User talk:Doncram/Archive 18

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

I believe that, 1n April 2008, you changed the first paragraph of the article to read in part "SS John W. Brown, also known as B-4611, is a Liberty ship,"....

May I ask where the nomenclature B-4611 came from? Regards, Oldfarm (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it is from the National Register's NRIS database. I just gave some additional info about that and other info at Talk:SS John W. Brown, will watch there. --doncram 15:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been getting pix in northern Chester County, Montgomery County, and Berks County, Pennsylvania. A few "odd orders" have shown up. File:Morgantown PA Oddfellows.JPG in the Morgantown HD, which I've added into the Odd Fellows List; File:Red Men Hall Reading.jpg which is only in the Berks County list (we don't have a Red Men list, do we?) and another O of IA building, this one in the Evansburg HD in Montgomery County. I'll upload the O of IA if you want it, but I have to say that it is a barely adequate photo of an ugly building, so I'm not inclined to. There's a mystery building (pictured) with "POS of A 247" in stained glass in the transom over the front door. I like the pix and it will probably make the Robesonia Furnace article, but I doubt if I'll ever find out what POS of A is!

All the best, Smallbones (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

After a quick Google, I'd say it's probably http://www.posofa.org/. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Boy! I am lazy at times, aren't I? Maybe I just figured Doncram knows everything there is to know about these orders! Also found http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonicmuseum/fraternalism/posa.htm which seems to indicate that this area of PA is a hotbed of POS of A activity. Smallbones (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

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

The article Church of the Holy Name, Toronto has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication or evidence of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PKT(alk) 20:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN#Topic ban proposal re NRHP stubs--SarekOfVulcan (talk)

Hey there. I've rewritten St. John's Block Commercial Exchange into a less-fragmented format. Feel free to revert. Buggie111 (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your helping with that! I have developed it a bit more now too. This relates to the topic ban proposal. --doncram 11:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Leland Hotel (Springfield, Illinois) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Hancock Brothers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, one would hope you know that creating that type of redirect is a no-no. :-( Killiondude (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem was that the target article had been moved to userspace; i moved it back and restored the redirect. --doncram 12:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been... umm... debating with another editor at Temple of Free Masonry, Eau Claire Masonic Temple, and National Register of Historic Places listings in Eau Claire County, Wisconsin over the proper way to list/refer to those buildings. In your Copious Free Time(tm), could you take a look and chime in on talk? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If I hadn't been blocked for a week by you and if you hadn't then opened an AN proposal to restrict my editing, I would have more time and interest to get involved in some other complicated issue. Sorry, I don't have time or interest right now. Hope it works out, hopefully in a positive way that helps channel edits productively, rather than in a punishing and negative way. --doncram 15:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, just came across {{Newlist}}, which you might find useful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems like a nice template message that I would sometimes use. I notice it currently has no lists linked to it, by what-links-here, and that it is currently included in a list of unused templates. But it would be very appropriate for works-in-progress like that architect article was. I repeat, I really do not approve of articles in the form that was in, being left that way for more than a short while. For disambiguation pages involving similar PRE lists in draft form, i put a big template (at template:NRHP dab needing cleanup) in the article and worked actively to finish the necessary reformatting. --doncram 02:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John W. Ross is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Ross until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Majestic Hotel (Dubai) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Orlady (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if you care, but I've found that the Palace Lodge was simultaneously owned/used by the IOOF and the Knights of Pythias. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a courtesy note: I have reverted most of your recent edits to Grand_Forks_Woolen_Mills, and also amended the article further. I would imagine that you are watching the thing anyway, but if not then you now know. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Doncram. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

