User talk:Polaron/Archive2

CT state roads

Hey. Are the CT state roads notable enough to be listed on the numerical dab pages (such as List of highways numbered 801)? A user has been adding them en masse, and I'm not sure it's worth mentioning them there. They also added some NY reference routes and other unsigned routes, which I've removed. If you don't think the CT state roads are worth mentioning, I'll remove them as I see them. TIA. – TMF 03:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think these unsigned state roads should be listed in the dab pages as these roads are never known by their route number. They should probably be removed. --Polaron | Talk 05:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

sneaky behavior

Are you trying to pull a fast one, by revising several NRHP list articles to link to village articles rather than NRHP topics? It looks like you are trying to avoid split/merge decisions by consensus. There is no way that the NRHP list-article should link to something other than the NRHP topic article on a given topic. If there has been a merge by consensus, then the NRHP topic article could possibly be a redirect. Your pipelinking in the NRHP list-article adds no value and simply confuses matters, even if you are not actually trying to pull a fast one.

By the way, are you developing the two CT articles where your preferred merge structure is in place? If not i will certainly proceed to resplit them. Your actions tend to make it seem that you only seek to cause contention where there can be split/merge arguments, rather than actually building under either approach. --doncram (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Summer 2010 USRD newsletter

Volume 3, Issue 2 • Summer 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup News in brief	Features Infobox road upgrade Editing needed near bottom of leaderboard Junction list updates	State and national updates Project reports
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Preston City

I undid your merger of the articles for Preston City, Connecticut and the historic district. I did not think that the merger into the HD article was obvious and uncontroversial -- Preston City has a reality separate from the historic district -- and the merger you implemented had not been discussed. --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So far, the article does not have any content that makes two separate articles necessary. We should redirect to the more developed article in all such cases until significant divergent content is developed. --Polaron | Talk 14:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No. There's nothing wrong with stubs about encyclopedic topics. The existence of this village and the history of this village are an encyclopedic topic. The fact that another user is intensely interested in the architectural details of the village historic district as it existed in 1986, does not make the HD article a good substitute for a stub about the village itself. If you feel strongly that the village article should be merged and redirected to the HD article, please put merger templates on the two articles and start a discussion. --Orlady (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Both architecture and history can easily be described in a single article. This is a very tiny place and there will be tremendous overlap. It is essentially the same topic after all. --Polaron | Talk 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

edit restriction and redirects

By this edit you seem to violate the editt restriction which was imposed upon you / which you accepted some time ago. It is a redirect of an NRHP HD article to a town/village/hamlet article. I also notice at least two other redirects by you of local historic districtt articles that I had started, in this edit and this edit, for Redfield & West Streets Historic District and Fairlawn-Nettleton Historic District articles respectively. There was no merger proposal or discussion at all, just abrupt redirects. I restored them and you re-redirected them.

The first seems an explicit violation of the terms of your editing restriction, and the other 2 appear to violate the spirit. I don't know, has the editing restriction's term expired? Even if so, i don't think that resumption of exactly the same behavior that led to the editing restriction is warranted. What's going on? --doncram (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

These have no context and should be merged to where people will get a better sense of where it is and what kind of place it is? If you're actively working on them to expand them beyond what is suitable for the neighborhood articles, I'll let it stand. Otherwise, there's no point. --Polaron | Talk 15:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I support Polaron on Hope Valley, but not the two in New Haven.

The Hope Valley merger/split situation had not been discussed in over a year. The HD article had not been touched in 7 months and had not had any substantive edits in 11 months. It still cited the NRHP.com source, including the footnote about the factor of 10 error in acreage. Although it was festooned with an NRHP infobox and navbox, it didn't have any content that wasn't also in the main Hope Valley article. Doncram has been very effective at playing "dog in the manger" with his content-free NRHP stubs, but a dog can't be allowed to sit in the manger forever. (Please note: Although the linked article implies spite as a motive for "dog in the manger," I do not mean to suggest that this is Doncram's motive.)

As for those two New Haven HDs, the possible mergers had not been discussed, and the stub articles (while content-free) included citations to content-rich sources. I restored both of them, for now. --Orlady (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about resumption of a pagttern of edits that contributes to contention and disruption, rather than building wikipedia. The recent edits by Polaroaron seem devoted to contentious-only topics, where Polaron disagrees with existing article structure (separate vs. merged articles), and is now spilling over into Vermont and Rhode Island. It was seeming vaguely productive to have some continuing discussion on Connecticut historic districts, where a certain amount of editor community has developed and might handle the exuberant edits, possibly. And for Connecticut ones, there are NRHP documents available which allow for more intelligent discussion.

