User talk:Doncram/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Doncram. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

(This archive includes selected NRHP HD-related items only, first from June-September 2009, and then some other later related items. These items were interspersed with many unrelated discussions on my Talk page. Bringing these to here concentrates some unpleasantness mixed in with the legitimate discussion here. It also seems to make my Talk page and other archives more readable. It's a bit arbitrary to determine which of my Talk page discussions are related here. For example, the MPS discussion in archive 11, instead, was a spinoff. doncram (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC), adding more doncram (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

CT historic districts

Now they've got me discouraged. Makes me wonder what the point of trying to do this is, if others get to arbitrarily make decisions about whether notable stubs should exist or not. Couldn't get motivated to do anything at all tonight. Lvklock (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see there's actually been some positive interaction here. Lvklock (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any idea why the time I made the last edit was recorded as 21:54 while the clock at the top of the page said it was 21:51? I've noticed that before. Lvklock (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Historic Districts in Meridian, Mississippi

For the record, I know you were trying to be helpful in creating these stubs (which you actually created.. not just suggested), but I don't think they were necessary. I still think the HD stub for Southport is unnecessary, but I'll dip out of the conversation. Do whatever you want haha; I'll never see the articles anyway. The main point of this message was to show you that I created Historic districts in Meridian, Mississippi. I made all the district articles redirect to their respective sections and used WP:Summary Style on the Meridian, Mississippi and History of Meridian, Mississippi articles. I hold true to the belief that had you not created those stub articles, I would have done this from the beginning and not had to worry with the district stubs. I think trying to keep the most information in one place is best practice for Wikipedia, only splitting out articles when they're too long or are overtaken by a certain section or sections. All that aside, we have our different editing styles, and as long as you continue to respect mine, I'll respect yours.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut Historic Districts

Thanks for the heads-up you posted on my talk page. From the histories of pages such as Hazardville (Enfield) and Hazardville Historic District, as well as the personally-focused nature of your statements at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut#rfc: NRHP historic districts vs. villages, it would appear that you fired the first shots in an edit war, and now you are accusing the other party of edit warring.

If you are interested in fostering quality content about historic districts, why remove the historic district information from Hazardville (Enfield) and replace it with link to Hazardville Historic District that merely (almost uselessly) redirects to a list of historic districts? (diff 1 and diff 2)

As for the discussion, I think your valid points would have more impact if they weren't associated with personal digs against Polaron. --Orlady (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When you propose a page for speedy deletion, please do not blank the page. Instead, put the template on the top of the page above the content.

Also, please note that pages cannot be speedy deleted unless they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Most of your requests appear to be justifiable, but you have not provided justifications that meet the speedy criteria. (I've declined some of the requests for that reason.) This would go better if there were a discussion that clearly led to consensus to delete these specific redirects. In this case, it probably would make sense to keep the discussion on Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut, but in general, redirects such as these are supposed to be listed at WP:RfD. --Orlady (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut table

What was wrong with the coding so that it wouldn't display for you? I can't see anything wrong when I look at the coding. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This was about duplicates subtractions in List of RHPs in CT. I thought there were multiple occurences of footnote 5 displaying. I don't know, and it went away i think. doncram (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

NRHP nomination form pictures

Hey Doncram, I recently got all the NRHP nom forms for the historic districts in Meridian, Mississippi and have been adding information from them. I'm awaiting response over at WT:NRHP to find out if I can upload these documents anywhere so others can read them, in case the information should be challenged. Along with the documents, I received pictures of each district. I've seen you add some pictures before (I believe from these documents?), and I was wondering how you go about doing that. I remember that the NRHP guy told me the documents were released under Fair Use, but I'm not exactly sure how to upload them and which copyright template to tag them with. Can you help me out? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but to notice you've simply ignored this post haha... :P --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, no, actually i was just studying the wt:NRHP page to try to figure out where this question is open. Can you point me to that? Offhand, I think there are some problems with uploading those documents in general. The photographs, at least, in many of them, are copyrighted. doncram (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your RfDs and Template:NRHP redirect cleanup needed

Hi, Doncram. I replaced your home-brew RfD entries with the standard formats. I hadn't noticed the RfDs because of the nonstandard way they had been started. The instructions on pages like WP:RfD can be cumbersome, but it helps when everyone follows them.

Also, I'm troubled by Template:NRHP redirect cleanup needed. The template is formatted like a standard WP procedural item, but it isn't -- is an expression of opinion that belongs on talk page, not a public page. As a template, it is redundant with the standard Template:rfd. Please blank Template:NRHP redirect cleanup needed so it can be speedy-deleted. --Orlady (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I was already commenting at your Talk page. Why not discuss how to proceed with orderly treatment of the 300 or so redirects in the discussion section for this specific topic in the ongoing RFC. The custom template could perhaps be amended. It certainly is useful for providing a category that groups the CT NRHP items together. doncram (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The standard RfD procedure works for everybody else. Why can't you use it, too? Placing standard-looking templates on article pages that express opinions like "Having the redirect falsely implies at the NRHP list-article that there is an article, and the redirect should be deleted" and "Please improve this article (by deleting it!) if you can" is a wonderful way of making Wikipedia look silly. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I just revised the template somewhat, perhaps addressing some of your objections satisfactorily. I think it should be obvious to you that I am working responsibly to try to address a problem within wikipedia. If you have some better suggestion on how to group a whole host of redirects for efficient discussion of their deletion, please say so, but that last crack is totally unnecessary. doncram (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My "suggestion" is that you use the standard instructions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#How to list a redirect for discussion, where it says:

To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax:

{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
.
.
.
{{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~

--Orlady (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(reply inserted after ec) As far as I can tell, those steps with "subst" would accomplish at the RFD page pretty much exactly what my edits accomplished eventually. I did edit the grouped discussion so that it would conform with apparent formatting for other grouped discussions on the RFD page. If it got to the same place, I don't see what is the problem, but fine, I'll take that as a suggestion to use that approach in another grouped situation. Also, as you are aware, I set up an RFC and specific discussion section for discussing how to proceed with these. I would appreciate if you would please respond within that. doncram (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the specific discussion of Connecticut redirects, to be candid I thought that the long and convoluted discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut was a reasonable place to address the issue, as the redirects would either be (1) cleared for deletion by consensus of the creator and all other parties (a basis for speedy deletion, which an administrator could have done without further ado), (2) converted to articles (in which case no more discussion would be needed, or (3) kept as some sort of redirect. Your decision to initiate a second set of discussions at WP:RfD without providing a clear and unambiguous announcement on that talk page or using the standard template that would direct people to the RfD page seems to have only had the effect of fragmenting discussion and adding unneeded confusion/wikidrama. --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am at somewhat of a loss here. I thought the set of 10 was noncontroversial and there was consensus to delete such, and that I gave adequate notice in several places on that page, about proceeding with a test batch of 10 redirects at RFD. There was no other suggestion/comment on how to proceed with implementing the deletion of redirects. I certainly didn't want to fragment or duplicate discussion. Your timely concurrence at the RFD, that these 10 redirects should be deleted, verifying my assertion that it was consensus from the other discussion, would have been helpful. Or your stating there that there is not in fact a consensus would have helped, and I would have been willing to withdraw it. I am still not clear what is your view on these 10 redirects. doncram (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RfD is a place for discussion, not a "ready for deletion" noticeboard. If there was full agreement on that Connecticut talk page (including from their creator) to delete those redirects, then they would have qualified for speedy deletion and a trip to WP:RfD would have been unnecessary. As it is, there has been some discussion (and much verbiage) in both places, and many of us frankly haven't had time to figure out what's going on, much less what we think about each individual redirect. (And they do need to be considered individually, not as a group.)