So it's OK to drop the category just leave the built parameter in the template for now? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Does it make sense to just add 'significant dates' to the template and just change the ones for the districts as I find them? If the field name changes after more discussion, it would be easy enough to change the template. This way we retain the information and more closely identify it with what it is probably about. If we do that, I can got through my last 1,000 or 2,000 edits and add the new field where built was removed from districts. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There's already an article at Masonic Temple (Huntington, West Virginia) -- want to tag this one as db-author, copy your text over, and start an RM discussion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for notice. I merged, redirected from the new, duplicative one i just started. No deletion needed, need redirect from other name. Think is fine now, thanks. --doncram 11:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, redir is fine, sorry for not thinking of that in the first place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Since it had been changed to a form not suitable for mainspace, and the only incoming link was from the disambig page, I've moved it to User:Doncram/William Waters (architect) for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I returned it to mainspace. Discuss at Talk:William Waters (architect). Architect is obviously notable. --doncram 17:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the notability, I was questioning the broken formatting and repetition of information. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Were you planning on adding articles for the houses you listed in the disambiguation page? If not, perhaps it would be better to change it to a redirect page for McGavock-Gaines House. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I am planning to create one article, for the Williamson County one. There is actually no requirement that there be ANY articles already created, by disambiguation guidelines and policy and practice, though many/most would not know that. What is key is that the dab page disambiguates among valid wikipedia TOPICS, and that each item on the dab page satisfy MOS:DABRL, which all items on that dab page do. Happy to explain more and point you to past discussions if you have questions. --doncram 02:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I redirected the Vashon Island cat to Category:Vashon, Washington, since that was where the article redirected to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, regarding that article Vashon Island redirects to article Vashon, Washington, so make the corresponding category that way. Fine by me, thanks. It seems to me there should be other articles for the category already, but i am not sure what has already been recognized as notable there. There should eventually be more, anyhow. Including probably there should be an article for the Russian Orthodox monastery and an article for the Wolftown nonprofit, both already mentioned in the Vashon, Washington article. --doncram 17:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have less interest in those than in Masonic halls, but I'll see what I can do about Wolftown next time I feel in need of some article writing. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to recent, and comprehensive article on Fred Willson. Good Job getting the article started. [1] When I get home, I'll get some images of his work. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's about Fred F. Willson article, recently started. I actually found and added that Bozeman Chronicle article already. The wikipedia article sure can use more development, from that and otherwise. Thanks so much for offering to get images; I would be very glad to develop it more, say for a DYK. Willson seems interesting and well beloved by Bozeman. :) --doncram 17:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't be home for a week so the DYK might be difficult. I know I've got some images from the Pioneer Museum and taking shots of his architectural works will be easy.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no rush. DYK can be done as a 5X expansion, later. It would be truly most great if you could take pics of some of these buildings and get those other museum ones. And we can do a DYK or not. By the way, there are picture-holder spaces in National Register of Historic Places listings in Gallatin County, Montana (not much developed at all, i notice, but I'll watchlist it and may develop it somewhat) which could receive any pics on NRHP-listed buildings that you upload, then we can select some or all from there to this architect article. Thanks! --doncram 17:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 Week for edit warring, as you did at List of George Franklin Barber works. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ironholds (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Note; User:SarekOfVulcan has also been blocked, albeit for a shorter period of time - you've been repeatedly warned about this, and yet don't seem to be easily convinced. Maybe this will change your mind. Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Subsequent to the blocks, Elen of the Roads also protected List of George Franklin Barber works, the article where the edit-warring was occurring. I unprotected the article because the disputants were blocked (making discussion unlikely) and another user wanted to make some uncontentious edits to improve the article. If an administrator decides to unblock Doncram, it might be appropriate also to reconsider the protection status of the article. --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Doncram (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for editing going on at List of George Franklin Barber works. I believe I was not edit warring and specifically did not violate 3RR, by reasonable interpretation of what those mean. I was, rather, working within normal procedure to effect an orderly merger of material I had first developed at George F. Barber, before knowing of the pre-existing article, hopefully involving other editors more knowledgeable about some of the facts. I had opened discussion at Talk:List of George Franklin Barber works#merger in progress, questions and was facilitating discussion of any differences of opinion about redlinks or whatever might possibly bother anyone about the merger, there. Orlady had intervened with use of Administrative powers to remove the merger list to userspace, IMO expressing cold disdain for whatever could be contributed, as she has done with more sarcasm in other instances (more at link to "Evidence" much further below). I chose to bring the merger material into a temporary working section of the mainspace article tagged Under Construction, in part as others could reasonably contribute, and to proceed with the merging. There might have been another way to proceed, and since the block in fact editor Bms4880 has moved the merger material to the Talk page, but what I did is what occurred to me and was reasonable IMO, especially given no response at Talk.

The effect of my edits, partly completed, was going to be to add about 30 wikilinks to NRHP-listed place articles/topics, to add a like number of house addresses, and to add what seem to be 3 NRHP-listed items on my list that were not included in the pre-existing list (i.e. Central Methodist Church (Spartanburg, South Carolina), 233 N. Church St., Spartanburg, SC; Trippet-Shive House, 209 N. Grand, Waxahachie, TX; and Dr. James L. Lovvorn House, 113 E. College St., Bowdon, GA). I had inserted just the first of those three and done some of the other editing (all changes in this big diff) before being blocked.

About that i've "been repeatedly warned about this", I am not sure what that refers to. If it refers to the edit summary phrase "no temporary work sections in mainspace" in one or more of SarekOfVulcan's 4 reverts ( 4, 3, 2, 1), I don't understand what SarekOfVulcan was attempting perhaps to convey, and I don't believe that he refers to any policy or guideline that I know of. I believe that very often there are temporary under-construction developments going on in mainspace, and that there is no Wikipedia policy against that. If he had a point to make, he could have explained himself at the Talk page, where I was trying to ascertain views about a couple potential issues, but he did not. I do believe there is no actual content disagreement present; the only contention is about how a short-running merger process would be done, communicated by interrupting edits and not coherent English anywhere.

If that "repeatedly warned" refers to other contentions, I have indeed been dragged down in long-running contention with editor Orlady, who follows my edits, and who is also hovering on this List of George Franklin Barber works article (including, amazingly, even editing after the article has been edit protected for 3 days, by ElenOfRoads, which is even a nonproductive change, one that is erroneously building out a duplicative item to the existing Bourne House item, which my next edit was going to correct). SarekOfVulcan has somewhat joined in the general program, blocking me for 1 week recently on grounds of personal attacks/civility for my referring to ongoing contention (block and unblock request here; then proposing at wp:AN that I should not be allowed to create new articles (archived here), then yesterday contending in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#George F. Barber in some ways that seemed partly obtuse and partly productive, knock on wood. Relatedly yesterday, he twice removed and I twice restored sourcing at Henry deCourcy Richards article, with explanation in the wt:NRHP discussion that seemed (one of the knock on wood items) to explain it adequately to him. In the wt:NRHP discussion SarekOfVulcan threw up various other complaints, to which I responded, and it seems like a pattern of trying to find fault. Relatedly, I also Opposed in recent RFA2 on SarekOfVulcan and asked publicly there for explanation of the block, never adequately justified IMO, and I believe some others in the RFA agreed the block and/or SarekOfVulcan's not answering questions were serious errors. There seem to many accusations being thrown up at me, but these seem pretty assorted, generally in the vein of finding fault on any new excuse that can be seized upon, trying really too hard IMO. Please note (and this would take some reading for someone unfamiliar to follow): 1) The grounds stated for the wp:AN proposal to prevent new articles had nothing to do with asserted reasons for the block, 2) the new contention on improving a long-existing list article had nothing to do with either. Or, they have a lot to do with each other, in that they are adding up to a couple editors seeming intent on grinding an axe or two. It would be glib to say the common element in contention involving me is just me; the common element is the following editor(s) seeking to drag me down. To wit in this List of George Franklin Barber works, where the merger could/should have been fully implemented by now.

