User talk:Doncram: Difference between revisions

User:Doncram/PR urgents

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

	<font=3> Happy Holidays and all the best for the New Year! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back from your trip and working at Wikipedia. I also saw the article in the LA Times. Some interesting stuff both to add to existing articles and to inspire articles on the two that don't have articles. Cbl62 (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start at one of the two missing houses from the LA Times top 10. See Kappe Residence. I'll work on improving this one and also the other as time permits. Thanks for the note about this subject. Cbl62 (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff on the Chautauqua Institution article and others on my watchlist, your PDFbot has been changing PDF links. I don't quite understand what is being done. I have cumulatively added about a zillion PDF links to National Register documents, and I am adding more as time goes by, and I maintain wp:NRHPMOS and provide other guidance to other NRHP editors. I'd like to understand, so at least I could revise my own practices and update my guidance. By the way, i was on a 2 month or so wikibreak so you may have done a lot that i did not notice already. doncram (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example in this edit of Falls of Clyde article, you revise a footnote that had 2 PDF links to now show 2 different types, one being a url link with a PDF symbol following, one being a PDFlink with a PDF file size showing. I don't grok why you'd want to mix 2 ways of linking to PDF files in the same reference. I have created thousands of these references that have 2 PDF links, one to a text PDF document and one to accompanying PDF photos document. I notice the bot is hitting more articles on my watchlist since i asked question above. Can you please stop and discuss? doncram (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stop the bot please

I judge that the bot is malfunctioning. Please stop and discuss. I posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#admin help needed to stop PDFbot or some such title, asking for an admin to hit the big red stop button. doncram (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bot was "blocked" by an admin there, who offers to unblock upon request. doncram (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dispenser. I assume u had other business to attend today. I know your bot was making some improvements, and I expect that the NRHP references involving 2 PDF links can be improved from the model i and some others have been implementing widely, but I do think the current bot was not addressing these properly. Not aware of what would be right forum to discuss proper formatting in references for PDF links. Would be happy to consult any guidelines, any forum you suggest. doncram (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is primarily with citation templates. The input parameters in these templates are suppose to act as though they were being nowiki'd. This restriction greatly eases the writing of regular expressions (no worries about template nesting) and wikitext parsers and simple error detection becomes possible. In the case of semantic parsers they will not understand that the URL is part of the citation and assume the citation has no corresponding url, examples include my Checklinks tool and likely User:Citation bot.

If you wish to have the (PDF) displayed next to the link you can use {{cite web}} using the format= parameter or you can ask at template talk:citation if they'd be willing to add a similar parameter. PDFbot was recently approved to add |format=PDF to the {{cite *}} series of template. There was an early proposal around the time PDFbot was created to include file size information in {{cite web}}, but it failed to get any momentum and I'm not sure if it is appropriate for the template.

While I'm no reference expert (I leave that up to those at WP:FAC) the way the reference is structured seems very odd to me. I would have assumed that the text document would support the assertion made in the article and image document would be provided as an external link to view more resources.

Anyway, Happy New Year. — Dispenser 07:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding at my talk page. I just asked at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Help needed on reference PDF formatting question for opinions on what should be done with the semi-complex NRHP references involving 2 PDFs, referring to the copy of discussion you put in at my talk page. Will you watch wikipedia talk FAC and/or my talk page? Thanks doncram (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll peer at both every so often. — Dispenser 18:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you moving lists. Muchly appreciated. I'm working on the main article for it in this messy sandbox. I'm dumping pictures on the page, and then will sort thru to pick the best. I'll finish up this weekend, but going to bed now. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at the messy sandbox, when you get a chance, and share your thoughts? I know it's photo heavy; it was hard enough to prune down to that. Lemme know. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. In general I agree; I think that's the sort of thing I had in mind (but hadn't said so).

Question1: Have you had a look at IOOF Building?
Do you have any thoughts about that page?
(After reading your comments, I am now definitely of the opinion that it is not what we want.)

Question2: Have you given thought to the maintenance and consistency problems?

You say: "It is not at all too much work to keep a system of 11 dab pages organized consistently." It is the consistency of the data that I'm concerned about; I agree that the consistency of organisation shouldn't be much of a problem. I'm prepared to support your 11-pages-of-data scenario, but only if there is someone (else) prepared to take on the job of maintaining the consistency of the data. (It was the current inconsistency between IOOF Building and the other 10 pages that lead me to make the proposal.)

Thank you for adding to, clarifying and improving the proposal. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of discussion at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Washington Park, Chicago, I have created a new NRHP for you at Schulze Baking Company Plant. Feel free to help clean up and expand this article. Also, I have been requested to expand Washington Park Court District to pursue a WP:GAC. I need some help because I can not find any more info.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this as a source for Schulze Baking Company Plant?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the link to the online tool is this. In the "Load from Wikimedia project" area, enter "commons.wikimedia.org" in the "Wikimedia project" box. Then the map name in the "Name" box, without "Image:" or "File:" in front of it. For example, with Florida I used Florida counties map.png. You then have to trace the outline of each county. It takes a while, the more counties the longer. Hope that gets you going. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the next bit is under "Areas", select "Polygon". Then trace a county. When you're done, click "Polygon" again and do the next one. The code appears in the "ImageMap extension code" box nearer the bottom. I recommend copying the code every few counties into some other file and saving, so you don't lose work. It's a pain if you've done 25 counties, then there's a power blink and the works gone. Cheers! --Ebyabe (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, I threw together a list of number of counties (or county equivalents) per state. Delaware has the least (3) and Texas the most (254). The five lowest are Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Rhode Island (5), Connecticut (8), and New Hampshire (10). If you want to practice making clickable maps, they'd be good starters. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, to work on a NY map i could start with "File:Map of New York highlighting Syracuse.png" on commons.wikimedia.org, just have to delete a little red area not touching any lines which should not be hard. But am having trouble getting the Image Map Editor linked above to load...hmm, maybe i should try MSIE rather than Firefox. doncram (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, can get that image up, in part with help of WikiHow writeup. And i succeed in making a test polygon shape. But then i can't delete the red area identifying Syracuse. I need a clean copy of the New York PNG map. Hmm.doncram (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once you've finished outlining a county, hitting "Polygon" again generates the code. The area you highlighted should change from red to gray. Then you can outline the next county. And so on... --Ebyabe (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!, seems to be working.

<imagemap> Image:Map of New York counties| poly 123 92 126 92 131 92 133 92 140 95 142 98 143 104 143 112 133 114 133 110 129 112 127 110 [[National Register of Historic Places listings in Onondaga County, New York|Onondaga County]] poly 129 114 141 114 143 130 133 132 144 131 137 131 [[National Register of Historic Places listings in Cortland County, New York|Cortland County]] desc bottom-left </imagemap>

I just created a stub for John Gridley House, which seems to be the only remaining house in Syracuse that was included on the HABS survey. I know HABS pics can often be used for our purposes, but I've never accessed one for use. I'm pretty sure that you have. Can you give me some direction? I intend to get a contemporary picture, but I think it would be good to have a HABS picture, too. Lvklock (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the prompt and explicit reply. I'm feeling stupid, because I'm sure this should be obvious, but....I'm looking at the picture I want, but I don't know how to download it to my computer. I see the two links, including the one for the highest resolution TIF file. I click on that, and it opens another window. Hmmm....Lvklock (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that did it. With the TIF file, when i right clicked I got Quick Player, which wasn't what I was expecting...thus the confusion. Of course, now that I have it downloaded, I realize that the software I've been using for pics doesn't edit them....I've known I needed a different software for a while. That'll be on my agenda for tomorrow, I guess. Thanks again. Lvklock (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once I got the proper software loaded I managed beautifully with your direction. Thanks, again.Lvklock (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...probably another browser difference. I'm using IE, you're using Firefox. The gallery shows up nice and close in my browser.Lvklock (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at Talk:Odd Fellows Hall#Proposal: Wow! You don't muck around, do you! I'm very impressed!