BTW, I don't suppose you care, but this edit of yours broke all of the incoming links created by template {{rfd}}. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would you suppose i don't care? I am not some vandal trying to destroy a discussion. Okay, i just tried undoing that edit and others at the RFD page, and restoring the one subsequent edit (yours), before much activity continued there. What now, then? I would be happy to withdraw the 10 Tolland CT ones from discussion at the RFD page, but am unsure how to do that without causing more confusion, or perhaps going against practice. And it would involve removing the 10 rfd tags that you added to individual articles. I would be fine if you see how to cancel the CT discussion there, to continue at Talk:List of RHPs in CT instead. doncram (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC

For future reference, editing the RFC list themselves won't amount to much, since the lists are compiled based on what appears on the talk page. That means to change what an RFC entry says, change what is stated on the talk page. —harej (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

South Woodstock

Would you be willing to withdraw the AFD? I have four reliable sources for the community as a community, which I'll be placing later after going to a holiday celebration. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, we're not leaving for a while, so I've added the sources. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hartford

I think I tend to favor separation of the two. Right now, the village article seems to be suffering, but that could change with a little attention. Stuff will go there (and the historic district) that is essentially irrelevant to the other, IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

RI villages

See discussion at User talk:Polaron#RI villages.

Yes, so why is this different from say Slatersville, Rhode Island? -- Polaron

Now you are going to edit war on where to have this discussion??? Did you notice my clarifying edit there, as a starter, to assert the potential difference between Slatersville, Rhode Island vs. Slatersville Historic District.

And what is your point? I hope you don't wish to assert that the presence of some incorrect / incomplete / unsourced information somewhere else in wikipedia justifies your own edits being incorrect / incomplete / unsourced. doncram (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You allowed Slatersville to stand as a merged article in a recent edit without any sources that the village is the same as the historic district. Why is that different from the situation in Wyoming? --Polaron | Talk 01:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wyoming, Rhode Island

[Responding to your comment on my talk page]. Actually, I moved the HD article on top of a redirect at Wyoming, Rhode Island. Polaron had at one time redirected the village name to the town, but today had changed the redirect destination to point to the HD. Considering that the place has a post office, is listed as the location of another National Register HD, and was the destination of several other internal links, I believe that it needs to be the subject of an article.

As for Polaron, he's not perfect, but neither are you or I. He's a productive good-faith contributor who has done an enormous amount of work building and maintaining articles about his region of the country. Accusing him of vandalism (etc.) because he doesn't subscribe to your "National Register uber alles" philosophy is not productive. Having tangled with you in similar situations (for example, X-10 Graphite Reactor, where you insisted that the name used on the National Register paperwork in the mid-1960s is the One True Name that supersedes all other names that this site could possibly be known by), I feel sorry for Polaron. --Orlady (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, i see what happened, in terms of your choosing to start the article that way. The redirect's pointing one way then another is indeed confusing. Thanks for explaining.

Sorry that it wasn't more clear in the first place. I guess that's why I need to think twice about what I'm doing the next time I move an article over a redirect. --Orlady (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not have any such "uber alles" views. That is insulting in fact, as i presume you mean it to be. I choose to work on historic sites articles in wikipedia, but I do not force excessive coverage of NRHP sites into village articles or whatever you mean to imply. I don't have any real memories of disagreement about X-10 Graphite Reactor's names, but i see at Talk:X-10 Graphite Reactor#recording issues about alternative names for site that I tried to record some issues there a long time ago. I presume it was my constructive effort to make some progress there, to which I note you did not respond, and I imagine that there was previously some combative type editing where communication was done by edit summaries, which is a poor way to communicate. Well, thanks anyhow for looking at it. doncram (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"but I do not force excessive coverage of NRHP sites into village articles" Of course not since you do the forcing in the opposite direction, requiring stand-alone coverage of NRHP districts even in cases where merging makes more sense, at least as long as I am involved. When others do it, you don't seem to mind. --Polaron | Talk 02:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT] For the record, the German "uber alles" simply translates to "above all."

That's what i understood, and i wasn't reading more into it than that.

Regarding the graphite reactor, there was a contentious edit history in which you insisted that the NHL/NRIS names must necessarily be the only name used in the article, even though it's not the name in use locally or among nuclear engineers, radiochemists, atomic age historians, etc. It seemed to me that in your long talk page post you were simply making sure that you had the last word, and I did not deny you that satisfaction by continuing the discussion. --Orlady (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, and perhaps indeed i was a pain about some point back then. Sorry if i was argumentative back then unnecessarily, although I also don't recall the general context or what else was going on. Unfortunately you and i tangled in many wide-ranging articles/topics, and i think issues must have gotten mixed, making it hard for others or perhaps ourselves to see what was really going on in some specific articles. I have tried to learn from the general experience of those simultaneous interactions in many places, for dealing with Polaron, by trying to hold a centralized discussion on CT issues at Talk:List of RHPS in CT. Which is where I would hope there should be some movement now, rather than extending disagreement to other states. doncram (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Arnold Mills, Rhode Island

Hello Doncram, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Arnold Mills, Rhode Island - a page you tagged - because: seems like a plausible redirect to me. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Closedmouth (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope Valley

In the midst of discussion about possible mergers of Rhode Island village articles with articles about the historic districts established to commemorate and preserve those villages, this edit of yours could be seen as an effort to incite edit warring. (It could be called "drawing a line in the sand," or "firing the first shot," or "pre-emptive strike," but by any name it does not smell sweet.) I'm not suggesting that you are doing this deliberately -- I know that you strongly believe that these historic districts need separate articles -- but the effect is the same regardless of your motive. Please be careful not to engage in behavior that incites edit wars. --Orlady (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we working on Connecticut or Rhode Island or Vermont or what, and discussing where? Hope Valley Historic District vs. Hope Valley, Rhode Island CDP article needs to be added to some list, i suppose. I think i found my way there in response to some edit in Rhode Island. Yes, i created the stub NRHP article. It could have just been accepted by Polaron, who would have seen the edit in Hope Valley article linking; i am not hiding anything. It seems clear from all previous cases that NRHP HDs do not share well an article about a CDP. But since Polaron is reacting with reverting that (and i just restored it), i guess that establishes there is some difference of opinion. All the same reasons I have will apply here, about why this should be separate, and it is somewhat absurd to say that a separate NRHP stub article is inciting an edit war.