I do believe I don't deserve this; I am basically trying to build articles on historic places, also to build systems to support new and old editors more efficiently and accurately editing new and old NRHP articles. Orlady and SarekOfVulcan have been following me. I experience the actions of Orlady as really mean-spirited and hateful (explained at Evidence within Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive223#wikihounding; I experience the following by SarekOfVulcan as more intended to be helpful, but it is adding up to be too relentless on random new ideas, causing too much overhead, nonetheless. In the present case, there would be no problem IMO but for the edits by Orlady vetoing one proposed orderly process and then for the edits today by SarekOfVulcan disrupting an alternative orderly process that was working fine. Editor Bms4880 also reverted once, without explanation, but has in several other edits in article and Talk signalled acceptance of the value of improvements I was making.

I am aware of text in the unblock request guideline about edit warring: Also, be aware that any sequence of edits that violates the "spirit", if not the "letter", of the three-revert rule are just as worthy of a block. Intentionally gaming the system by waiting 24 hours between your third and fourth revert, or subtly changing your version each time so it is not a perfect revert, or otherwise edit warring over the article is seen to be editing in bad faith, and your block is unlikely to be lifted in these cases, even if you did not technically revert more than three times in 24 hours. and other text there warning that a complicated argument involving diffs and anything looking like wikilawyering would likely not be received well, or would at least require a long time for an administrator to consider. I ask optimistically for an administrator to consider what was going on here, though I won't expect very much, as it is indeed complicated and I can be painted as denying the basic edit warring policy.

In simplest terms, I was in good faith developing the List of George Franklin Barber works article. Edit warring is defined as "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." SarekOfVulcan's edits were entirely negative, removing my work, reverting; mine were entirely restoring and continuing to build, and I didn't remove an ounce of any other editor's actual work. If you want to interpret something technically and narrowly, e.g. to assert that I was making reversions that were merely "subtly changing", you may come to a different conclusion. But please look at the constructive effect of my edits there yesterday and today, in this big diff. I should not be blocked for proceeding to develop the article, ignoring incoherent objections conveyed by interrupting edits, when I have given plenty of attention to that editor in related discussions. There probably are matters here suited for other dispute resolution processes, but there is not really any content dispute at the List of George Franklin Barber works article, and there was not any editing by me that needs to be considered disruptive. There was, rather, just me productively developing and another editor tearing down, presumably to make some point which escapes me, and seeming to bring about a censure upon me now by new grounds of edit warring only when all other recent arguments have failed.

(P.S. Aside: Thank you, SarekOfVulcan, for this edit fixing archiving of the recent wp:AN discussion, which i only just noticed your having done, resolving one issue. )

--doncram 19:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Thank you for the wall'o'text. Be advised that against all odds, I read it completely. Nevertheless ... see you next week (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not sure I'm following your logic or your reading of WP:EW. This morning, you added a work list/scratchpad to the main article at List_of_George_Franklin_Barber_works. At 13:45 this was removed with the comment "no temporary work sections in mainspace". You then restored the scratch pad four times, at 14:05, 14:14, 14:35, and 14:45. Your contention is that since you were restoring your work list, it does not count as a revert of another editor's action? Kuru (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're asking seriously, what i meant was as follows. In those edits i did restore that "scratch pad" and further i continued with substantial positive changes to the article, mostly transferring information out of the scratch pad, in a process that was going to conclude in pretty short order. The exact diff from SarekOfVulcan's first removal to my last addition is this diff, which created one and improved 12 permanent entries in the list. As announced at Talk, i was gonna proceed with the clear revisions then post any unresolved issues to the Talk page. I did not undo "another editor's work"; there was no work present in the other editor's removals of the scratch pad. You used different language "undo another editor's action" just now, when the 3RR rule is about "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part,...". I think the distinction is substantial and that I was not removing any work. Hey, obviously i was building, trying to get through the merger, which obviously was adding some value to the article; SarekOfVulcan was simply interrupting; I don't believe there is any wikipedia policy "no scratch pads temporarily in mainspace", and certainly no such policy was pointed out to me, and I believe my approach was reasonable under the circumstances (that the other reasonable merger process i discussed at Talk was abruptly terminated by Orlady, all-too-interested here). I hope that answers your question. --doncram 21:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• So you're immune from being wacked for edit-warring because, what, edit-warring only applies to arguing over content that has been explicitly forbidden? Ironholds (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

From previous experience at 3RR, specifically in Dec 2009 (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive119#User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: Negotiation)), I have been under the belief that there is a valid distinction between completely tearing-down type edits, vs. building edits. That Dec 2009 case involved me developing an article, and another editor interrupting to redirect it to another topic, and was a repeat of some other instances with the same editor. I opened the 3RR report and, late in the discussion, stated there:

To respond to EdJohnston, I don't think I have gone past 3RR. I was developing an article, using newly online-available source, in accordance with all agreements and general Wikipedia policies, and even gave a courtesy announcement that I would be meeting all terms of all agreements. P would have been aware already that I was developing various other New London NRHP articles to include HABS pics so that they would be illustrated, and this is one where HABS pics are available (and in fact one such pic has been added). In all or most of the edits I made, I was seriously developing the article, not reverting to one fixed previous version. You can tell me that R's for 3RR counting purposes are counted differently than I suppose, or that as a general matter you can't distinguish between tearing-down-type edits vs. constructive-building-type edits, but the honest facts are that I was editing/building, and finding out to my surprise that P was tearing down/destroying.

No one disagreed with that, and the result of the 3RR incident was the other editor accepted a 6 month editing restriction.