Also, thank you for inadvertantly bringing to my attention that prior to becoming "The Advertiser", the paper was called "The South Australian Advertiser", but more importantly, that the papers are on-line!

Also, thank you for creating the IOOF Building (Adelaide) page. Having been shamed into activity by your impressive productivity, I have added (considerably) to the page. If the mood takes you, I'd be interested to hear your opinion of what I've done; I've not written an article about a building before, and I gather you have written many.

I just have one minor problem - As far as I can determine, "MacDonnell Lodge" was sub-entity of the IOOF, not a building. Do you have any evidence of its location?

Once again, thank you so much for your valuable ideas and motivation. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another "Wow!". You clearly have a good working understanding of the minds of WP deletionists!! You are also very good at blowing smoke! You certainly had me convinced until I actually found the clip you alluded to and read it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: If the page you're refering to is: "a (http://ndpbeta.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/790987 newspaper clip) from page 3 of The South Australian Advertiser, 31 March 1859"; nla is the National Library of Australia - if it's unreliable, I don't hold much hope for the future reliability of information in Australia! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a google on "IOOF Building Adelaide" - it never ceases to amaze me how many copies/mirrors there are of wikipedia! (Why do they do it!?) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the google hit again that i was using; it's not the link u just provided. I don't really mean to be disrespectful of Newpagepatrollers, they have a real job to do. I did expect/count on ur wanting to fix up the article. About the article, it is better now, but it remains a bit confusing that it covers two buildings but it has a title seemingly referring to one building. In general, i do one article per notable building. If the 2 you cover are distinct, they could deserve separate articles (which could link to each other if they are related). Just a thought. Anyhow, it is rather late where i am, that's all for me tonight. Cheers, doncram (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General:

I can't find the google hit again that i was using; it's not the link u just provided. - Oh :-( Now I'm intrigued. If you ever come across it again ...

I don't really mean to be disrespectful ... - I didn't think you were.

I did expect/count on ur wanting to fix up the article. - Well, you were 100% spot on with that thought!

It's getting late here, too. From your comment, it doesn't sound like you're in the U.S. Again I'm intrigued. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the article:

it remains a bit confusing that it covers two buildings - Agreed. I couldn't think how best to address that. The first building no longer exists, and it was because the first building was demolished that the second building was built. Hence, at any given point in time, there has only ever been zero or one IOOF Building (Adelaide).

I'm not sure the first building is (was?) sufficiently notable to rate a separate article - How do you create a convincing case that a building that was flattened and turned into a back lane is "notable"?

Any advice will be greatfully received!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more on IOOF Building (Adelaide) etc

Okay, i edited the various articles, moving the big draft from IOOF Building to Odd Fellows Hall, and stripping down the various others. I like your addition of alphabetic capital letters to the big list. I think it is all okay and done now. Thanks for your interest and help in getting this system set up properly. Cheers, doncram (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work!! Good job!!

(I'm not sure what you're thanking me for actually doing - it was you who had all the good ideas and did almost all of the work!)

Many thanks for solving a problem that I wasn't quite sure of the best way to solve.

Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into a district that needs disambiguation. There are Hanover Square Historic Districts in both Syracuse and Horseheads. I did a temporary fix with the Syracuse list like this >[[Hanover Square (Syracuse)|Hanover Square Historic District]]. What do you call that anyway? Anyway, when you get a chance can you do some disambiguation magic on that? Lvklock (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Lvklock (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the summary table and illustrative photos to National Register of Historic Places listings in Maryland. Very classy ... Ted--Pubdog (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, when you get a chance, tell me whatcha think. I've been fiddling with it to get it to FL. There's photos missing for six of the sites, but I can't find decent ones for them. I know there's PDFs for them at the NPS site, but can't figure how to extract them so they can be jpg files, or something. Cheers! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know some of the descriptions are short; that may need improving. I also commented out the non-NHLs. Wanted to keep the info, though, b/c I found some useful links in my travels. The "Birthdays" one alone was worth the searching. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look at these tomorrow and fluff out the descriptions a bit. dm (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, remember that photo contest that you told us all about six months ago or so? NHL pics for a calendar? Did you ever see anything about who the winners were? Lvklock (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, finally, hurrah! Here it is, with an event planner using some of the photos.

Good to know....of course, the NPS site for it is down right now. I'll keep checking. Thanks. Lvklock (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the latest house that was supposedly in Pittsburgh but really wasn't. Have you seen my response to your question about it? Nyttend (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources for the Frew House being in Crafton. Sorry for not being clear: I was simply trying to produce a good synthesis of information; the street signs (including the bit about Third Presbyterian), for example, were simply an argument for the house not being in Pittsburgh. The only mentions I made on that page, as far as problematic locations, were the three you mentioned; I'd not observed any problems with any properties except the Gardner-Bailey House, so please don't think that I'd discovered anything that you'd not seen. Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there; it's been a while since I talked to you. Most of my time has been taken up by the Main Page Redesign Proposal (WP:MPRP), so I haven't really been doing anything with NRHP. Until you commented on my talk page, I hadn't realized that I had even taken the page off of my watchlist haha. As I mentioned on the talk page, I've updated NRHP2 to include support for delisted properties.

The main reason I'm writing this, however, is dealing with NRHP v. NRHP2.. Back when I was coding the NRHP2 infobox, I had just become acquainted with coding, but now that I've had a few months' experience (mostly on User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox2 for the MRPP..), I think I may be able to make NRHP2 backwards-compatible with Infobox NRHP. Haha I know this comes at a sucky time since probably thousands of pages now link to NRHP2, but I do believe it can be done. I think I can change the code of nrhp2 to use nrhp_type=____ for the first designation and follow up with nrhp_type2=____, nrhp_type3=____, etc. Infobox nrhp would ignore these other parameters, but nrhp2 would pick them up. I think the most that would be needed would be 5, and then I would leave the "other" designations in (i.e. other1, other2, and other3) for local designations. While yes, it would be a pain to relink all the nrhp2 pages to nrhp, I think it can be done, and we can return to having just one infobox. I think the nrhp_type parameter was the only thing that wasn't backwards-compatible with the two, but I may be mistaken. If I find something else, I'll let you know, but in the next few days, I'll be working (probably on nrhp3) to find a backwards-compatible solution. Any comments? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the coding.. currently {{Infobox nrhp3}} is compatible with nrhp and nrhp2; it will accept either the ____=yes format or the nrhp_type=____ format (not both). Examples can be found at User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox. If you approve, I'm going to bring it up over at WP:NRHP talk. The code in {{Infobox nrhp}} can be replaced with this code without breaking any functionality.... to the best of my knowledge. What do you think? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 23:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been debating in my own mind whether to add a list of properties included in the historic districts. I know that if I were reading the article in anticipation of visiting someplace, I'd like to know. I've often been stymied by not knowing what to take a picture of in a district. So, it could make sense for a district like Armory Square where there are 46 contributing properties. I might even see myself eventually taking pictures of them all, if it made sense. But, then there are districts (including one in Syracuse) where there are 300 or more contributing properties. So, first, what do you think of having such a listing? And, second, would you do it as part of the article, or as a separate list article? Lvklock (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you'd had a chance to think about this. Lvklock (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check Sycamore Historic District and its breakout lists for some ideas. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm using your Landmark Theater pic in the Armory Square list. Thanks! Lvklock (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links to the Antiquities Act proclamations for the 3 new national monuments:

• Rose Atoll
• Pacific Remote Islands
• Marianas Trench

Ipoellet (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made it, thanks to your help and encouragement. It's a first for the WikiProject Cheshire. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been as active with the NRHP WikiProject as I'd like, due to various concerns; however, there is one article I'd like to get started in the not-too-distant future, and that's the one about the "Peter Francisco House" in Buckingham County, Virginia. Here's the thing, though - Francisco's an ancestor of mine (shameless plug much?) and I grew up hearing about the house...as Locust Grove. It's a documented name, so far as I know; I can probably find a handful of books using that name to back it up. Do you think there would be any objection to my creating the article as "Locust Grove (Dillwyn, Virginia)", and making "Peter Francisco House" a redirect? I think it's silly not to use the property's real name when almost everyone else I know uses it. Even if the federal government doesn't.

(I want the article to be on DYK on March 15 - Peter Francisco Day. Then I can show our descendents' association I'm actually doing something constructive with my time on here...) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one can hope, but I think they think I'm a little odd for doing it. Although I'm establishing a better web presence for Peter than our so-called webmistress *grumble grumble*

That Virginia DHR site is wonderful; so much good stuff there. I also have some other materials from one of my cousins, and I'm waiting on a couple of older photographs.

And I quite agree with you; I think an infobox makes an article look so much better that it's always worth having.

Thanks for your help! --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 17:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's a fascinating guy, but not that well known outside of south-central Virginia, unfortunately. I don't like that tag, but I've got a lot of stuff I can add to the article besides what's in that DHR form. There are a couple of biographies, for starters, and there's a fair amount of decent material online (and my father is compiling a genealogy, so I know he's found some stuff I could use). I think that's going to be one of my projects for '09 - building the article up to FA status.

Bloody Ban, for his part, is looked upon with great scorn in my household, for obvious reasons. And I once weirded somebody out by making a rude noise at his portrait in the National Gallery, in London. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have a minute to look at Hanover Square, Syracuse? I'm getting ready to revert it to an edition before I tried the table, but I'm wondering what I'm doing wrong for my next try. I don't understand why the table is down where it is. Lvklock (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, it helps if you close the table! I figured it out. Thanks anyway. Lvklock (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As far as I know, the National Register database doesn't contain links to the PDFs, but I've worked together a query that will list all of the Multiple Property Submissions in a state. The query is at this link.

I'm not sure if there's a difference between querying PDFs at the older link at nr.nps.gov or the newer link at NPS Focus. Actually, neither one is giving me results right now.

By the way, I'm replying here instead of at my talk page because I don't want all those wrestling fans trying to use MPS queries they don't need to know about. Right now, I'm so angry at the wrestling crap that I can't think straight. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention: A few of those MPSes have only one property in them, or perhaps none at all. Those are anomalies, but I noticed that American Indian Rock Art in Minnesota MPS only has Spring Creek Petroglyphs in it. I think in those cases, we should hold off on creating the MPS article until the actual component property article has been submitted, or perhaps not create the MPS article at all. West Seventh Street Early Limestone Houses TR has no listed properties (unless there are some that were eligible, but the owner objected.) Also, some of those county-wide MRAs (Multiple Resource Areas) were a result of the SHPOs doing a county-wide survey of places that could be eligible for the National Register. In those cases, there isn't such a thematic grouping as would be found in Minnesota's Lake Superior Shipwrecks MPS or in Reinforced-Concrete Highway Bridges in Minnesota MPS. I'm not even sure what MRA (AD) means, unless it's additional documentation. Finally, I think it would be a good thing, at least when creating these articles, to list the number of component properties and/or provide a full list of them in Wiki format. I can probably write a query to list those, but not tonight - it's late. How about if I work on a sample generator and format for Aitkin County MRA, and then we can work on it some more before creating the full sets of articles? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made this list for Florida. Might something like it work for the other states? I think that (AD) probably does mean additional documentation. --Ebyabe (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional info on NRHP naming. That helped address one of the issues, which was Carnifex Ferry State Park (NRHP) versus Carnifex Ferry Battlefield State Park (WVDNR).

I'd like your opinion about Nicholas County High School at National Register of Historic Places listings in West Virginia. The NRHP-listed building is different than the current Nicholas County High School, which was built in the 1990s. It seems like a good idea to distinguish in the NRHP lists that the listed building is not the same as the building that currently goes by that name, figuring that people may not click through to the article (if one even exists). Do you have any suggestions? Nyttend didn't like listing it as "Old Nicholas County High School." Brian Powell (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My common procedure is that I don't like redirects on these pages: although I'll not edit a list simply to remove redirects, I'll often retarget a redirect to the actual article if I have a good reason to edit the list. Brian added the "Old" to the link, but "Old NCHS" is simply a redirect to "NCHS". No complaints about having a separate article on the Old NCHS; it's just that there isn't one right now. Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion about Nicholas County High School NRHP to Talk:Nicholas County High School. Thanks! doncram (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Old Nicholas County High School redirects the section in the NCHS article about the old school. Brian Powell (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much i want to fight for it, but i'd rather discuss this at Talk:Nicholas County High School. Thanks! doncram (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to, but I don't know when I can get to it. When did the DYK clock start? Unfortunately, I'm stuck working a bunch of OT this week (as a matter of fact, that's where I am now). I'll try, but can't promise. Lvklock (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if I should comment here or in the previous section, but I'm not clear why we need to make Old Main conform necessarily to NRHP listing guidelines — not sure about all of them, but at least Geneva College's building isn't on the NRHP. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NRHP dab needing cleanup tag is just a convenience indicator for me to come back to it and fix it up in certain ways, in particular addressing any NRHP ones included. The problem with this one is that it is presented as a List-article, and starts out that way, but then it has a "disambig" template, making it a disambig page. There are lots of rules about disambig pages covered in wp:MOSDAB and interpreted and enforced by WikiProject Disambiguation editors. There's a dictum that Disambig pages are not articles. Disambig pages pretty much are not allowed to have any intro, any photos, any unnecessary description beyond what is needed to get a reader to the individual page they want. For this article, maybe it should be a list-article instead, and the disambig should be removed. But there is a need for disambiguation, so maybe to be paired with a separate Old Main (disambiguation) article. Not sure what to do. Maybe look up what "set index articles" are, which i have not used before. I'll copy some of these questions/thoughts over to Talk:List of Old Main buildings, I guess, and let it percolate. doncram (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine for the List article to exist as a Set Index article instead. Have changed in and removed my "NRHP dab needing cleanup" tag. doncram (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a crack at revising the text based on the refs (and not just reading the text that had been reverted. Please let me know what you think dm (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, could you pls evaluate if it is still a stub? thanks dm (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Liberty ships: A-F/Temp, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Subpages are not allowed in the mainspace. This temp page is still lingering here. If it is better than the actual version, then move the code there. This page is currently only linked from another list, not from the other three Liberty Ship lists, so it is not very accessible anyway.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fram (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with that temporary working version being deleted, having served its purpose a long time ago. I just removed the one link to it from a mainspace article. doncram (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a generator for MPS lists. It's at this link. Each entry has two links after it: one to just list the properties, and the other to generate a full list that looks like the county list format. I used that generator to create Reinforced-Concrete Highway Bridges in Minnesota MPS. I also added text to that article to explain why those particular bridges were selected and to explain the criteria used for selection. I could probably add more from the MPS document, although it starts to get long-winded. They don't go all the way back to Ancient Rome to explain how cement was discovered, but they go pretty close.