Anyhow, I reiterate that I am willing to cooperate in discussing/resolving these all in some orderly fashion. Do you want to take the lead in opening a discussion area and trying to corral what goes on, for this and other Rhode Island ones? Or could we agree to work on and resolve the CT ones first? Please note i opened section in the CT discussion on Windham county ones and set up a number of NRHP HD articles last night. doncram (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to compromise such that unified articles for village and historic district should only be for historic districts that (1) have the same name as unincorporated villages (specifically in New England) and (2) cover roughly the same locality (criteria suggested by User:Swampyank). I will agree to split out town centers as stand-alone articles and not merge them with the town articles. If the names are different, they should also not be merged. If you can agree to that, I'll begin expanding these merged articles with proper sourcing. --Polaron | Talk 20:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I could agree to that, basically, and I would welcome cooperative development of articles where you and I have no basic differences (which I believe is now in the majority of cases). However, it is often unknown in advance whether (2) is met. I would want to stipulate, and hope you should agree, that (a) the merged-type article should not assert that the hamlet and the HD are the same (so the opening cannot be "X' is a village and historic district", rather it should be something like "X is a hamlet. X Historic District is a historic district that is partly or wholly included in X hamlet."), and (b) the talk page can include some standardized statement that this is an article about the hamlet and the NRHP HD, but if some editor wants to develop a lot of detail about the NRHP HD they are welcome to do so in a split out article. My main interest in all of this is in allowing would-be NRHP editors to join into wikipedia development, and it is intimidating and difficult to split out articles. It needs to be stated that the NRHP HD is a wikipedia-notable topic. About (a), I hope you should agree, because I will surely point out in every merged-type article that the unsupported assertion is in fact unsupported and likely to be false, and also if the NRHP HD name redirects, then it is standard practice to show it in bold to explain to some readers why they arrived at a differently-named article. About (b), I doubt that i myself will come by and pursue the option to develop/split out NRHP HD articles in these cases, but the principle is important to me, that if someone wants to develop more material than is suitable in a town/village type article, and/or if they want to do a fully sourced proper article and get away from trivia that tends to get added to town-type articles, that they should be allowed to do so.

Also, where is Swampyank's specific comment?

Thanks for the reply. I was out of state for the last 3 days doing some house hunting so I apologize for not replying sooner on this and other talk pages. Yes, of course we will make clear in the lead of a merged article that it also covers the historic district. Adding a standard talk page comment is also good idea. In almost all cases that I would like to see merged, the original settlement is the historic district. The historic district will basically be the core of the village, i.e. it excludes newer development on the peripheries. In the case of Connecticut, a big chunk of my edits is to keep unsourced trivia away from the place articles (in fact, I think I sometimes overdo the deletion of these) so, at least for Connecticut, I can be confident that a focused, reliable article will be the end result. Swampyank's criteria for merging was mentioned in his comment here. I would also add that merging should only be for cases where architecture/construction is not the sole criterion for being listed as a historic district, i.e. the historic district should be listed under criterion A (historical event) for merging to be allowed. If this sounds reasonable, the next step would be to form a list of potential mergers that should each be judged on their own merit. --Polaron | Talk 13:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Peace Dale

Thank you for assuming that I was trying to escalate a content war with you when I created a separate article for Peace Dale, Rhode Island (and also Wakefield, Rhode Island), instead of letting the various village and HD pages all continue to be redirects to the article about the CDP Wakefield-Peacedale, Rhode Island]. You are so good at making people feel warm and fuzzy inside... --Orlady (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice you're not around much right now, but when you have a chance could you take a look at this situation? If I'm out of line, feel free to tell me so. Lvklock (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Lvklock (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

RfD bulk nominations

Hi doncram, just wanted to drop you a friendly note about the formatting of your "historical district" RfDs. Please compare the original format with the format now, after I refactored it during the closing. I think you'll agree it is more compact and readable. When nominating multiple redirects for exactly the same reason, it is usually easier on everybody to just put all the redirects under one heading, instead of separate headings. If it becomes necessary to separate them out, then new sub-headings can be created below the discussion, to preserve the chronological order. This makes it much easier for the closing admin (in this case, me) to follow and parse the discussion. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You might want to archive this talk page; it's already 215K!--Aervanath (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny, i had structured the multiple RFD originally in the more compact and readable format

as here, only to be chastised by Orlady who refactored it differently, and then subsequent edits by me brought it into what I felt somewhat more coherent form again. Thanks for considering and closing the RFD, and for giving the further feedback here though, this will help in supporting further batches along the same lines.

And yes, this Talk page needs archiving. Thanks! doncram (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the diff, it looks like you certainly did format it correctly, so take my comments here as an endorsement of your original format. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

chat

I would like definitely to reslove this and if real-time communication can resolve some things, let's go for it. I don't use any instant messaging software but I am on IRC (the freenode servers) a lot (usually the WP:USRD channel) so we can try doing that if you want. Let me know if that works for you. If not, I can try and install some software for something you already use. --Polaron | Talk 14:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words

After reading the current version of WP:Weasel, I sympathize with your consternation over my use of the {{weasel-inline}} template. That does focus narrowly on the use of weasel words to present opinions without attribution. You are not guilty of that. However, Weasel word defines the concept more broadly to refer to deliberate vagueness, in general. Phrasing like "one or more examples of" is deliberate vagueness intended to cover up a lack of verifiable information.

PS - Unfortunately, this is hardly the first time that the changeable nature of Wikipedia guidelines and essays has gotten me "in trouble" -- because what I thought I was citing is no longer what the recipient of the messages sees. Sigh... --Orlady (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wilder, Vermont

Since you've been editing Wilder, Vermont and the associated HD in the last few days, would you offer an opinion on my proposed merger? Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've responded: maps are available, and they're the major reason that I suggested merger. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please desist from provocative editing

In the context of ongoing edit warring over historic districts and villages in New England, edits like this pair of edits, in which you removed content from Wauregan and altered content that you left behind, and this edit, in which you used the content that you had removed from Wauregan to start a fairly useless stub at Wauregan Historic District, can only be interpreted as provocation.

If you truly don't want to become embroiled in edit warring, please stop making edits that are almost sure to incite a war.

I have no intention of reverting your creation of Wauregan Historic District, but after the multi-step process I went through to clean up your damage to Wauregan, I'm not exactly a happy camper (but I am not one of the Wikipedians with a history of substantive edits to that article). --Orlady (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Provocative? What rubbish, I see nothing wrong with those edits. Wauregan and Wauregan Historic District are separate entities covering different areas, each notable in their own right and warranting an article. If you think the stub is useless in its current state, feel free to expand it. Nev1 (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Nev1, but Wauregan Historic District and Wauregan are the same place (although nobody here actually has any solid information about the HD) and this is only the latest in dozens of similar actions that have set off edit wars. --Orlady (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nev1, thanks for providing a breath of fresh air. Orlady may or may not turn to be correct, eventually, in this case about the two being similar in geographic area, but it still wouldn't mean there cannot be two articles. And I cannot understand the vehemence by which another editor has been edit warring to delete articles on wikipedia valid topics _in the absence of knowledge of geographical overlap!_ and in the absence of knowledge about the particular histories. It has been surreal, and I appreciate your breath of fresh air about this.

