User talk:Ipoellet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reverts of Address Restricted.PNG[edit]

Hi Ipoellet!
Thanks for reverting and letting me know the usage of addres restricted image is discouraged. I found it in a presumably old listing page and told myself "Nice!" without checking too deeply. I was planning to add it pretty everywhere, so thanks for avoiding me that! I've not been able to find it mentioned on WP:NRHP though... maybe it was a talk somewhere in the wt:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places? ProprioMe OW (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's been brought up a couple times on the talk page, but probably never made it into style guides. Lemme look for it.... — Ipoellet (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it to the talk page. I trust your memory and i've already removed the png from another couple listings while i'm reviewing county listings in Washignton state (it seems that address restricted png is quite common there). I was just curious about why the use of that image was not encouraged. I suppose it could discourage users from putting a real image of the place... if it does not help locating it, there would be nothing wrong. ProprioMe OW (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride at PNCA: Tuesday, June 27[edit]

You are invited to the upcoming Wiki Loves Pride edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway) on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, from 5–8pm. For more information, visit the meetup page or Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Syracuse / Onondaga County[edit]

I see you merged the National Register of Historic Places listings in Syracuse, New York list into the National Register of Historic Places listings in Onondaga County, New York list. I'm sorry but I see that as a step backwards, because the Syracuse list had been developed sort of nicely, with neighborhoods identified and descriptions provided for most, and a descriptive intro. The descriptive intro and the neighborhoods are lost in the merger, and the combined list is not better for readers in any respect that I see and in my opinion the comfortable scope of coverage for readers and editors is at the separate Syracuse and Onondaga County levels. You must feel that it is an improvement however. What to do now? Do you mind if I just reverse the merger, or how could some community discussion / decision be arranged? --doncram 23:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. There are principles to be expressed about what size list and geographic organization makes sense, but I think the Syracuse list is good by any such principles. I do see a need for mergers of lists to make regional groupings of small-in-number-of-NRHPs counties in many states. --doncram 23:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doncram: I initiated a discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Merging/splitting county lists. I hope I presented your points fairly - I certainly tried to do so. — Ipoellet (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
You will have seen that I replied there, including laying out what I see as general principles and which I feel are worth discussing. I see that Magicpiano added a comment. However I am skeptical about the capacity of wt:NRHP to discuss this and come to a consensus decision. In past history, I believe some others perceived me as involved in conflict they didn't like, but there can be a lot of unfairness in characterizing that too simply, and IMO there were/are bigger problems around not having any working decision process to achieve decent consensus that others would stick to, and there was a lack of collective vision about what we would try to accomplish together. I feel the WikiProject needs a brand new editorial group and some new process involving goals and values, and I might be willing to try to promote that somehow despite being somewhat bogged down with past stuff myself. Anyhow, about the Syracuse vs. Onondaga County split, I think the default should be not to split given that one local-type editor (meaning me) spoke up and presented some reasons against splitting it, and like other situations where there is some good-type ownership it's not worth over-riding that (and I really do see no compelling reason to merge). I think that we can find common ground and agree upon some action consistent with your view towards merging, where it is more obvious / priority, and make some positive progress, and avoid/postpone this case which is nowhere near the margin of obvious.
Don't you agree that mergers elsewhere of 1-place and 2-place and 3-place lists, in various states which have a lot of those counties would make sense, and could we work together on that? I would like to, both as a good thing on its own and as a way forward with this current difference of opinion. I was previously internet researching about definitions of regions for South Dakota, North Dakota, and/or Nebraska towards grouping those, and I have also recently come across some characterizations of regions for Louisiana. Doing so requires some public discussion/review of how regions are defined for tourism, etc., to be done perhaps at Talk pages of the state-wide lists with notices to wt:NRHP and to state wikiprojects, but seems doable to me. I'd do that cooperatively with you either way, if you will, but I'd be happier if you would drop/revert the merger on the Syracuse thing in favor of working on the non-contentious stuff first. Perhaps a priority list could be made from counts of one-NRHP counties in the various states. Or start with groupings in Washington and Oregon, where the size goes down only to 3 or 7 or 12 or so, but groupings of "southeast Washington" (suggested to me in NRHP documents for some SE WA articles that I developed somewhat recently) and "Central Oregon" or "Upper Snake River region" or the like may make sense. I think you have more local-type knowledge than I do in those states and would expect to defer to you mostly, wherever good statewide partitions are not obvious. --doncram 21:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Doncram: You present a lot to unpack here.