Anyway, that article is sort of what I'm thinking about for the non-county MPSes. As far as all of those Minnesota county MPSes are concerned, creating an article for the countywide MRA would be rather redundant. Out of the 35 properties listed in National Register of Historic Places listings in Brown County, Minnesota, 22 of them are in the MRA. It would be cleaner just to add an explanation to the Brown County list saying, "22 of these properties were included in the Brown County MRA, a 1979 countywide study of properties eligible for the National Register." Then, we could add a column to the existing Brown County list indicating which ones were included in the MRA. What do you think? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good suggestion; I made the change. You've been here since 2005: be bold! Kaisershatner (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you set up a disambiguatioon page for this. Are you going to check the links to Dunham Hill and edit them to Dunham Hill, Cheshire? If so, an alternative solution may be to go back to the original name for what is Dunham Hill, Cheshire of Dunham-on-the-Hill.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Yes, I'll do the cleaning up to make sure no stragglers are left. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my hot-headedness and hope there is no ill-feelings. I will disengage myself from the discussion on the name of the wikiproject/article. Wadester16 is more than capable of defending it. I hope in the future there can be collaboration on articles between us. I dont wish for any escalation, ill-will, or anything of the sort. Wikipedia should be a happy place to contribute. I dont wish for you to feel bullied. So this will be my last posting on this subject, unless you wish to contact me on my talk page to discuss any specific points you wish to for clarification or my opinion. I hope a compromise is reached soon. Thank you and I sincerly apologize.Camelbinky (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[leaving an identical note on Sanfranman59's talk page] I'm almost done putting Alaska into tables; only Anchorage, Kodiak Island, Matanuska-Susitna, and Valdez-Cordova are left. There are enough sites that it really needs to be split; because there are only 29 boroughs and census areas (one of which, [{Wade Hampton Census Area, Alaska|]], has no sites at all), I'd like to give each borough and census area its own page, like Pennsylvania and Wyoming have. One problem, however: how should we name the pages? No problems with places such as North Slope Borough, Aleutians West Census Area, Denali Borough, or Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area, but some of these boroughs (Anchorage, Juneau, Sitka, Skagway, and Wrangell) are city-and-borough (like Philadelphia and San Francisco), and they have unusual naming formats — just look at their articles and you'll see what I mean. I'm leaning toward "National Register of Historic Places listings in _____ City and Borough, Alaska", except for Anchorage, which would be "National Register of Historic Places listings in the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska". What do you think? Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advice; still waiting on Sanfranman. I've finished putting on the tables, and I might be able to begin with the separate pages tonight. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the split-out; see {{NRHP in Alaska by borough and census area}} for the links. I finally realised that if we can have "NRHP listings in Philadelphia", rather than "NRHP listings in Philadelphia County", we could also have "NRHP listings in Sitka" etc. You've done a lot with adding pictures; could you go through the borough/census area lists and pick out a few to place on the state list? Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did Alaska because I knew that it had no tables and I assumed that it would have the fewest sites :-) I've replied on WT:NRHP to your notes; I don't believe that the categories thing is a problem. Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You lose. North Dakota has 409 — you miscounted Stark County, and then the three that weren't in tables I found in recent listings and tableised. Nyttend (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to upgrade the Alaska directory page to your normal high-quality format? There's a potential problem with the clickable map: the current map is outdated in not showing either Skagway or Wrangell as the separate boroughs that they have recently become. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, although i like maps a lot, i have never made one, and can't really help. I was only recently getting guidance that would help me towards creating a clickable map for New York State, but i haven't done even that. Thanks for the flattery though, however ill-deserved. :) doncram (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was essentially "although you might not be able to make this map, could you do the rest"? Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birnirk Site

I'm really unhappy: not with you, but because I'm quite disappointed to find that all these pictures aren't necessarily PD-USGOV. I know that being hosted on a US gov't website doesn't make something PD, but I had assumed (admittedly without seeing anything on the website that says this) that they were all taken by NPS employees as part of some program to improve coverage of NHLs. As for your concerns about how to present this: I quite appreciate how you did it — I too want to see copyrighted files removed quickly, and I don't quite see how you could have told me any other way. In connection with this, I've nominated File:Menoken Indian Village Site.jpg for deletion, because it comes with credit also. Thanks, too, for the link to the explanation; without it I might have been a little more confused. Just one question: do you think that I can assume that an uncredited picture, such as this, is safe? Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia:Peer review/Alberta and Great Waterways Railway scandal/archive1. I only just noticed them—I must have missed them when they first showed up on my watchlist—and I think they're generally very helpful. I'll likely ruminate on them for a week or so before I make another major stab at improving the article, but your comments were very much the sort of thing I was looking for, and I think they'll prove very helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a chance, would you try opening the nomination reference in this article? I can't open it properly, and I'd like to be sure it's not just my computer before sending an e-mail to the nps website. Thanks. Lvklock (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I'm a participant in the WikiProject Church of the Nazarene. What cleanup needs to be done for Church of the Nazarene (disambiguation)? I'm just curious, unless you think I could help somehow, as well. --Aepoutre (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Syracuse WikiProject was 100% dead, after the first 20 or so members put in a lot of effort. Not one ever piped up once, after i joined, and it has been lonely, poor me :("

Hey....what am I? Chopped liver? ;) Lvklock (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, i didnt think anyone was watching there. Well, it has been pretty quiet, just u doing a favor for me by being there, and Zewrestler for a while, and new guy. :) doncram (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find my source for NRHP numbers by state. Several months ago I read that MA had the second highest number after NY. Maybe the claim was an unreferenced edit that was removed from wikipedia. Sorry for the unsubstantiated fact (although I attempted to count the number in MA). Good luck finding a source...feel free to modify my count. Swampyank (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don,

Thanks for doing that ... I had realized only after the bot made its comment that I had forgotten to proof it before doing so, and left an awful lot to be desired. You caught many of the things I did when I printed it out, and in time (soon, I hope) I will be implementing them and listing it for GA.

While I have spent most of the past two weeks on-wiki working on other areas, I'm ready to go back to NRHP soon and have already uploaded a picture I took in MD this summer. I also got some more pics last week at Wikipedia Takes the Subway! and Saturday in Hartford at that meetup. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your suggestions, which I just implemented (I colored in the water areas of the map, which the OpenStreetMap contributors didn't do (as is often the case)) and added a nice long quote from Moby-Dick (plus also referencing the service from the book to better explain what the Seamen's Bethel is all about). The only thing I couldn't do was go into detail about the privateering acts that led the British to burn the city in retaliation, as the source I was using (the nomination) doesn't go into detail about that.

I have now nominated it for GA. In its current form I don't see it going further than that; to reach FA-level (to me) would require going into greater historical detail and more about the current issues in the district. Perhaps if Swampyank or I are able to get source material on that at some future point, we can do it then.