Orlady, you seem to be complaining about having to make a couple edits to fix something up the way you want it. I have made hundreds if not thousands of edits (and tens if not hundreds of hours now) by now in restoring reasonable treatment torn out by another editor who has yet to acknowledge or be told that his edit warring is wrong (he was blocked for going over 3RR in one case only, has not been blocked as I believe he should for his general rejection of wikipedia processes). You are an Administrator, and you had the opportunity to enter in originally on the process questions and to observe and try to stop the pattern of editing going on. Now you are pretty well involved so I don't as much expect that you can make blocks on the other editor. But, to chide me about your having to spend a few minutes to fix one article the way you want it, is absurd in the context. doncram (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that the two are the same. In my experience they rarely are. But, my opinion's been heard (or not heard) before. Lvklock (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Without having an opinion on whether the two articles should exist or be incorporated as one, it seems they may be the same GEOGRAPHICALLY speaking but the matter still exists as to whether the historic district designation constitutes a separate entity deserving its own article. This seems to be a question that applies to more than this one instance of Wauregan and may be a topic that should be discussed by the Wikipedia community at large in a forum such as the Village Pump, for I assume should it be taken just to the NRHP wikiproject community those editors may, in good faith, have an institutional bias in one direction. This is just a suggestion, but I do hope if this is going to be an ongoing conflict it gets off individual article and user's talk pages and to a larger forum.Camelbinky (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's pretty obvious that articles about historic sites (whether NHRPs, Listed Buildings, NHSs, or SMs) are notable enough to merit their own article. Such sites are recorded in databases of nationally important sites and whether they cover the same area as settlements is irrelevant. For example, if I decided to write an article about Avebury (a settlement) I would write about its history, its people, the local economy, notable sites, the geography, and the local transport. However if I decided to write about Avebury (a Neolithic henge which, uncoincidentally, I am writing an article about) I would write about the history of the monument, its layout and location, its impact on the surrounding area, and its preservation. The two subjects are clearly separate and address different issues and, while there may be some overlap, they each merit their own article. I firmly believe this applies to NHRPs and settlements.

Orlady, IMO what goes on in other articles is irrelevant to this case as the separation of information was justified If someone interprets this as proactive that is a sad indictment of their attitude to doncram and shows that they're seeking confrontation, and that basically anything he does could be interpreted as "provocative". Nev1 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, at no point did I ever state my opinion on this matter. Nev1, you have made it seem obvious what YOUR opinion is. I still believe this should be taken off Doncram's talk page because I would personally not want people arguing back and forth on my own talkpage and feel uncomfortable doing so on someone I consider to be my "wiki-friend". I still dont have an opinion on this issue. But here are some questions for Nev1 and anyone else who wishes to comment from that spectrum of the issue, after hearing their opinions I will have questions for Orlady-

If a settlement and a district both have an article, and their geography is exact (or the district is included within only that settlement and covers more than just one section of the settlement), AND the district article has no info that could NOT be incorporated into the history section of the settlement- is your OPINION that both articles should stay separate?
A settlement article already exists but the district does not, and again the boundaries are the same, what is the benefit of having the district have its own article? Why could not the district documents be used to benefit the already existing history section?
What info in a district article can NOT reasonably be incorporated into a settlement article?
If there is no info in a particular district article that could not be incorporated into its settlement article what is the reason for the separate articles? Are there examples anywhere else in Wikipedia that has allowed such duplication, or anywhere in policy in which such duplication is NOT discouraged?Camelbinky (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nev1's very insightful and informative answers to my questions can be found on my talkpage along with my response, if anyone is interested.Camelbinky (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've lost track of who is talking here. My reason for posting here was to remind Doncram that the ongoing efforts to achieve consensus regarding a large batch of disputed articles are being undermined by his creation of new situations that have exactly the same characteristics as the ones that are already in dispute. --Orlady (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And what some of us have been doing here is giving Doncram good-faith and trying to understand the reasoning, along with determining whether or not those articles are in fact identical to the point of being duplicates or that they have characteristics that make them unique and deserving of their own articles. Which is perhaps what you, Orlady, should have done instead of "remind" Doncram in a condescending and rude manner, which is my personal opinion which I am more than allowed to have and is not intended to be a slander or "personal attack" on you as an individual. I have seen your "reminders" posted to Doncram's talk page on different topics, Doncram has taken them better than I would have. In this case I think Doncram is in the right on principle, though there may very well be cases in which a separate historical district article would not be appropriate but that appears to be rare. Even if there are duplicates, is it really a pressing problem that can cause harm to Wikipedia on a scale like vandalism, false "facts", fraudelant citations, slander, or copy right violations? Of course not. The wiki-world will not collapse into a wiki-vortex of a wiki-black hole if we have one article that has much the same info as one section of another article. Most definitely this is not a type of "infraction" that merits "scolding" someone on their talk page as if they are a child. Orlady you are more than welcome to look at the questions I posed above for your "opponents" and post on my talk page your OPINIONS on what the correct answer to those questions are and also to dispute the facts and opinions presented by the other side. I always prefer a debate to listen to a debate to make up my mind than to people scolding each other.Camelbinky (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I won't take a position on the issue of districts vs. towns, as I don't consider myself sufficiently removed from the topic, but please don't use rollback for anything but unambiguous vandalism. Polaron's edits, however much you may disagree with them, are in no way vandalism. It should never be employed in a content dispute; this is policy of long standing. I appreciate that you've asked for advice on the matter. Acroterion _(talk) 03:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

reverts

Hey, I thought we had an agreement to leave things as they are now while discussion is ongoing. I would like to restart discussions in good faith but your recent reverts (Newfane, Ludlow, North Bennington, and White River Junction) will probably have to be undone. --Polaron | Talk 22:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

I know it'll be hard, but you can do it. :) Lvklock (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wilder Village HD

Just wanted to let you know — the NRIS database available in Microsoft Access format includes an area table, both for districts and for other properties, and it does say 40 acres. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you started discussing this with Orlady somewhere yet? If so, point me there please. My take on this question is that we should use both sources. While the Access file from the NRIS gives the area, it doesn't give the number of buildings. Presumably that's available from the larger database that is available in dbf format; I can't be sure because my computer doesn't know what to do with dbf files, but I don't see a good reason not to trust nrohp.com in this specific matter. Nyttend (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

NRHP.COM

Oh, for God's sake, stop it. You choose to represent disagreement as goading. Acroterion _(talk) 00:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Eventually, I choose to interepret deliberate misrepresentation of my positions as lying. doncram (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Your response was an unwarranted escalation and a deliberate insult. I'm no believer in civility blocks, but that was beyond the pale. You have no business calling other editors liars. Period. Do not attempt to justify it: it does you discredit. I suggest that you confine yourself to new content creation for a while, because it's clear that you're taking debate and criticism far too personally. Acroterion _(talk) 00:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I probably wouldn't have gone as far as you did, but I do sympathize and agree with you regarding the fact that Orlady seems determined to both find fault with and misinterpret what you say. I have found/observed that well thought out and articulated reasons for opinions are often glossed over/ignored in exchanges with her. Lvklock (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Since you asked me to mediate/arbitrate/judge on the very closely related matter of merge/split proposals that have been debated between yourself and Orlady, I'm going to do just that, as directly as possible. Because the friction between you and Orlady is becoming a disruptive sideshow, I ask that ~~you both withdraw from any discussions of merges or splits, and that~~ you avoid interaction. This has been going on for more than a month, and the most useful solution that occurs to me is a somewhat narrow topic ban that will promote disengagement. Other editors, specifically Nyttend and Elkman, are constructively addressing the problem while you're trading potshots. In other parts of the encyclopedia you'd have been blocked by now (see anything to do with Giano); answering criticism or dispute, even if you consider it unfair or disingenuous, with an unambiguous ad hominem attack is plainly unacceptable. You must step away from this dispute for the good of the project and the encyclopedia.

