so much. I messed that page up by adding the nomination for another Masonic Temple on the NHRP in Ohio (there are quite a few. Thanks for the pointer to the useful wp page and the specific ref. I was able to find the nomination for the Masonic Temple Building in Zanesville, Ohio and am working from that. I will keep these additional resources laid out in the project in mind for additional references. MrBill3 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]