It just got passed! This has made my week. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thanks very much for your proofreading and suggestions. You are an invaluable and sharp-eyed copyeditor and I really appreciate that! Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubois-Sarles Octagon

Finally got the pic uploaded and in the article and lists. From the NRHP app I got the detail about the sidehall plan, which should make a DYK, too. Daniel Case (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you've been working on this list. It looks great. It IS taking quite a while to load, as it's a long one. Lvklock (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'm going to leave it for a local to divide geographically within Denver County and/or Denver City if that is different, later. Thanks for noticing. doncram (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you. I've never been to Denver, so I wouldn't have a clue how to divide it! Lvklock (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of another Brown Palace Hotel coming into being? I've never heard of one other than the famous one. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? Hmm, well i hear that the Palace Lounge at the Brown Palace Hotel (Mobridge, South Dakota) is quite the place to visit.... doncram (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but her help on the stubs of NY state show that she doesnt know anything about the state and the way municipalities are run. I understand quite well what she is saying about stubs, she is did not understand from the beginning about the five counties of NY not really being counties, then in the middle of the discussion she goes to have a name change of the five NYC county stub templates to the borough names and messes up the Bronx's name (it IS "the Bronx" not "Bronx", that's not my opinion, its fact). NY stub templates should be made and maintained and names decided by the NY wikiproject. Ill use this example from wikiproject guidelines- if you create an article and are deciding to put it into a wikiproject by putting the banner on the talk page, and do so, then a member/members of the wikiproject removing it from the wikiproject you are to keep the banner off because the wikiproject has priority over deciding what articles are included, not the creators or individual editors of any articles. That deals with wikiproject banners but in my opinion I think the same courtesy should apply to the use, creation, and applying of stub templates, it shouldnt be up to some self-appointed stub dictator, it should be up to the most relevant wikiproject how they wish to do stubs on their articles. I'm sure she did a great job on other stubs. In this case she doesnt know how the relevant topic is organized, if you dont do your homework you cant do a good job.Camelbinky (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming across this discussion by accident, I just wanted to remind both of you: stubs are maintained and overseen, not by local wikiprojects, but by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, of which Pegship is an active member — not the dictator. Nyttend (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all- "the Bronx" is the OFFICIAL name of the BOROUGH, Bronx if the official name of the county. Did you bother reading the entire article before you accused me of saying an opinion as a fact? As for anything else, be specific about ANYTHING and if you want EVERYTHING that you think I put as a fact but is really opinion. If i put something forth as a fact, most likely it is, take time to do homework. As for the comment that wikiprojects should deal with the stubs, look at how I wrote it, I did write it as an OPINION, I put "I think" right there. And regardless of wiki-guidelines I still believe (an opinion) that stubs should be relegated to the appropriate wikiproject to determine how they wish to categorize articles and that a wikiproject stubs is not the appropriate place. That wikiguideline may change some day, who knows? Until then of course I respect wikiguidelines, doesnt mean I have to agree with them or say they are the best way to do things. I have the right to say "I believe this is a better way" without "looking like an idiot".Camelbinky (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone else watching, I gave Camelbinky some feedback at his Talk page regarding his comment above, including that I think he has stated opinions as facts and has made overstatements. I never said anything about anyone looking like an idiot, i believe that Camelbinky's use of quote marks just now is meant to indicate that it is what he perceives i or others have thought about him, it is not a quote from elsewhere, I believe. For an example of what i was talking about, i believe that the first sentence in the comment above "Ok, but her help on the stubs of NY state show that she doesnt know anything about the state and the way municipalities are run," is an overstatement and insulting and not a fact. For another example, the sentence "NY stub templates should be made and maintained and names decided by the NY wikiproject," is stated as a "should" statement without any qualifying "I think". I simply gave Camelbinky some feedback, and he is free to accept or reject it for the time being. doncram (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I am having a discussion with someone, I am speaking for and to them, not anyone else who has nothing better to do than read a conversation between two other people. You did make a comment on my talk page regarding my intelligence, unless I simply read too much into the way you wrote it. As far as "should" it means the same as "I think" I do not need to qualify the word should. Do some research on grammar. As far as facts versus opinions- I am referring to actual FACTS if I state something about another person then obviously that is an opinion, I shouldnt have to qualify every statement I make, people tend to be able to tell the difference. But if I state the population of a municipality or make a comment on the type of government of a municipality that is A FACT and you have all the right in the world not to believe me, but if you are too lazy or stubborn to look up the complete facts and dispute it then dont call me a liar or exagerator. You disputed "the Bronx" as being the proper borough name by pulling out that the name of the county is just Bronx, you failed to read the rest of the article past the first paragraph where it went into detail as to the difference or check the discussion page and see the discussion on where another person brought up that the article should not have the word "the" in the title and where (people other than me) informed that person as to why the word "the" needed to be in the title. I am simply asking you to verify facts fully before you accuse me of exagerating or stating an opinion as a fact. If I called you an idiot for how you have talked to me everyone who is nosy and reading this would know that is an opinion and not a fact, I wouldnt have to qualify it, but if I state I have a bachelors in poli sci and working on my masters in history then that is a fact and not an opinion whether anyone believes me or not. I dont have to qualify either statements for people to know which is which, I dont know why you seem to have that problem. I'm done with this discussion, I have already spent over a week from wikipedia just because I was getting so upset with this insane highschool-like drama with you. Just dont bother me again please unless it is a real legitimate question.Camelbinky (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or two, rather...As far as Denver, it's a consolidated city-county — everything in the city is in the county and vice versa, so you can't split them. I noticed on the state page that somehow Boulder and Denver Counties had gotten confused and corrected what I found; was this the problem?