I'm going to try to come up with a format and ground rules within the NRHP project space that encourage a productive outcome, so that my role can in time be phased out in favor of an ongoing collective mechanism for splits and merges in a central location. The database work that is presently being pursued by Nyttend and Elkman should be allowed to mature (if it hasn't already), and we'll have a more reasonable basis for a decision-making process. I note that I have two messages on my talkpage concerning NRHP mergers from people not associated with the NRHP project, a reminder that the wiki, and editorial consensus, are not solely confined to the participants in this particular wikiproject.

From this time onward, you are to avoid interaction with Orlady. You've interacted positively before, and I expect that you will do so again, but at the present time no good can come of it. I will advise her of these terms and expect her to abide by them as well. You are both free to contact me, but I will have no patience for continuation of the dispute by proxy on my talkpage. Since I am mediating, and since I consider myself involved, I will renounce the use of blocking as an enforcement tool, but I will not hesitate to take further incidents to the larger community, which has less patience than I have. Acroterion _(talk) 14:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've modified my comment above, as it could be construed to mean that you would have no voice in the merge/split discussion, which was not my intention. I do ask that you both avoid debates, either with each other or with other editors in this matter. I welcome suggestions and constructive recommendations. Acroterion _(talk) 01:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: gave suggestions, there was further discussion elsewhere. doncram (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Villages

Having spent the last four days or so reading quite bitter arguments between the same people, I'm working my way to something that will probably outrage everybody, but I hope it will end up being somewhat constructive. We'll get there, and I expect to have an extended (but separate) discussion with the various camps. Hang in there, I appreciate everybody's forbearance. Acroterion _(talk) 03:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Since there's been a good bit of disagreement over the appropriate way to describe the congruence of HDs and locales - such as the disputed "all or part of" - would something along the lines of "Podunk Historic District is associated with the village of Podunk" suit everyone better? It can be suitably modified if and when better sourcing is posted. I note also that it's quite easy to fall into the trap of assuming too much based on naming, as various HDs associated with Canaan, CT illustrate. Acroterion _(talk) 17:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Not all past hamlets or named places are noteworthy, and if an NRHP HD name for a random small collection of houses pulls out one obscure historic name, perhaps as a choice out of different available historic names once associated with something in the area, that does not mean that the historic name Podunk had any significance and trumps the importance of the NRHP Podunk HD. I don't give a **** if others want to create a possibly bogus hamlet article, but not at expense of NRHP editors' ability to open a well-sourced NRHP HD article. If it is not established that the NRHP HD is substantially the same as a hamlet or CDP or whatever by a source which compares them explicitly, and further established that the historic name usage is more important than the NRHP HD name usage, then usurping the NRHP HD name is not acceptable from my point of view. What builds the wikipedia is allowing editors to work constructively where they wish (in NRHP HDs or in hamlet articles or wherever), and not to condone unfair, hostile, controlling, destructive treatment that is demoralizing and off-putting.

About the "associated" term, that sounds suitably vague, and can be used in NRHP HD articles and in hamlet articles when referring to the other. As i recall in those disputes, I meant use of "some or all" as a true, vague descriptor, accurately reflecting lack of precise knowledge, and i objected to unjustified assertions of "all" implicit in others' wording which avoided vagueness but was likely to be inaccurate. doncram (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: paragraph 1, part 1. In general, I have come to believe that where there is only one HD and one locale, and where there is substantial congruence between those things, the commonly-used name for the locale should assume primacy, on the limited scale of "village" that is the current discussion. In anything much larger, like a "town" which implies something greater in terms of urban or semi-urban infrastructure, I see no reason to merge articles. Given a choice between "Podunk" and "Ye Olde Podunke Historick District", to provide an extreme example, I'd stuck with the simpler case, both as a search term and as a means of providing an encyclopedic article describing Podunk in a reasonably holistic manner, always assuming a degree of stubbiness on both sides. I wouldn't call such a name a "usurpation." A well-sourced NRHP article is a well-sourced NRHP article, regardless of the name, and I've run across my share of obsolete, misspelled or indigestible NRHP names (see anything with a Smithsonian number or the ROWBOAT LOLLIPOP). When there is some question that the Podunk Historic District is in fact in West Podunk, not what is now central Podunk, there should be no question that the HD should stand alone under its NRHP name to provide a reasonable search target and for disambiguation.

I am not sure what is the current discussion. If we understand anything termed "village" to mean a more substantial area that is probably wikipedia-notable, then I would accept if you made a list of those and flipped a coin for each one, to give an article name of Podunk Village H D vs. Podunk Village. That is assuming a lot, to assume that these are all villages as one may wish to envision a historic New England village, comparable to a legal village in other states. However, what makes a village, given lack of legal definition in CT and some other states? There are numerous situations where usurpation of NRHP HD names has been done by creating "section" or "neighborhood" articles, where there is not even an assertion the place rises to a "village" status. It has been widely held by Orlady and others that neighborhoods are not generally notable, in particular in various Westchester towns. What I mean by usurpation is most clear when a series of "neighborhood" / "section" / "village" articles are created based off an NRHP list, taking the NRHP name and claiming it is one of those, and that those are more important than the NRHP HD. While later there may be added some further tenuous claims based on biased websearching, it is not established that the neighborhood or section is notable on its own. And, "village" is an amorphous term here too, so it is not clear that anything that has ever been termed a village is notable on its own. doncram (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: paragraph 1, part 2. Recent discussion in the NRHP wikiproject has been decidedly off-putting; it's certainly made me disinclined to participate in policy discussion. Considering the high level of activity and the success the project has enjoyed, in terms of article creation, quality content, disambiguation, and infrastructure, like the infobox improvements and reference databases, this is disturbing. I have seen a trend to insularity, as if the NRHP project is somehow distinct and insulated from Wikipedia. It isn't, and both for the good of the encyclopedia and the project it should be more closely integrated, using the same rules that apply everywhere else. That means that we all should be actively seeking consensus, not drawing lines in the sand or poking at sore points, and that we must be prepared for the possibility that not everything in the encyclopedia and the project may be to any given editor's liking.