This case is quite the same, IMO, and I didn't recall exactly this Dec 2009 incident, but my reasoning was the same as I continued with editing. Honestly i pretty much regarded SarekOfVulcan's edits as useless, wp:POINTY interruptions. As I have indicated, I have given SarekOfVulcan plenty of attention in responding in writing to multiple challenges he's posed at wt:NRHP and elsewhere. This, posed only in the form of an interrupting edit with an edit summary, just seemed like one more random objection to me, that would be resolved soon enough by completing out the merger of information. Again keep in mind that SarekOfVulcan was following my edits and raising objections, not the other way around. I would appreciate if you could see your way to concede, Ironholds, that there is a difference in the types of edits, of building vs. interrupting. Do you seriously see both as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing?

More directly to your question, I do not believe that "edit-warring only applies to arguing over content that has been explicitly forbidden". But here, there was no real content disagreement. My edits were in fact being accepted then and now by Bms4880's following edits, and the information i added is staying in the article (which has been unprotected). SarekOfVulcan has no objection, in fact, to any of the changes that I was making, AFAIK; his only possible point is that he objected to how I was proceeding in getting to the goal, and indeed there is no policy that says an editor can't post a UC sign and proceed as I was doing. I was/am getting fed up with the manufactured objections. Or, do you see any content issue that was questionable? He did not dispute anything at Talk page, nor did anyone else, though I actually had anticipated possible objection to the wikilink redlinks being set up. --doncram 22:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I was asking seriously. Revert is defined four times on the policy page; I use "action" since it is in two of the definitions, the other two being "effects" and "work". All of these seem clear in intent. From a practical matter, it would be impossible to ever remove anything from an article if one editor was given exemption since they "added" something, so becoming confused over the meaning of "work" seems odd. I don't see Sarek's reason for removing the list as unreasonable. That would have been a good time to start a conversation, but not to start an edit war. This seems clearer to me, thanks for expanding on your logic. Kuru (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

On 20 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Working Girls' Vacation Society Historic District, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Working Girls' Vacation Society Historic District in rural Connecticut is a site where thousands of New York City women were given summer vacations during 1892 to 1945? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Don,

Re the position on dab terms I expressed here a year and a half ago (I see you moved over that one, but I don't feel like fighting it), you might (while you wait for your block to expire) find this edit of mine mildly amusing. Yes, apparently there's a same-named cemetery on Long Island, so even though that's a redlink (and I'm not even sure if it's on the Register) I acceded to the use of the town, because it would be necessary there. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nom forms for a great many of the NRHP sites in Nebraska are online at the Nebraska State Historical Society's website. The main site is here; from it, you can follow the link to the appropriate county. They haven't got them all up yet, but the one for Wallace W. Waterman Sod House is here. The one for Jackson-Einspahr Sod House isn't up yet, but you could probably get it by e-mailing the NSHS: the National Register coordinator is Jessie Nunn, [email protected]

Look forward to seeing the expanded articles; let me know if there's anything I can do on the ground to help. I see you've got a photo of the Waterman house (good work, User:Smallbones!); if you get the nom form for the Jackson-Einspahr house in the next week or so, send me a copy and I'll try to figure out where it is and then run over to Adams County and photograph it.

--Ammodramus (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have started a discussion concerning articles you created at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs. Fram (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

On a lighter note, I stumbled across this site, which you might find of interest. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, scroll to the bottom, that'll help. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like an interesting site, about Prairie school architecture, akin to what can be done in Wikipedia, but done well by a private individual. And we in wikipedia could systematically link to that site's nice pics, e.g. this subpage about Boynton house in Rochester, NY. What do you mean to refer me to at the bottom? Maybe you meant the by state links? Or I am afraid i might be missing the lighter side of what you mean. --doncram 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I did mean the individual state links. I took some photos up in Jax yesterday, and was checking to see if I got the right buildings. Found the site in the process. It's not a reliable source, per se, but could prove useful as a starting point to find out more about buildings. Later! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I need to impress the following points onto you:

• My infobox generator creates infoboxes. In-fo-box-es. It doesn't generate articles. I don't know why you continue to tell people that I'm generating articles that are inferior to what you generate, because I'm not in the business of generating articles.
• If you want to complain about the kind of output that my infobox generator delivers, or about the fact that my system translates the "architect" field in the NRIS database into the "architect" field in the infobox, then there's a separate section to complain about that in the WP:AN thread. If you really want to review my behavior and my edits and my generator, complain THERE. Go ahead and tell all the world what I've done wrong. But do it in a separate section, not here and here and here and here and here and especially here, where you asserted that I didn't really know when the Floyd B. Olson House was built. I'm getting really sick and tired of your complaints about my infobox generator. Like I said before, you're using my query tools and infobox generator to defend your own conduct.
• No matter how much you complain about my infobox generator and my query tools, it doesn't excuse your responsibility for writing statements such as, "It was built and/or designed and/or has other significance in 1922, 1936, and 1945. See the National Register nomination form dated ____ __, ____, with __ photos and __ documentation pages."
• If you aren't even using my infobox generator and query tools any more, then it's long since time for you to stop complaining about them. If some other editor is using my query tools to generate articles like "architect = x", where "x" is really a builder or engineer, then maybe you should ask that editor about it, not me. Or, if some other editor uses my infobox generator to say that the date built is the first significant year, where it actually isn't, then you should take up that complaint with the other editor, not me. The alternative is for me to stop providing the infobox generator at all, and that would be a very unpopular proposal.

You need to address the criticisms and the complaints being leveled against you and your editing behaviors. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Don... I know you have tried to explain this to me before... and I thought I understood... but your recent comments makes me wonder if I really do, so I will ask your patience to explain it to me again.

What exactly is the difference between the nrhp.focus website and the NRHP database? I think I understand what you mean when you say that the search engine isn't the database... but am I correct in thinking that the nrhp.focus website's search engine accesses the database? I have been assuming that the information that displays when you conduct a search on the nrhp.focus website (once you get to the actual property page) comes from the database... but perhaps that assumption is incorrect. Does it in fact come from some other source? Also, is there information that is in the database that is not displayed on the pages generated by the nrhp.focus website search engine? If so, what sort of information is it?