I don't know what you are referring to, about Boulder and Denver being confused. Yes, i have worked on separate list-articles List of RHPs in Denver and List of RHPs in Boulder, both split out of List of RHPs in CO. They are different cities/counties/whatever. doncram (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Hawaii: I had the idea of splitting the list by islands, rather than by counties; after all, the geography of the state is rather different from the rest of the country. What do you think of that? I can do it if you think it would be a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please allow me to keep working on Hawaii to get it into stable condition; i have an UnderConstruction tag on it to indicate I am not ready yet. There is an issue about what is the relevant county (if any) for two ones. There are other research/editing issues still open, it will take me a few days to address them. And, it may be that Hawaii all fits in one article (not clear yet as i have not finished first-pass editing. Or that Hawaiian locals may have something to say. Anyhow, please don't split it up without discussion at its talk page. Thanks! doncram (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to both — in this edit I fixed the error that I meant might be causing confusion; the Boulder County header had a See also-NRHP listings in Denver County. While I was at it, you can see, I also solved the Broomfield issue, but that's another issue. As far as Hawaii — sorry for imprecise wording, as I didn't mean to suggest turning the state page into something like Alaska or Pennsylvania have. Rather, I meant having separate tables by islands (one table for Hawaii, one for Molokai, one for Oahu, etc.) on the state page, instead of having one table for Hawaii County, one for Maui County, one for Honolulu County, etc. You say that there's an issue for two: do you mean the Northwest Pacific Islands? See this map: everything past Kauai, Niihau, and the little one next to them is Honolulu County. Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks about the Northwest islands map, yes that was what i was wondering about, to verify/identify what county those 2 ones are in. Also, okay, thanks about the Boulder-Denver thing then. About Broomfield, thanks for looking into it. I don't see how you concluded that Broomfield has no NRHPs, although that may well be/probably is the correct conclusion. For example, there could be NRHP listings in Denver, which was in Denver then but are in Broomfield now, that still show in NRIS as being in Denver. Did you review the Google map and determine that there are no coordinates showing within the Broomfield borders? I don't see how to do that easily, as Google often does not show town/county jurisdiction lines. doncram (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused: how would any Denver sites be listed in Broomfield? Of course we could have coordinates issues (a couple of weeks ago I discovered two Massachusetts sites that were supposedly in Ecuador :-) but it's not like they border — see Denver and Broomfield maps. I searched through the listings at nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com and found no sites that were listed as being located in Broomfield; checking nr.nps (which wouldn't load on my computer earlier) confirms this. It was a city well before it became its own county, so I'm sure that any sites located there would have been listed as Broomfield. Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Mapquest shows county lines. Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks about Mapquest, i will try to remember that. About Denver/Broomfield, i had assumed (apparently incorrectly) that Denver county was one of the counties that Broomfield was carved out of. The Broomfield, Colorado article states 4 other counties that it was carved out of. But, it also states that the city grew by multiple annexations over the years (I am not sure, but i don't think the timing and geographical scope of specific annexations is given). So, a site could have been listed on the NRHP in one of those other counties, and then the area was annexed. NRIS is usually not updated for such things, as has been shown abundantly in many other locales, so the site easily could still appear in the National Register as being part of a different county and perhaps under a different city/town name. So, i just would not be completely sure yet that there are no NRHP listings in what is now Broomfield. doncram (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add some other info, just looking at the Google map for List of RHPs in Boulder, one of the southeasterly-most ones is National Fuel something, in Louisville, Colorado. That town seems to still be in Boulder County, but the town locator map in its article has not been updated for the separation of Broomfield County in 2001. Its map shows Boulder County's southeast corner as being square. Not sure what to do about that, though this does not seem to be a case where the indiv property is now in Broomfield. We could look at other nearby listings in each of the 4 counties, too. doncram (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] I'd not thought of the annexation thing. As long as it's actually in Louisville, it's definitely not in Boulder: I can't imagine that it would have been disincorporated without something having been put on its article; and you'd have to disincorporate it and annex part of it to Broomfield before it could be included. Still, that doesn't say anything about the locations that are simply nearby but aren't actually *in* places such as Louisville — not to mention in other directions, where there might not be anything incorporated against the Broomfield County line. Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the time to fill in much of Jennifer Brunner's life history.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No one has really responded on WT:NRHP about the proposed update to the infoboxes. I think, though, we will actually be able to copy NRHP3 code to NRHP2 without consensus.. they're completely backwards-compatible. (whereas NRHP2/3 and the original NRHP have a few subtle differences). I can copy NRHP3 to NRHP2 as soon as possible, but I remember you were talking about using a bot to change all the articles on which NRHP2 is transcluded to use the "nrhp_type=____" format. Do you think you'll be able to do this? As soon as all the articles are using that format, I can delete the nhl=yes code, shrinking the infobox size drastically. Then I can work on updating the NRHP2 documentation, which will make the transfer to the original NRHP infobox much easier. I was just looking for your thoughts. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've pretty much gotten all the bugs I can see in infobox nrhp2 worked out. I found a compatibility flaw with the original infobox nrhp that I missed, but I applied a patch fixing the compatibility, so I'm 99.99% sure it's completely backwards compatible now. I went through part of a list of articles on which nrhp2 is transcluded today, and I converted about 60 to the new format with no problem whatsoever. I didn't convert any infobox nrhp ones yet, though, because I'd like to get all the nrhp2 ones to the new format first, so I can delete the old code. I think there are just over 1400 nrhp2 articles (of which not all have nrhp_types, though, so probably a net 900-1000 articles) to convert to the new format, and I could probably tackle that in about a month haha, but I'm going through and individually editing each article. If you could explain to me what this AWB is that you were talking about, I may be able to make some use of it and take a little of the burden off of you, but I'd like to have all of the articles in the new format by the end of the month at latest. Do you think you could explain to me how to use AWB? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I definitely have a Mac haha; therefore, I can't use AWB. Looks like I'll stick with going to articles one at a time. I updated the list with the ones I did last night. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sorry it's been months since you posted about photos for more places for the List of Registered Historic Places in Vermont - I'll definitly look through those lists, and when able, get some more pictures done! Thanks for letting me know about the lists. -- PenelopeIsMe 16:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated at Jones Law Office and Woodson Law Office.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodson Law Office and Jones Law Office, and added NRHP PDF reference which could used to craft specific assertions of importance, the most importance missing elements in my view. doncram (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. That document is great! I had to print out the 64 page PDF document to be able to study it. It is full of it - good stuff! Just wanted to clairify what I meant. I am working with it now. Noticed you are correcting the info boxes - thanks much. I had good intentions anyway. I can work from there since you set me on track. Also will follow up on your question. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to stick my oar in and say that that was one of the most eloquent commentaries I've ever read on here; I think you put your finger on a lot of things that I wanted to say, but which I didn't know how to put into words. Excellent work. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 19:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(This is continuing a discussion opened here. --Doncram)

Caveat: I don't have time right now for Wikipedia, including posting this comment.

I don't perceive that there is any dispute between us that would justify a third party's taking their time to attempt to mediate.

As near as I can tell, you don't like me, and any time I disagree with you, you take it personally. Be assured that I do not intend to offend you, and if I state a disagreement with you it is because I disagree with the substance of something you said or did -- it does not represent a personal judgment about you. In my discussions of Wikipedia content, I endeavor at all times to avoid making ad hominem judgments and arguments -- I make judgments and I comment based on "whats" (the merits of the issue), not based on "whos" (the personalities or reputations of the other parties -- with the notable exception of certain persistent vandals). In my experience at Wikipedia (well over 27,000 edits over a period of more than 2 years), you are not the only good-faith contributor with whom I have had "dust-ups", but (as far as I know) you are the only good-faith contributor who has stayed mad at me.

Yes, I have gotten sarcastic with you recently, but I believe that your behavior toward me in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (e.g., changing the subject of the conversation) has been trolling, and that my response has actually been pretty mild. I know that you are working in good faith to contribute content, create templates and categories, etc., but it seems to me that your behavior toward me is inconsistent with your good intentions toward Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've said a lot here, and it is so highly loaded that I won't/can't respond to all of it. Let me say that I appreciate you sharing that, despite my seeing a number of assertions and assumptions in what you say that I could take issue with. To clear the air a little, perhaps: I don't dislike you personally. I do resent what I perceive to be bullying on your part vs. me and others. I've learned not to take much of what you say personally, however, in the sense that I observe you also treat others in the same way you treat me. I think the way you speak is often highly uncivil in its intent and often in its language. About the specific accusation of my "trolling" by changing the subject, I am dumbfounded. I think you must be referring to the discussion at wt:NRHP which you opened to discuss renaming some state level and other categories, and you are taking issue with the fact that I wanted to discuss also what the category names should be for related county-level and other geographical area categories. You seem there to be inexplicably committed to limiting the discussion to some narrow vision you had about what the discussion should be about, beforehand. Honestly, that seems excessively controlling and antithetical to working to build the encyclopedia. I do feel a need to get some other editors help via mediation or some other semi-formal process, because your and my communication style issues or whatever seems to be a bigger problem than you and i can discuss and resolve between us. I appreciate you explaining that you have tried to be pretty mild. While I don't necessarily experience you as being mild, I guess I have to understant that it would be worse if you were not showing restraint. I have tried in the past, and do let's both try in the future, to be mild in responding. doncram (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick hit-and-run comment from a complete outsider: It looks like an extreme difference in communication styles to me, something that often causes problems where people can't see each others' faces or hear each others' voices, and even don't know much about each others' personal backgrounds. Basically you both have found out about that on your own, but perhaps it helps to hear it from someone else, too. Good luck! --Hans Adler (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I added some citations and cleared up some confusion on what town of Harmony in Wisconsin the mound group is located which is Vernon County, Wisconsin-please take a look at it.Thanks-RFD (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious about your edit summary, is something about to be merged into it? Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i guess you mean my edit of NRHP2 infobox in the Las Trampas, New Mexico article. Edit summary was "edit NRHP2 infobox for upcoming merger compatibility, other using AWB". No there is nothing to be merged into this article, my summary was refering to the merger of NRHP2 infobox with NRHP infobox, in process with discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Implementing NRHP infoboxes merger. I guess the edit label is misleading. I'll try to use something more descriptive in my next bout of AWB editing of the NRHP2 infoboxes. Thanks! doncram (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you about that ... it has been on my list but there has been enough to do this week, what with all the things Matisse has asked me to do to get the GA for New Bedford Historic District.