I have actively, extensively put in effort to create consensus in this and many other matters, and have achieved some success within the Talk:List of RHPs in CT and other discussions, even with the original editor who was decidedly difficult in terms of edit warring rather than discussing. What has been most corrosive at wt:NRHP, what destroys capacity to discuss different legitimate views, and to work out consensus decisions, is, well, let me just say it has not been my fault. What is most necessary to support a more congenial atmosphere would probably be prompt condemnation of outright uncivil participation and/or dancing-on-the-edge-of-technically-uncivil participation, etc., by those who've stood back. If others do not defend me, I feel that I do have to. I have many times tried ignoring and not responding. But overall i have learned from experience with one particular party that where there is no response, the verbally abusive behavior tends to escalate. You yourself labelled one or two responses of mine as escalations, effectively condemning me unfairly in my view, when it is a long, corrosive, predictable attacking pattern to which I responded. Note the difference in situation between me and the original editor, where there has been persistent disagreement but not sarcasm and verbal abuse, and eventually a lot has been cleared up, even agreement to seek mediation where disagreement remained. doncram (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read it all, in tedious detail. I appreciate that you and Polaron have worked many of your differences out. I understand that Orlady's commentary and style irritate you, and I understand why. I could see the tension building through the talk pages. Being irritated does not give you cause to lash out as you did; it's simply not acceptable on Wikipedia. I've seen enough drama played out on AN/I, specifically concerning blocks of Giano every time he tees off on someone that gets his goat, to appreciate that some editors have shorter fuses than others, yet are valued contributors in the long run, and to dislike that method of so-called dispute resolution. My goal was to cut short the overt name-calling and to get you to disengage, which was accomplished, without the reflexive civility block. I'm not dispensing justice or assigning blame for the overall level of tension, which seems to me to have been fairly evenly divided. Only the actual crisis was one-sided. Right now I'm trying to mediate some sort of consensus. The alternative is to withdraw and to maintain the status quo, which while inconsistent and messy, is not really that bad as long as you both refrain from poking each other with sharp sticks, which you've both kindly avoided. Acroterion _(talk) 20:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: paragraph 3. I'm looking for language that's factual without stating something that may not be true. "Associated with" covers all levels of association, assuming a quite minimal level of sourcing is there to establish the association. Acroterion _(talk) 18:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as i thot i had indicated already that wording is fine by me. doncram (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been watching, and waiting for a place that seemed to be a central place to state my opinions/concerns once more, in a coherent manner. I am still confused about where that place is. Lvklock (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You are more optimistic than I about this general topic. Lvklock (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are right. Lvklock (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Poquetanuck Village Historic District

Good Luck. Lvklock (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Got my dander up, which I really don't have time and energy for. Lvklock (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please revert yourself and go back to the state before the status quo? I'm only trying to keep track of splits you have created during the discussion. I will merge one article until you undo your own edit. --Polaron | Talk 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. If you want a more specific ruling from Acroterion on how the Poquetanuck Village HD discussion should be conducted, discuss it in the ongoing discussion there. There is no support for your edit warring and there never has been. Your trying to advance some position, which i don't understand, by random edit warring in other articles will win you no favors. I see you are beginning again to edit war in random articles in CT, RI, VT, extending a problem and undermining a near-agreement. I would ask for an administrator to block you for your disruptive editing, to prevent you from continuing. doncram (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please revert yourself and redirect the Poquetanuck Village Historic District article back to Poquetanuck. There was never any consensus for a split at this time. If you refuse to do so, I should be able to merge one article pre-emptively as well. It's your choice. --Polaron | Talk 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You are committing to edit warring in random articles in order to force your way somewhere else. This is against everything Wikipedia is about. If I was an administrator and I observed you doing this I would block you indefinitely. Note: I comment more at Talk:Poquetanuck#edit warring condemnation. doncram (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not edit warring if you don't revert. Why not just revert yourself as a gesture of good faith? How come you are allowed to do what you want but I am not? Let's go through the discussion without undoing the current state of affairs. You can always demonstrate what you want using userspace. --Polaron | Talk 22:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Go read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and related articles it links to, especially WP:NOTHERE. doncram (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That tells me you should revert yourself. Until you broke the truce, everything was good and calm. Why not simply revert yourself? --Polaron | Talk 22:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Polaron, I am not going to discuss this. Please don't post here. doncram (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

NPS Focus

Have you heard anything about the pace of NRHP scanning on NPS Focus? Have they indicated what their schedule and priorities are? Acroterion _(talk) 14:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No. There has been a notice at the http://www.nr.nps.gov page that "This application is being replaced by NPS Focus / Your patience is appreciated while we work to expand the functionality". That notice has been there for a very long time, I think since before i started editing in Wikipedia. Or maybe there was a change in wording in the notice and I am not remembering what was the previous message there, but i am sure any previous message also referred users to NPS Focus. Both systems have existed during all of my experience with wikipedia. Do you know of any other indications that there are any change coming soon?

I could inquire, but have not done so. I have inquired about other things, and sometimes get answers and sometimes not. Asking any organization repeatedly about when a long-announced, major planned systems changeover is actually going to happen is not likely to make you popular though. Only top officials can make public statements on things like that. For a private opinion, there is one person I could ask in passing when following up about something else, perhaps. Is this important? doncram (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I was reluctant to ask at NPS for precisely the same reasons you describe. I thought maybe you'd have the True Word on the subject. Thanks, Acroterion _(talk) 16:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

List of municipalities in New Jersey

I'm not sure why you undid me there but it looks like User:Munchpronunciation has corrected your erroneous reversion.

And the point of this unsigned message was? Nyah, nyah...someone else agreed with me? Lvklock (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The remarkable absence of edit summaries on the part of all parties does little to assist. Nobody should be blind-reverting anything but clear vandalism without an edit summary. Acroterion _(talk) 15:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The point of the message was he reverted something that he knows nothing about simply because it was my edit, and that his reversion has undone an edit to correct an error introduced by someone else. Are you claiming that the municipality classification of South Orange is village rather than township? --Polaron | Talk 16:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Then edit summaries should have stated so, to prevent misunderstanding of the kind seen above and in the history of the article. Acroterion _(talk) 17:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Polaron began making combative edits in random other articles, with nonmeaningful one or two word edit summaries, in order to make some point that i don't understand, rather than discussing at Talk pages. I challenged him on this and he admitted he was doing that, here. I made a number of reversions with full edit summaries. When I noticed this morning that Polaron had made a number more of the combative, nonmeaningful edits, I just Undid them without further commenting. I think that is reasonable. Should i open a wp:ANI case about Polaron disrupting the wikipedia to make an unrelated point, see wp:POINTY? It appears also that i accidentally undid one of his reversions that was not part of his intended campaign. I will agree to take care, and to make one or two word edit summaries in undoing the apparently disruptive edits. doncram (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you both mind just leaving it alone? By the way, we don't block people indefinitely for edit-warring. I will, however, full-protect the article if this goes on. You are both at 3RR. Stop this immediately, you both are in the wrong. Acroterion _(talk) 22:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're at 4RR. Please note that shrill demands for blocking edit-warriors (permanently, no less) have a way of backfiring on the complainant, and if this ends up at WP:AN3 the results may not be to anyone's satisfaction. Acroterion _(talk) 22:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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) 22:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't claim to have looked up technically what would justify an indefinite. That was an expression of outrage, which i feel. It seems aggravating that there is both edit warring behavior and stated commitment to randomly edit war. I don't care if this sounds repetitive and shrill. Having had previous discussions with Polaron, I know he is very careful in his counting to technically avoid the 4th revert. If you're talking about our various edits in wide-ranging articles, i think that doesn't count in 3RR counting technically. If you're talking about this, the count is now 3 and 3 i guess, when i look at it. My first recent edit there was to create an article, it was not a revert. I wasn't aware of the count there. I was aware Polaron was making punitive reverts, not paying attention to where he was doing so. Polaron seems very aware always of limits to getting administrative action against him, and then I suppose to avoid going over at that one page, he is making combative edits elsewhere. As a way of getting in more than "allowable" three reverts, already against the spirit of wp:3RR. doncram (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it was three, since the first was the article creation. I was trying to shut down and go home for the day when I looked at the article history: I offer my apologies for thinking it was four reverts. I will point out that I asked that you create such an article in userspace. As for my comment concerning the tone of your desire that Polaron be blocked, it's very familiar to me from working the 3RR board, which people use as a way of getting rid of opposition or of getting even, and calling for blocks in such circumstances can backfire badly. We don't block experienced users indefinitely for 3RR because it's supposed to be an electric fence to get people to stop the behavior, not to punish them or to ban them. 3RR between two editors usually involves a fit of pique between two editors who should know better: this afternoon's incident was a classic example. I could cite several similar examples in recent days between editors known to me; the admins who close such 3RR reports usually perform a facepalm, scold everybody who's involved and advise them to walk away from the computer for a while. Blocking only happens when somebody just won't listen. Protection is in my opinion preferable when it's a straightforward one-on-one, as here.