Thanks Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I may be incorrect, but I think the distinction that's being drawn is that when you link to the database, it's like linking to a PDF -- given the access tools, you know how to look up the data in it. When you link to the search page, you're saying "Go here, and type this in, and click here, and when it comes back, click again" -- it's a process, not a product. If I'm off here, Doncram, feel free to bump me in the right direction. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In the previous discussions about Masonic buildings, I had used NRIS data that could not be obtained by inquiry at the Focus search screen. Focus being down now makes it hard to compare exactly. Will comment at wt:NRHP which is where this conversation comes from, i guess. --doncram 20:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine... it definitely would help me to better understand the distinctions between the website and the database if you could give an example of the kind of data/information that can be found on the database and not found on the forum website... I figured you would be a good person to ask (being familiar with both). No huge rush, however... We can continue the conversation (either here, at my talk page, or at wt:NHRP) once focus is up and running again. Thanks again. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 00:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

• The articles were Charles M. Robinson and Marion M. Steen Courcelles 00:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Um, Courcelles, I think for a moment you might have incorrectly perceived equal blame in what was going on there. There's a balancing act to play in how a person is to respond to unreasonable-seeming edits; i have accepted many many following edits by SarekOfVulcan in recent weeks without edit warring; these 2 cases were seeming to be unreasonable and perhaps goading / prodding in spirit. I do understand that edit warring applies more broadly than to exceeding 3RR. But what is a regular editor to do when a following administrator is seeming both unreasonable in edits and not communicating adequately, seeming to be willing to run up reverts? I don't think I could have raised a successful edit warring request if SarekOfVulcan did not exceed 3rr, do you? I don't see what is reasonable to ask me to do, differently than asking me to discuss (which I did) and not exceed 3RR (and I did not, not even after SarekOfVulcan was blocked and I was not, i just provided some further information at Talk page of one of the articles, acceding to removal of one item, and noting i would not change anything for 24 hours).
  • In your edit at wp:AN3] you assert equal blame, that"doncram was edit warring just as much as Sarek". Apparently while u were editing here, I was putting in a clarifying note just before your post at wp:AN3. There coulda been a temporary misunderstanding for you, based on MikeWazowski's post to which i barely got in a reply before your note there. I think there is a significant difference between SarekOfVulcan's editing, which resulted in his version of both articles being left in place before I raised the issue at 3rrnb, vs. mine, and between my actual attempt to discuss any dispute at Talk pages and at 3rrnb, vs. his terse remarks.
  • Upon seeing the current consequence that SarekOfVulcan is blocked for 40 hours and I am blocked for 3 weeks, it looks rational maybe for SarekOfVulcan to take this on, especially if, say, he knew he was going to be off-wiki for a day or two anyhow. It . As he noted (taunted?) in edit summary, I would be scrutinized too. This seems not fair. --doncram 01:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Why don't you spend the three weeks off reading up on some National Register nomination forms and planning out how you're going to thoroughly expand some of your stubs, instead of litigating on your talk page forever? A lot of the North Dakota articles could use expansion, and the forms are online. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Certainly i may do other things. The North Dakota articles all have NRHP noms linked, where available, yes, because I put them into the articles.

Editor MikeWazowski has twice now asserted that SarekOfVulcan's edits at Marion Steen did not exceed 3RR. That is incorrect. wp:3RR states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." I was lectured about this in the last block of me and SarekOfVulcan, which was in a case where we both exceeded 3RR in those terms, though I argued i was improving while he was simply destroying. SarekOfVulcan certainly read that, then, in #May 2011 block above, and is fully aware of the policy. SarekOfVulcan 4 times removed the same material. A first edit removing material is not a freebie, is not "just an edit", and should not be a privilege of an administrator.

Also, all 4 of SoV's edits in both pages seemed obviously destructive of the wikipedia to me (although later I acknowledged there was one item within SarekOfVulcan's removals of about 30 items on one of the page that had merit, but which he had not deigned to explain clearly). SarekOfVulcan also blocked me not long ago, for reasons that I could not fathom and he did not deign to respond to questions about (which I complained about in the SarekOfVulcan 2nd RFA, since then). I don't think he gets that his cryptic dismissals often do not communicate, and he needs to actually discuss things. I can't tell the difference between his cryptic, unjustified dismissals (e.g. this, insulting sequence, where he illogically assumed I was incompetent) vs. his edits that do have some point of validity in them. I invited and got another editor's comment at one of the two Talk pages, regarding 3 lines that I myself removed from the very first draft. SarekOfVulcan did not get any other editor's endorsement of his radical removals, before he removed the material 4 times in both cases.

It does not seem fair that SarekOfVulcan's aggressive, badgering-type, essentially unexplained, removals going over 3RR seem to be regarded as equal to my under-3RR restorations of information in articles that I was developing, that I explained, well enough, at the Talk pages. --doncram 19:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks ("insulting," "aggressive", "badgering") are not exactly likely to help get you unblocked. --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Orlady, as you know I have requested that you not post to my Talk page. I expressed this again in recent wp:AN discussion, since which time you have several times now disrespected my wishes and posted here anyhow. I simply removed 2 other postings of yours here. Please refrain from further disrespecting me in this way. --doncram 20:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI: If you wish to continue to participate in the ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs while you are blocked, you can do so... you have to post your comments here on your talk page, and add an {{adminhelp}} tag, asking for the comment to be copied over. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Doncram. I was going through the list of recently created articles in WP:NRHP and came across Robinson-Hiller House. I just wanted to say that something like this is more than acceptable for the project. Sure, it's a very short stub, but it's written in a very nice manner, and it has concise, factual, unambiguous language in it. If all of the stubs you created were of this quality, I don't think nearly as many people would have anything negative to say about you or the articles you create. As has been said many times before and is evidenced by this stub, you are definitely capable of better quality work than the sub-par stubs you so vigorously defend. I would like to see more of this!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I second that. Very nice! - Station1 (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