I have had email enabled since I first registered my account. However, since not everyone is aware of the contact via the link on the left of the page, I have added the userbox for it. Feel free to use it whenever you want. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the neighborhood listed for this house in the Syracuse list. It was listed as Meadowbrook, but I can tell for sure that it's further west than Meadowbrook. What I can't decide for sure is whether it's Westcott or Near Eastside, as E Genesee St is the border between the two neighborhoods. I picked Near Eastside because the property was at one time owned by the Eastside Neighborhood In Partnership. Seem okay to you? Lvklock (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up including both neighborhoods for the places on a border street. Lvklock (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: On the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for Appomattox Court House Park I noticed on the bottom of the first page it is signed by a Patrick Arduis for Signature of the Keeper. Would that person then be the author of the document? The publisher we know is the National Park Service. The Date of Action being June 26, 1989. Wouldn't these then give us the "date" and "author"? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The keeper is not the preparer of the document. I've written out some of the practices in describing these documents at wp:NRHPMOS. But briefly, the practice we've mostly been following is to credit the preparers of the document and to use their date of preparation, appearing in Section 11 (missing from the online version of your document), rather than other date-stamps and signatures later. I hope that you will please request a full copy of the document by email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. Provide them your postal address. Be clear in your request that you want the missing section 11 and a complete document, that you are already aware that a partial version of the document is available on-line. Well, actually for Virginia documents, the state of Virginia also provides copies, sometimes different, so you should check its site too. There's a link to the Virginia state's document system within the guidance by state section of wp:NRHP. doncram (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're in luck: the Virginia state system has the document, and it shows Section 11. The Virginia system is at http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/register_counties_cities.htm, you just drill down in Appomattox county to the document in question. I will now revise the reference within the Jones Law Office article to refer to the URL of this version of the document and to show author and date of preparation. It may be semi-complicated as i have to pick which associated photos documents, from VA's system or the Federal one, to include as part of the same reference. Please feel free use this revised reference in the related articles. Sorry, i didn't think to check the VA state system before, it has been a while since i used it. doncram (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Asked the Park historian anyway for a copy. I know he is working on the previous questions we submitted to him, which I suspect he will answer in the next couple of days. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On February 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dubois-Sarles Octagon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Church of Christ, Scientist (Anita, Iowa) says that it was added (either under that name or under the name of Anita Public Library) to the NRHP in 1979. However, as I'm finishing drawing up Elkman tables for all of Iowa, I find that the property isn't in the NRHP database under either name. Could it have been delisted? When I put the reference number into Elkman, I get a note that "This property may not actually be listed on the National Register - listing code is DR". Nyttend (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking on this note, by the way, I was curious about delistings. Twenty Iowa counties have at least one delisted property (some very recently, most not), and I'd like to see them in little tables in a way similar to that of McKean County, Pennsylvania. Can you help me do this once I place the tables on the Iowa counties? I'm going to leave this message also on Dtbohrer's talk page, as s/he placed such a table on the McKean County list. Nyttend (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how you know that there are 20 Iowa counties with delistings, how you know which are the delisted properties. Is it only by encountering the DR message now available in Elkman's infobox generator for each one, individually checked? What would be most helpful if our super-hero, "E"-man, :) could be persuaded to generate a table report of the 1500+ NRHPs delisted nationwide, with the usual fields including counties. We could cut that up for use where appropriate. doncram (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Iowa list: someone went through these and noted the delisted ones. What I mean is the ones shown as "delisted" or "removed" on that list, some of which were removed several years ago. Whether or not they were really on there in the first place or not isn't a problem for sourcing at the moment: as I told Dtbohrer, I'm going to hide the deleted ones so that they don't mess up the page when they don't have their own table. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well i don't know if you mean to hide them in comments; i'd prefer to see them moved (with their town and county identifying info) to the talk page, or wouldn't it just be easy to start a table for each one? It's very easy, just cut-and-paste and a very little editing. I will be glad to do that part if you table-ized the counties, leaving those just where they are. I'd do it now but that would be weird to put them into tables while the current NRHPs were not table-ized. doncram (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving further discussion to Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Iowa. I commented further there, and started a table. doncram (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of Iowa...