Now, can we get this back on the rails? If you want to set up example articles in your userspace, that's perfectly fine. You and Polaron are informally restricted to 1RR for your own good on articles where you coincide, and I'd advise you to stay away from it entirely. (Formal restriction would involve a trip to AN/I, which would be the next, tiresome step in the process). Acroterion _(talk) 02:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

North Stonington Village Historic District

Did you intend to list North Stonington Village Historic District for deletion at WP:RFD? You tagged it with {{rfd}} but that is only the first step. -- ToE^T 10:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Rats, I had meant to include it in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 31#various New London County, CT, redirects. I just started a new batch to include it now, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 21#various NRHP HDs in CT. Thanks! doncram (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

4RR

Poquetanuck. Protected. 21:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If I see you referring to a content dispute as vandalism again, I will refer this matter to AN/I, where such talk is unlikely to win sympathy. Acroterion _(talk) 21:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be speaking to each other civilly for the time being, so I'll leave you to continue. Acroterion _(talk) 21:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you protected the Poquetanuck article, which certainly prevents anyone from reaching 4RR in editing it. I take it that you are objecting to my using the word "vandalism" in some recent edits, though. What I meant by the term was the punitive nature of recent edits at random, unrelated articles by another editor, in lieu of discussion. There has been, I thought, consensus that the other editor and I and others would discuss four CT NRHP articles, and not engage in edit warring at hundreds of other articles that have the same issues. It seems like vandalism to me, to see an outbreak of edit warring at random other articles. I even defined what i meant by my use of the term, in an edit summary at Wyoming, Rhode Island: "(Undid undo apparent vandalism (edit warring apparently related to Talk:Poquetanuck)", while at the corresponding Wyoming Village Historic District ‎I just wrote it shorter "(Undid Undo apparent vandalism)". But, looking at wp:vandalism now, I see that in wikipedia jargon, vandalism seems to be given a specific meaning that is not what I meant. In the sequence of my edits, and given the general discussion at Talk pages which I am participating, I don't expect that the other editor would misunderstand what i was saying in shorthand in these or other edit summaries. I don't know what other short term would do, instead. Anyhow, if the term is such a third rail as the wp:vandalism guideline describes, i will try to avoid using the term in the future. doncram (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, any attempt at movement is blocked by Polaron who is content with the status quo and therefore does not engage in any meaningful attempt to remedy the situation, but just blocks and refuses to make any movement. He says "it is...." Doncram says "sources?" Polaron replies, "it is". We never get anywhere. Lvklock (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Manokin

Doncram: I received the following and was wondering what you thought? I don't think they're one and the same.--Pubdog (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about merging Manokin, Maryland into the more developed Manokin Historic District article, both of which you started? The historic district area is over 4 square miles and encompasses the entire settlement. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 05:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see now that you restored the Manokin, Maryland article. Thanks--Pubdog (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

break

I'm gonna have to take a break for a bit. This is no fun right now, and I don't need one more thing that's no fun in my world just now. Lvklock (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I know you don't need this. Thanks for your public statement of support; it was unexpected and I appreciate it. doncram (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not doing a great job of staying away. Sent you an e-mail. Lvklock (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm ready to end my break, but I'll take a look at it. Lvklock (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, no problem if you don't want to. doncram (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that CT is still a headache. Yech. Ah, well, busy in real life, anyway. Lvklock (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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.

I've commented there as well. Your behavior in this matter has been discreditable, and I am deeply disappointed that you have ignored advice from several other editors and pursued this vendetta to the point of driving editors away from the project. At this point, it is clear that you must both be placed under binding restrictions, enforceable by individual sanctions. Acroterion _(talk) 12:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Doncram. I've been floating some ideas for how to resolve the 3RR case on various talk pages: Acroterion, Orlady and Elkman. I thought that some people might voluntarily agree to give Acroterion increased authority regarding disputes in Connecticut. You've already joined that thread. Acroterion says he will give a more detailed response to my suggestion later. I also thought it would be good if someone could make a complete list of all the Connecticut towns where the scope of the historic district is in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to Polaron's subpage (or whatever it is) that you mentioned as an example? By the way, he appears top have stopped for the time being, before I left him a note, and I'll regard a resumption of redirect creation as an attempt to make an inappropriate point. Acroterion _(talk) 00:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Doncram, please take a look at a new proposal I made at User talk:Elkman#Counting. (Scroll to the bottom of the thread). I'm hoping to find a version that is agreeable to all parties. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I replied there already. I don't blame you, EdJohnston, for this, but the proposal is deeply insulting to me and unacceptable. Also, i notice again Acroterion's harsh words to me above, which in part may shape your perspective here. I appreciate some support for me expressed by several fellow NRHP members in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#This project thread, but the renewed sting of this insulting proposal is awful. Acroterion called my actions discreditable, and I am insulted even more deeply again now by reviewing that. The proposal and those words by Acroterion are not justifiable. doncram (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I echo my statement at the ANI thread....what the heck was Doncram supposed to do? What would Elkman have done if Polaron blundered into Minnesota and started wholesale redirecting things HE had worked hard to construct? He was supposed to just sit back and let Polaron do whatever he wanted? You don't want him to revert, and you don't want him to write too much....So, he's not supposed to revert Polaron, nor is he supposed to try to discuss the issue to reach a consensus....I also echo my sentiments that Doncram ought to just stop.........why even try to help create the master framework for the NRHP project when so many are so remarkably indifferent to the time and energy he has already put into it? Go somewhere and do something you'll be better appreciated for. This volunteer project doesn't deserve your time and dedication. Lvklock (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I would have done. If Polaron had created a redirect from a historic district article to the city, I'd either expand the article about the city to include more of the city's history and explain why the city is included in a historic district, or I'd write more about the historic district in a separate article. I haven't done that research yet in Mantorville Historic District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (which includes the entire city of Mantorville as defined by Minnesota Statutes 138.73 subd. 10), but I'm not going to start squawking about the redirect. I have done the research for Center City Historic District (which includes just a portion of the city) and Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota (where the historic district includes a substantial portion of the city, but not all of it.) As far as creating a "master framework" is concerned, if someone else wants to load a copy of the National Register database and develop query tools for it, let them do so. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And I have repeatedly admired and lauded your work with the infobox generator. And, when there have been periods of difficulty in your history as an editor, I have never joined any crowd (or even your own voice) in beating up on you. What I don't understand is this whole beat up on Doncram thing.....He wandered around trying to get people interested in the issues, which were not about one or two articles, but the HUNDREDS of contested articles....the hundreds of places where Polaron unilaterally decided to redirect things over known objections. No one jumped up with any thing but negatives....don't revert, don't write too much....all I'm looking for is the positive side of it. Then what ARE you supposed to do? When you don't agree with the issues, fine. But that's not what people were saying. If a consensus was reached that Polaron's redirects were all fine and dandy, then that could have been accepted. But that wasn't the case...no consensus was reached, but no one was stopping Polaron from escalating to the point where there ARE now hundreds of contested articles. That's what Doncram was trying to stop all along! And yet, there are still far more people yelling about Doncram's behavior than about Polaron's. I just really don't get it. Minnesota is a great example of what the NRHP articles can be, of what we would all strive for. I truly believe that Doncram's driving the development of list tables, with the invaluable use of Elkman's generators and the aid of many of many other editors, is what will eventually allow all of the country to have some prayer of being as well developed as Minnesota. Part of that development has been his untiring work on disambiguation, without which you end up with links in a VA list, that should actually being a redlink, instead leading to an article about a CA place of the same name. Polaron's redirects often removed that carefully thought out and painstakingly constructed work. When objections were raised, did he stop? No, he claimed his change was the status quo, and expanded the changes at an alarming rate. I'd better stop now, or someone will claim that I'm creating too much verbiage for the topic, and decide that my length of post should be limited, as if I had never said anything worth listeneing to. Lvklock (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bingham Canyon Open Pit Copper Mine