All in favor say Aye... the Ayes have it... as a stub it is (to my mind) quite acceptable. The only thing that was missing was a brief comment to explain the "Hiller" part of the name (I have added it). Would I like to see more than just a stub? Absolutely ... but, as a stub, it was one of your better ones. Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Me, too. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ThreeBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Hi Doncram. This is just a courtesy notification that I undertook a major expansion of your original Wiki article Masonic Temple (Kirksville, Missouri) today. I'm from the area and so was able to track down some good reliable sources. Soon as can I'll try to have someone photograph the building for me and add those pics as well. QUESTION -- Would you have any problems with renaming the article "Kirksville Masonic Temple (Kirksville, Missouri)? Just food for thought. Reasoning: if someone here on Wikipedia or else with a search engine like Google goes looking for info they'd seem to me more likely to enter a title like Kirksville Masonic Temple. I'm not going to change it yet. Just wanted to get some opinions on it. Thanks, and have a great Wiki kind of day! Sector001 (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC) (please reply on my page. Thnx)

The article Liberty Hill, Tennessee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is just one of 10 places named "Liberty Hill" that are listed in GNIS as populated places in Tennessee. The name does not appear on any of the maps I've consulted. The article appears to have been created based solely on the community name given in the NRIS database as the location of Liberty Hill School. No point in keeping articles about every dot on the map that once had a name.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Since you currently can't edit the page, you may comment here if you disagree. Orlady (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

On 19 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fred Brinkman, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that more than ten works by Kalispell, Montana, architect Fred Brinkman have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been asked to make sure that you are aware that the AN discussion concerning you has been closed and archived, and can now be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs. In particular, I have determined that there is a consensus that certain edits of yours in relation to said stubs are disruptive; accordingly, you will be liable to be blocked for disruptive editing should you continue to make this kind of edits after the current block expires. T. Canens (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

On 23 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles M. Robinson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Charles M. Robinson was the College Architect for the College of William and Mary and designed more than 15 buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and encouragement on many NRHP efforts. I am on vacation, but hope to find you editing when I return.KudzuVine (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I trust that you are aware that when you restored List of American Legion buildings to article space from your user space before fixing the question marks and blanks (e.g., "19__"), you were engaging in one of the types of editing referred to in T. Canens' comment above. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I suggest you nominate the list-article for deletion in a proper AFD, to garner wider attention. Orlady, your comments are not welcome here in general. The list-article is a fine article, and I hope others will add to it. --doncram 20:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As the filled-in content is acceptable, there's no current need to move the article to userspace. However, I have removed the non-filled-in content and placed it on the talkpage until the problems have been addressed, per T. Canen's directive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm, SarekOfVulcan, i expect you are trying to help somehow. But I don't think your eviscerating the table under development, to make an unreadable mess on the Talk page, is a help. There have been plenty of list-articles developed from states like the recent version of that list-article, labelled under construction. I have never seen anyone think they were helping by removing many of the items of such a list. I'll pause for comment here, but expect to restore and continue to develop the article. SarekOfVulcan, I hope you will seriously consider trying not to make the editing environment unacceptable. I hope you do believe that I am a constructive editor, who has in general always tried to be constructive. In general I think that you are likewise. I don't know how to respond constructively to Orlady, who has, IMO harassed me for many years now. --doncram 23:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The only other option to "evisceration" might be to take the entire thing back to userspace until it is completed. Would that be better for you, D? Somehow I doubt it.

BTW, you will be pleased to hear that I have been developing one of your stubs. Not much because of source limitations, but a bit nonetheless - Green Leaves. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WPA architecture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPA architecture until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD was closed as keep. Thank you to voices of reason in that process. --doncram 21:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

...none of which actually answered the question, what _is_ WPA architecture?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry the article is not yet extremely helpful. It is established that the topic is notable, but the article is not well-developed yet. By the way, thanks SarekOfVulcan for not making negative edits in the article under your AFD nomination. I find it confusing and pretty unhelpful when others do. I noticed your edit in this article and a linked one, and wondered, but saw it was just after the AFD was closed. --doncram 21:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The way the article is written, it suggests that the article's subject is dead (and the timelines would certainly agree with that), but I'm hesitant to place the living=no tag on the talk page if he is in fact alive. If possible, could you help clear up this question? Thank you. - SudoGhost 04:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Died 1957 = dead, per source in article. Thanks for checking, i guess. --doncram 04:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. - SudoGhost 04:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, hmm, actually that is a good question, will try to sort that out. William L. Perkins, another new architect article, is the one i know is dead and i thot u were asking about, sorry. --doncram 04:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems that Linn A. Forrest was quite young when did work that brought him to my attention, as architect of NRHP-listed places in Oregon, and that he must still be alive as there seem to be no reports to the contrary, including at his architectural firm. So he is alive. I have revised the article somewhat to suggest he is alive. Can't find birth date BTW. Thanks for checking. --doncram 04:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In the end it turned out that he was not alive; it was his son of same name surviving, as was resolved at the article. Thanks. --doncram 02:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I came here to send you an FYI template about WP:POINT, and was genuinely surprised to see that based on your editing history, you likely have already read this guideline. In any case, in my opinion the set of articles you just created are not constructive towards resolving the dispute in which you are currently involved, and suggest you consider requesting their speedy deletion per criterion G7. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe you refer to a number of articles now in Category:American Legion buildings which I created towards resolving silly contention about the items being mentioned in List of American Legion buildings. The individual topics are all wikipedia-notable; criteria A7 does not apply; notability is asserted by assertion of their being NRHP-listed. NRHP listing requires that a place be established significant according to objective criteria and to pass through several levels of review by local, state, national officials. Extensive documentation is also available. Issue is done, IMHO. Thanks. --doncram 12:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's at http://www.biblio.com/books/326942891.html, also available from libraries. Since you seem deeply into architecture, I thought you may wish to pursue yourself. —hike395 (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two editors that keep adding unsourced material to article List of Sumerian Records artists with no source and, despite being shown two sources to the their contrary. Can you help? I don't want to get to a 3RR. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not create dab pages consisting solely of redlinks. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding New Era Building, it was a valid dab page, per long discussions in which I think you participated (or have been notified of). Dab pages disambiguate amongst topics, which may be valid redlinks. All-redlink dab pages may appear odd but are okay by consensus. If you wish to discuss again, please open a new discussion at Wikiproject Disambiguation and invite me. Thanks. --doncram 23:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that is completely incorrect. Dab pages consisting solely of redlinks have never been "okay" and have always been subject to speedy deletion to the best of my knowledge. Station1 (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not correct. I'll browse for some past links. --doncram 23:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that is correct. Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts says "Don’t add entries without a blue link."--SarekOfVulcan (talk)