(a) WPNRHP consensus processes: Yes, it's frustrating at times when the discussion goes against what you prefer yourself. That doesn't mean the process is broken. Possibly the reverse - if discussion/consensus processes left any one contributor completely satisfied, then the process probably isn't working to bring in everyone's contributions, and sometimes an issue just isn't "ripe" for decision. Yes there may be space for improvement at the margins, but I don't see the process as broken. It can be hard to accept when others disagree with what seems just really obvious to your/myself, but sometimes you have to accept it. In any event, you personally need to stay well away from this issue in your interactions with the group, at least for a while (year or so?). You are correct that the history of conflict surrounding you will inhibit your ability to achieve any changes.
(b) Reasons against merging Syracuse/Onondaga: I haven't yet read your contributions on the project talk page. I hope you raised these same points there, because that's where I'll address them.
(c) Merging 1-, 2-, 3- entry county lists: I do not agree, at all, with your idea of merging very short county lists into longer multi-county lists. The simplicity of identifying one easily- and broadly-understandable grouping factor (the county) to me outweighs considerations toward making short lists longer, just the same way breaking pieces (like Syracuse) out of county lists also complicates understanding of the overall NRHP picture. Presenting the entire set of nearly 100k NRHP entries is a huge task, one that is made harder when we aren't consistent about how we're dividing the whole list down into sublists for presentation. My belief is that we need to try to approximate one-county-one-list.
(d) Your discussion style: At the risk of offending you, I offer this that I intend to be constructive criticism. Please take it in that spirit. You have a tendency, especially when you feel a little antagonized, to conduct discussions in "wall of text" style. This makes replying to you and to the numerous points you make in your contributions constructively very difficult, and as a consequence almost immediately antagonizes other discussion participants. I occasionally have a tendency in this direction as well, and I work (sometimes hard) to be more concise. You might consider if you could benefit from doing the same. Your last reply to me above fits this pattern. When I saw the wall of text, I had to kind of force myself not to ignore it. And the amount of time I've spent addressing each of your points I feel I could have better spent elsewhere. You will see your relations with other project members improve if you try to be more concise. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort to communicate here. I don't want to argue here, but I do want to say that I was referring to past discussions where consensus was unanimous or with me, I suppose, not against me. It's a bit simplistic to assume I meant to complain about cases where my argument didn't win. By the way I was or would have been fine with decisions against my view, and I have certainly seen proposals of mine lose out and been fine about that. Some past examples are confused though... e.g. for a subjective decision about what level of quality should be defined for "Start" vs. "Stub" articles in wp:NRHP, where I wanted to define it to be a relatively low standard, I did or would have conceded that the voting went against me and one or two others, but other stuff obscured that (including personal attacks, including inappropriate impulse by some to change a different project's ratings) and I got blocked and cut off, so you might have interpreted it and remember it differently if you watched that. Anyhow, it would be great if you could comment at the wt:NRHP discussion, including separate proposal about North Dakota. Happy 4th of July! --doncram 22:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
To update, the discussion at wt:NRHP garnered only one other editor's comment (in favor of split) about the Syracuse/Onondaga split or merger, and I went ahead and restored the split situation. I appreciate there can be some difference of opinion about splitting/merging other city-county lists, but to me as an editor with some local connection there, it seems important not to lose the neighborhood detail previously developed in the Syracuse list. --doncram 15:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

On the Oregon front, by the way, i started Great Fire of 1873, which seemed to be needed when I was expanding a bit the Portland Yamhill Historic District article, which for some reason I received a notification about. --doncram 15:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color - Thursday, Oct. 26 at PNCA[edit]

On Thursday, October 26, a Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color will be held from 4–8pm at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway). Learn more at Facebook. Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ipoellet. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)