Would you be ok with creating Bingham Canyon Open Pit Copper Mine as a redirect to Bingham Canyon Mine? The longer name is the official NRHP name while the article about the topic is located at the shorter name? I don't think this is in anyway controversial even to you. --Polaron | Talk 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Right at this moment I'd prefer you do not create that redirect, because if you did it would add to all that has to be reviewed in some cumbersome process, and if you did it would violate Acroterion's request to you (not saying you mean otherwise). I'm not sure if I created it whether it would violate Acroterion's request to me or not, i am not going to puzzle that out at the moment.

About the specific case, though, yes, that exact redirect is needed. I see that the target article was already edited by User:Lvklock as part of the July 2008 NHL editing drive to include the NHL designation of the mine as "Bingham Canyon Open Pit Copper Mine" and that was properly put into bold in the lede, so readers arriving by the redirect would be appropriately informed. The redirect should have been created in July 2008. Could someone else watching here make that fix? doncram (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

After seeing this exchange, I created the redirect. There is absolutely no question that these are two names for the same mine. (Moreover, I doubt that "Bingham Canyon Open Pit Copper Mine" was ever an official name for the mine. Mining companies don't typically call their properties "Open Pit." It was, however, a good descriptive term to be used on the NRHP nom form.) --Orlady (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

Let's spare Elkman, shall we? Move it on over to my page, although I'll not be around much - I'll try to check in and say something useful as I am able. Speaking of which, dropping your administrative ambitions in the middle of all this as an attempt at exculpation was possibly the worst idea you could have had. Let me put it this way: your best chance at salvaging a positive outcome at any RfA in the near future is to resolve to settle this matter immediately with graciousness and magnanimity. Acroterion _(talk) 18:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i agree. Sorry that i did comment there to start, and you are probably right about the rest. doncram (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading up the page: edit warring is discreditable in any editor, regardless of the purity of your motivation - enough so to get you blocked. The term expresses my disappointment that I should have to scold you, an editor I respect and one with whom I've enjoyed collaborating, doing something you know is wrong. I don't think you understand how distressing this is to the rest of us. Acroterion _(talk) 19:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Druid Hills

There is an NPS site that states "As the second major suburb of Atlanta, Druid Hills had a profound effect on the direction of future suburban development." I think it's pretty clear that this is a suburb of Atlanta. You might also want to look at this. Further the Druid Hills Parks and Parkways article should probably redirect to the Druid Hills historic district one (the NPS site says it was completely subsumed into the newer, larger district). Since you created the parks and parkway article, would you be willing to redirect it to the Druid Hills Historic District article? --Polaron | Talk 18:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This involves a source which does not exactly support what P wrote into an article, and did not form as a proper reference anyhow, and it adds to the list of disputed cases. I raised the issue and followed up already at User talk:Polaron#Druid Hills unsourced assertion, where A also asked P to stop. doncram (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're saying that the statement "As the second major suburb of Atlanta, Druid Hills..." does not indicate that Druid Hills is a suburb of Atlanta? --Polaron | Talk 19:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about redirecting Druid Hills Parks and Parkways to Druid Hills Historic District? --Polaron | Talk 19:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Doncram ;-), but that proposal makes sense to me. 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) 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please both of you stop this here. I replied at Polaron's Talk page. doncram (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I love you, too, Doncram. --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine why you continue to battle the absurd obnoxiousness in order to contribute to Wikipedia. Lvklock (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Tonto National Monument

A while back, you undid a redirect from Tonto National Monument Archeological District to Tonto National Monument. Looking at the acreage in the NRIS, the archeological district is listed as having the exact same area as the National Monument. The NRIS lists it as having park code TONT (the code for Tonto National Monument) as well. Do you have information that these two places are in fact not identical? --Polaron | Talk 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll add it to the list of disputed cases for someone else to review eventually, or you could. I assume that it was a case where I believed you had added an unsourced assertion, either directly in an article or implicitly by creating a redirect. doncram (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't involved in any way here. I just came across this article today in my usual sweep of duplicate articles and was just asking. --Polaron | Talk 21:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, i misunderstood. Say, i'd be willing to work with you on such cleanup sweep in states like VA and NY where the NRHP nom docs are on-line, if you want to and if you'd work with me on developing the full references, and if it wouldn't be too confusing for everyone else. Otherwise, i am myself a bit overwhelmed by all the cases being opened but not being resolvable. doncram (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure that might be a good way to start and in doing so we can probably begin to formally come up with good criteria for whether or not merging should be done. --Polaron | Talk 12:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Slightly tangentially, one resolution may involve waiting until sufficient information is available to attempt a resolution; focusing on the areas where such information is available seems logical and would facilitate resolution in the disputed areas, either now or when we have more to work with. In a more general sense, I'm all for tidying, expanding and writing articles for those locations such as DE, DC, VA, WV, SC, NY, KY, NV, UT and WY where we have abundant information, and in many cases, images ready to go. Such an effort would be beneficial from an encyclopedic point of view, and it might go a long way to getting back to our former level of enthusiasm and cooperation, having an attainable, collaborative goal.

As I've said before, I'd prefer to act on the disputed articles with the consensus of the involved editors. I'm going to make a pass through the list later today and make comments as I'd proposed. If we arrive at a divergence of opinion, I'm going to format it as an RfC, fairly broadly, and solicit wider comment, but we're not there yet. Acroterion _(talk) 13:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)