Moved to userspace. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) To remind you: here, exactly on the all-redlinks topic, which i think u didn't participate in and followup soon after, referring to the previous but going off onto other issues, in which you did participate. Shall we go through it all again now? --doncram 23:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should we go through it all again, when the consensus at both was that working this way is highly problematical? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What i said was consensus was the consensus. I suppose you'd have to be more interested in the actual topic to read the consensus properly, in that first discussion. Enough. --doncram 00:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that is correct. Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts says "Don’t add entries without a blue link."--SarekOfVulcan (talk)

(ec) Argh. Sorry S, you're off on a non-issue. Yes, the redlink items do need to have a supporting bluelink, per MOS:DABRL. I agree that the current version of New Era Building dab does not have properly supporting bluelinks for each redlink. I asked the administrator who deleted the page to restore it, which should fix that, or I will fix that soon. There does not need to be an article on each item listed in a dab page. There does need to be a supporting bluelink if the main link is a redlink. S, if you can restore the deleted version, please do. --doncram 23:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Moved to userspace. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, you don't know what you are talking about. Please restore the damn dab page. --doncram 23:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Write the article first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. You don't know what you are talking about, that is some essay, while MOSDAB is policy/guideline. This is about redlink items on dab pages, which are fine. I think there are a number of editors who don't want stub articles to be created everywhere. --doncram 23:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh. Deleting editor provided original text, which was perfectly compliant with policy. Restored. Go away, everyone. Or open a new discussion of policy at wp:disambiguation. I don't want to have a big debate here, about policy issue settled previously and better rehashed there, if someone really wants to rehash it. --doncram 00:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived this, then unarchive. I spoke too soon. SarekOfVulcan has again removed the dab page, though it is valid with supporting bluelinks and all that. Currently at User:Doncram/New Era Building. SarekOfVulcan, think about it a bit, then i would appreciate if you would just move it back. --doncram 00:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Reason on this silly issue eventually prevailed, although at cost of a lot of editor attention and angst. Dab page as originally created, at New Era Building, was restored. Was discussed at ANI. Eventually final discussion was at Talk:New Era Building (New York City)#Requested move, closed by editor Vegaswikian. --doncram 15:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the action of a bot, not a person. --TimL (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I've moved the discussion about this to my talk page from the bot's requests page. Hope you don't mind. - EdoDodo ^talk 03:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Unfortunately this user does not seem to grasp what "automated processes" are (as I see form previous discussions). I would love to help explain, but he does not seem interested. --TimL (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are speaking about me, TimL, then I think you're being deliberately rude, and I don't know what your problem is. At the Talk page linked to from a bot, i posted a comment. I have since then not observed problem edits of the type that I feared, so I did not follow up. I don't know you at all. You don't know me at all, much less about what i understand about running bots. This is my Talk page. If I have misunderstood something and you are somehow not being deliberatly rude, please explain. Otherwise please don't post here again. --doncram 23:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Did your comment give any indication that you understood the actions were on behalf of a bot and not a human? No. I'm not being rude, I'm being reasonable. But as it seems to be your perception that I'm being rude, I won't post here again. --TimL (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your move of New Era Building to New Era Building (New York City) because:

1. There is currently no other article needing this name so disambiguation is inappropriate per WP:AT.

2. Even if another article is written about the two current redlinks, this will still be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If another article is created, a hatnote should be placed on New Era Building per WP:TWODABS. If two other articles are written, either a hatnote pointing to both or, alternatively, New Era Building (disambiguation) should be created.

3. Obviously contentious moves should be proposed at WP:RM. If you propose a move and there is consensus for it, problems are avoided. Please do not move again without first establishing consensus. Thank you. Station1 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss at the wp:AN discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#New Era Building. I guess you are not aware of that. I opened request for the move there in lieu of at wp:RM, because of context of edit warring / contention already established, which this further move by you further develops. Please do comment at AN. --doncram 20:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What the hell were you thinking with your edits to Isabella Ranger Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I know you're desperately trying to preserve United States Forest Service Architecture Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from deletion, but in this edit, you're accusing me (yet AGAIN) of lying in an infobox.

Listen up: I actually WENT to the Minnesota Historical Society's State Historic Preservation Office and pulled the nomination form from their files to write this article. If the form had listed an architect, I probably would have included it in the article. In any case, your edit summary saying that the CCC architect/builder listing was "probably false" and that the design was "more plausibly" done by the USFSAG is an example of sloppy editing, wild guesswork, or perhaps outright maliciousness on your part. If you have some information that definitively states that architects from the USFSAG were involved, maybe you should get a citable reference to that. In fact, why don't you call the State Historic Preservation Office yourself? The number is 651-259-3000, Tuesday through Friday.

Oh, and check out the Fall 2006 Minnesota Preservation Planner, which very clearly states that the buildings were built by the CCC.