I've placed a PROD on Sioux Falls, Iowa (which you created), the officially listed site of the Blood Run Site. It's an error: if you look at the GNIS, there is no such site, and it's on the South Dakota border just a few miles away from Sioux Falls, South Dakota. I've replaced the Sioux Falls link with one to Granite, the closest Iowa community. Nyttend (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thanks for looking into it. Hopefully the discrepancy is added to NRIS info issues, yes? doncram (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't interpreted it as an "error", as it's clearly in the vicinity of Sioux Falls, and likely closer to it than to any specific place in Iowa. Same with a couple of sites somewhere in Kansas (Doniphan County perhaps) that are listed with Rulo, Nebraska. I'm not sure where it would go: wrong city, perhaps? Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The error is in NRIS, that Blood Run Site is located in/near: Sioux Falls, IA. I am assuming you are correct that Sioux Falls IA does not exist. NRIS, via Elkman tools, also shows the site is in/near Shindlar, SD. Also there may be error in NHL webpage, haven't checked that. doncram (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons I don't understand, there is a whole department-store full of socks that like to whine, edit-war, spam, clone, and even spontaneously reverse roles about that location and shopping centre. The Drake Circus article was already deleted via AfD though I think a viable article could be written and that the existing redirect of the location to the new mall is kinda off-topic. An article that clearly asserts and cites notability would be great! Given article history though, it's best to put it in userspace until it's viable, then deletion-review to overcome the previous AfD. I know it's silly...should just be able to write a viable article that solves the previously-deleted article's shortcomings (which makes it explicitly not speedy-deletable), but given the history here, gotta jump through some hoops:( DMacks (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I imagine part of the problem is that the place, obviously notable in the eyes of some (and I am inclined to agree), is a redirect to a shopping mall which many dislike and/or question its notability. That's kind of insulting to them, probably. I just added a hangon and now an underconstruction tag and appealed for peace and some time and all that at the Talk page; i think it is best to create this out in mainspace. But if you or someone else chooses to delete, I am okay with that and could jump through hoops. Have not ever done a deletion review before, i take it that is some kind of appeals process. Would have to look it up and familiarize myself with that, too, besides working just on the article. Anyhow, i can't do more right now. Will see what happens. doncram (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article which "insults" some people? Since when has that been a proviso for addition to or deletion from WP? Regardless, so far nothing new has been included in the article that wasn't there before. Likewise once again there are statements made in the current version about the alleged boundaries of the so-called area. What triggered the AfD last time was when those same boundaries were included closer scrutiny showed that there isn't actually an official "area" known as Drake Circus. It's just one short anonymous road in North Hill. The museum and planetarium may well be notable but so far none of the SU troublemakers have bothered to create those articles, even so their presence does not make the "area"/road notable. This all came out in the AfD and the subsequent discussion on the relevant talk pages. The current article isn't even referenced properly. I can see this ending up at yet another AfD and wasting yet more time for everyone concerned. --WebHamster 01:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. I don't know what "SU" refers to here. By insulting, i meant in the sense of insulting their intelligence and what they know and feel. Perhaps i should have said "frustrating". I can imagine it is highly frustrating for locals who "know" that the term has always referred to a location, not a shopping centre, to have wikipedia editors engage in bureaucratic processes which are hard to fathom, and end up appearing to reject the existence of the place. By the way, i often work on historic site articles and generally defer to locals' preferences about article names for places which are given a different name by the U.S. NRHP program. I think it is often best to defer to local knowledge about places. doncram (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frustration, though possible is similarly not relevant in the same way insulting isn't. As for local knowledge vs "official" well so long as it's a reputable source and is pertinent I really don't care or mind which one is used. Sorry, SU is the acronym for Student's Union. Normally a hot-bed of dissent for anything that vaguely involves having to stick to the rules. Throw in a well used bar and things like this are inevitable. You will note that a lot of these tete-a-tetes occur in UK's evenings. The crux of the matter is that although the street does contain some possibly notable buildings and events, that alone does not make DC itself notable, as notability isn't inherited, as you are no doubt aware. The fact that it got bombed in the war is non-notable as most of the main UK conurbations also got blitzed. The fact that there is an underground reservoir is again non-notable even though the reservoir itself may be. You can see for yourself from the pics you've included in your rewrite that this road is just a boring sort of street that can be found in any city in the UK. We gave plenty of chances at the last AfD for people/locals/independent editors to come up with anything of note. They were spectacularly unable to do so. I'm afraid this will be the same again. If you wish to waste time on this then please feel free, it's your choice and I have no intention of trying to talk you out of it. All the above is, is a brief synopsis of what happened last time. The other thing that can be guaranteed to happen is that the SPAs, socks and trolls will manage to screw up any good work you will likely do. --WebHamster 01:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all and any attempts to publish academic facts on an area of notable interest are rapidly stamped out by those seeking to promote a shopping mall. If anyone who has stumbled accross this article over the past 2/3 years, then trys to rectify or properly amend the article, they are accused of being a troll, sock puppet, liar, etc by the same 3 editors who continually delete valid references or verifiable facts. Any discussion or debate on the subject is fruitless as these 3 editors know how to game the system and continually extract and delete valid points which expose their ignorance and bias POV. For example it is not an underground reservoir - it is one of the UK's oldest reservoirs built by ir Francis Drake. From what i have read in various history folders, all the deleted points were raised by a vast variety of contributors from Canada, Indonesia, japan, Thailand and the UK - all of whom have been blocked or banned, for no other reason than trying to publish facts that may not sit comfortably with the marketing agenda of a shopping mall.81.132.107.66 (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem. "Notable interest". It seems that your definition bears scant similarity to the WP definition. If this street's article has so much personal importance to you, why not simply create an account. Write an article (that meets WP standards) in your own personal sandbox, then get some experienced editors to cast an eye over it to see if it's suitable for inclusion. That makes so much more sense than all the shouting and huffing and puffing you seem to get more satisfaction from. Just a thought. --WebHamster 02:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if as i did, you search for 'drake circus bomb shelter' in google you will see the parts of the originaldrake circus article and this intresting link exposing the corruption of the same editorswho are now blocking anyone attempting to challenge their spamming activity.81.132.107.66 (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey this is the kind of preposterous accusations i was asking for you to stop with. Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and I don't believe any one of them have an investment or other interest in the shopping centre. How on earth can you mean to say they are "spamming" for something? A simpler interpretation is they are trying to keep articles which don't meet wikipedia standards out, and within articles they are trying to keep out assertions that are not adequately supported by reliable sources. I do that too, in other areas of wikipedia. About the sandbox type of article, that is what i am trying to do in the draft article linked from Talk:Drake Circus. To the IP editor, too: your positive suggestions about wording and sources, for an article about the location, would be welcome. And in particular, can you address my question there about bus routes? doncram (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ye4s I'm aware that you are working on an alternate version which is reasonably different to the one that was deleted under AfD. The problem still remains of notability which unfortunately your rewrite doesn't yet address... regardless of the bus routes :) --WebHamster 13:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to some unforgivable confusion on my part, the meetup on Saturday the 28th needs to be rescheduled. Please see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Loves Art/LACMA rules#Rescheduling poll to vote for a day/time that works best for you. Thank you and I apologize for the inconvenience. howcheng {chat} 05:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Hawaii.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I came upon an article for Camp Five Museum which is shown on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin as Camp Five Farmstead. I am drawing it to your attention as a subject you appear to have an interest in and something that I know nothing about. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As per your question on my talk page, these neighborhoods are all significant areas within the city of New Rochelle, each designated a 'populated place' by the UGIS system. New Rochelle is a large suburban city which is primarily residential, thus explaining the large number of UGIS 'populated place' designations for the city compared to other cities (within Westchester, it is the only city with so many formal internal area designations). Each of the areas have several thousand residents living within them (at least), which each equates (population wise) to the resident base of neighboring towns such as Bronxville or tuckahoe. They are each larger than many CDP found in NY state (such as in Northern Westchester or Long Island). They also each have distinct attributes ranging from date of development, impetus for development (ie: arrival of railroad line; proximity to neighboring towns/ town centers; more recent subdivision of farm/estate land), as well as various historical connections (ie:Residence Park - dates back to settlement days). Various recognizable institutions are found in these areas as well (ie:residence park - the college of NR; Isle of San Souci - Davenport House/ Lispenard Davenport House). Additionally, the architectural styles of the homes in the areas differ tremendously and serve as clear examples of the stages of suburban development experienced in the US since the 1950's. Finally, the areas are all within the borders of the New Rochelle city government which defines specifics such as educational resources and fire, municipal and police services. Otherwise, the areas could quite possibly be classified as villages or hamlets within larger towns, or CDP's that fall under the greater authority of a separate, incorporated town or village. These articles are just introductory, basic articles to which alot of information and substance can and will be added. --SHH2009 (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - user wknight94 has communicated to Tiptoey the following:
Hi. Per my comment, you may want to delete all the new articles created by SHH2009 (talk · contribs). They've already caused some discussion and been tagged for merges. History shows that Jvolkblum will turn each of them into battlegrounds. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:23
This is one of the ways that this user removes information unfairly from the site. He seems to act as if he is above the wiki protocol. His actions are hostile and spiteful and add nothing but negativity to the issue(s) at hand. I would venture to say that he himself is turning non-issues into 'battlegrounds' and not the other way around as he claims. As for his other contributions to the site, well, they are minimal and barely beneficial to the site. --216.244.18.4 (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]