Besides, here's something to think about: There were hundreds of CCC projects going on around the country during the years it was active. Do you really think that the individual architects of the USFSAG would have written up individual plans for each and every ranger station? They may have propagated standard plan books or something along those lines, but given that rustic architecture usually involved using local materials, it seems like a big stretch to assume that the USFSAG designed buildings that aren't specifically accredited to them. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Elkman. Elkman's comments here are off the mark, not acknowledging that Elkman's generator provides incorrect information in many cases because he mislabels architects+builders+engineers all as architects alone. Indeed the CCC did build the Isabella Ranger Station. Evidence is that it did not design it. --doncram 14:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent research and writing about Forest Service architects piqued my interest in seeing whether there were important Forest Service architects in California - Region 5. I came across Keplar B. Johnson. Thought you might be interested. Cbl62 (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for that and more! And nice article, it is good to be letting California about its history. --doncram 14:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that there would be greater value in combining the Sacred Heart Catholic Church and Sacred Heart church into a single page -- probably Sacred Heart Church. There was already cross-over between the two lists. I went ahead and added the entries from SHCC to SHc so that SHc now has all the information. If you agree, the SHCC article should probably be made into a redirect to SHC. I'd also support moving Sacred Heart church to Sacred Heart Church, but I don't know if there's a policy/practice on church vs. Church. Cbl62 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another example where some clean up work is probably needed. The Odd Fellows had meeting halls that have been variously described and categorized into multiple overlapping disambiguation pages, including Odd Fellows Hall, IOOF Building, Odd Fellows Building, Odd Fellows Lodge, Odd Fellows Temple, Independent Order of Odd Fellows Hall. These are all describing the same category of buildings. Wouldn't it be a lot cleaner and clearer to have a single disambiguation page and have the others redirect to the main disambiguation page? Cbl62 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Knights of Pythias Building disambiguation page seems to be a model for collecting the related entries for IOOF buildings in a single place. Do you agree? Cbl62 (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think i am responsible both for the consolidated Knights of Pythias related disambiguation, and also for the system of related pages on Odd Fellow disambiguation, which seemed to make sense to me once. It was later that i decided that List of Odd Fellows buildings and List of Knights of Pythias buildings could be done, and did them, which is more important IMO. I dunno about changing stuff, as I guess i hope most that the disambiguation is set up and done. It's subjective about how to split up or merge dab topics, and less important now that there are the list-articles covering all related items. If you have energy to consider redoing the disambiguation pages, I guess that can be done. There are actually some people who do watch dab pages sometimes, so a proposal to merge can be made like for other pages. --doncram 03:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Anselm's Church (Lafayette, California) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Anselm's Church (Lafayette, California) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That one not yet closed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Hall (Long Beach, Mississippi) closed Keep however.

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPA architecture closed keep.

RM on New Era Building dab, at Talk:New Era Building still pending. Not sure what else in AFDs recently opened still are open. --doncram 03:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

See my note on the Melick talk page. I think this one is a mistake. Cbl62 (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Don -- The questions about this one were sufficiently serious that I went ahead and userfied it to User:Doncram/Neal A. Melick until issues resolved. Given the seriousness of the potential error, better safe than sorry on this one. Let me know what sourcing there is other than the NRHP database field (which could mean "engineer" rather than "architect") there is that suggests Melick was the architect on any of these. Cbl62 (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention on this. The NRIS database info is only that Neal A. Melick is an architect, builder or engineer associated with a number of NRHP-listed places. It was my error to infer that he was an architect, which I did because I noted repeated co-association with architect Louis A. Simon for many places, seemingly like other pairs of architects who work together sometimes. This is rare: I can only think of one other NRIS-mentioned person who turned out to be an engineer (an engineer who is associated with one of the Cass Gilbert-designed warehouses in New York City). I will keep on the lookout for other Supervising Engineers who served before or after Melick, in association with Louis A. Simon or other heads of the Office of the Supervising Architect (Simon was apparently the last, the office ran to 1939).

About Melick, I have update the article draft somewhat, but I have not yet found biographical info about him. Can you possibly find if there is an obituary for him in the historical New York Times? I don't seem to have convenient access to that right now. Thanks either way. --doncram 13:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I searched last night and could not find an obituary on Melick on any other piece in google books or google news archive that was written about him. Mostly just the occasional passing reference to his being the supervising architect. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How come you couldn't be bothered to add the picture to National Bank of Washington, Washington Branch? The picture is already there, right in the list, but somehow you didn't see fit to add it. Are you waiting for me to program some generator that does that part of the work for you? I already responded to your bullying about the architect vs. builder field in the infobox. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, when you have time, could you pop by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ThreeBot and let us know if you would like this request to remain open please? SQL^{Query me!} 08:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

any Fisher & Fisher combinations that makes sense to you. My neighbor is a Fisher descendent and is setting up an interview with Alan Fisher's daughter for me. It might take a while, and this is considered by some to be the dreaded original research, but I hope that this will be okay with you. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Disruptive_behavior_at_Charles_L._Thompson. You may wish to respond. --Orlady (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For spurring Elkman to get rid of the generator. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Some people are saps for believing what others just make up. Elkman can and does make his own decisions. Nyttend, you are partly responsible for inflaming the situation too, IMHO. I enjoyed being friends, or at least friend-like with you, Nyttend, over a long time as we worked together on good stuff, and I am not happy that at some point you seemed to have flicked a judgment switch. --doncram 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy working productively with people who try to edit in a collegial manner; like many others, I have become weary of your remarks about others. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Doncram, 1 August 2011. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 Months for continued actions which disrupt the project - see [2] and several previous WP:ANI reports in June and July. I recommend that you reflect on why the community sees your editing as problematic, and decide what you can do to avoid this in future.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject National Register of Historic Places for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Disambiguation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)