Edits merging Warwick Civic Center Historic District into Apponaug, Rhode Island, without discussion, without sources being added, are just same old same old stuff. I reverted those, but i see many more similar on P's contribution list. Polaron, what about your working on actually developing articles where you happen to like the current choice of article structure? That would be appreciated, rather than just focussing on points where you disagree and where there is not a developed editor community to address the issues. I think the edits are unhelpful and will tend to drive away potential local editors who might begin adding photos and other material. --doncram (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's your pattern of reflexively reverting my contributions without regard to the merit that's causing contention. If you stopped reverting me, everything would be fine wouldn't it? --Polaron | Talk 00:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There was some stability in articles that was created in the Poquetanuck agreement and in mediation overseen by User:Acroterion, for a good long while. I thot that was useful, and there has been good development of many articles in Connecticut since then. I have deliberately tried to develop within that agreement and framework, and to develop both regular NRHP articles and NRHP HD ones. Why not focus on what you can do within that framework, first? I get the impression you are seeking only to push the boundaries, i.e. to focus on where there can be contention. I don't think that is productive. I don't want to be an enforcer against your contention-oriented edits, but I encounter them, am concerned by them, and do think they need to be addressed. Is there some part of the whole that you could address, which would not be pushing the boundaries only. --doncram (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You apparently don't care about these articles until I do so I think your problem is me. If you just change your thinking about what I'm trying to do, then all will be fine wouldn't it? I will merge if where there is no development and when it is appropriate to. --Polaron | Talk 02:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Earlier I accused Doncram of dog in the manger behavior, but then I went back to add a caveat clarifying that my inclusion of the link wasn't meant to suggest that his motive was spite. I now wonder if my caveat was excessively charitable. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, i do see your writing here. It seems like you are trying to fine-tune an insult, playing about with disavowing an intent to insult then adding back some more intent. I take it your fundamental accusation with this is that you believe I have been trying to stockpile the topics of NRHP historic districts in various states, and to prevent others from working with them. Sigh. No, my actions are generally consistent with my wish to open the topics for others. Please recall that the contention stems from Polaron, in 2008 and 2009, going around to hundreds of NRHP HD topics that were redlinks in NRHP list-articles, and creating redirects from them to town/village/hamlet articles, and then battled with others besides me. I stumbled into it in mid-2009. I do oppose the wholesale hijacking of the NRHP topics. I do want both to develop better articles, as I do, and to facilitate others doing so in a reasonable environment. I believe that the metaphor you suggest applies rather more directly to Polaron's general role. What is your own role in this? I think you have greatly prolonged and exacerbated the contention. --doncram (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, you're misrepresenting events again. Whenever I see a redlink, my usual course of action is to redirect to an established larger topic. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Now you, thinking that redirects are bad, made boiler-plate stubs with minimal context. Note that in majority of cases, I don't mind that at all. However, I had always maintained that in subtown entities of New England, unless there is development that would make it diverge significantly from the subtown entity article, it is better to discuss them in the context of the subtown entity's historical development. Otherwise, you'll end up with two articles covering the same thing. Instead of doing the sensible thing and develop the articles, you unnecessarily battled to have the boiler-plate stubs stand alone. There is absolutely nothing wrong with merging stubs to where they can be discussed until such a time that independent content becomes too much for the containing topic. In fact, that is one of the suggested reasons when merging must occur. --Polaron | Talk 17:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Polaron, I will say here part of what I said at the ANI Orlady so kindly directed you to. Doncram cannot possibly develop all of the articles that you and everyone else he encounters think her should develop instead of doing________. Fill in the blank with whatever it is about his style that happens to bother you. It's not that he never develops articles, it's that he also develops a framework for others to develop articles. I get that you don't appreciate that, but that doesn't mean that you get to just tear it out. In a wiki everyone is supposed to be allowed to contribute by doing what they are good at and enjoy doing. I'm pretty sure that is meant to be without tearing up the work of others. Stubs are an allowable form of article in Wikipedia. The way to get rid of a stub you don't agree with is to put it up at an AfD. It is not to redirect it out of existence. What a stupid waste of time. I echo your own words and say, why don't you go DEVELOP soemthing instead? Lvklock (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. So why is making the stubs when I am trying to direct interested editors to consolidate everything about that topic to a single location. I am not tearing anything out. When I merge, I merge whatever boiler-plate text existed. Merged articles are an allowable form of article in Wikipedia as well. Merging does not mean they're not in existence. They're just located at a different title. I don't want to delete them. I want to merge them to where the topic can be discussed in full context. --Polaron | Talk 17:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Southport (Conn.) census tract.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Southport (Conn.) census tract.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of possible interest at ANI

Hi. I mentioned your name at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:doncram -- you may (or may not) be interested in the discussion there. --Orlady (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

CDPs?

Is there a list of newly designated "census-designated places" in New England? I see that you've added this term to several articles about places that do not otherwise appear to be CDPs. Were they announced today? You don't cite a source, and I don't know where to start looking... --Orlady (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it's already on the GNIS database. It usually took several months before the GNIS reflected changes in census geography but they updated this one a bit more quickly. --Polaron | Talk 14:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Um... The GNIS database doesn't identify any census-designated places. I'm going to revert these edits -- please don't restore them unless you have a verifiable source. --Orlady (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not correct -- GNIS does indeed identify CDPs in the feature class "Census". For example, see U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Comstock Northwest Census Designated Place. older ≠ wiser 15:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't find them because I searched GNIS by place name for some known CDPs. CDPs aren't listed in GNIS under their normal names, but under names in the form "Blountville Census Designated Place". Still, it appears that Polaron has some other source for edits like his recent contributions at Talk:List of census-designated places in Massachusetts, and it would have been very helpful if he would have taken the time to cite his sources. --Orlady (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Polaron, i notice you have begun a series of edits to community articles recharacterizing them as CDPs, for example this edit to Bascom, Ohio. I think that these are probably not helpful edits as such, or that they could better be undertaken in a way less likely to be confrontational. In that article you changed its lede from it being about an unincorporated community to it being about a CDP. I don't know in particular about Bascom, but in other areas I know that there are differences between a community vs. a CDP that takes the name. Often the CDP includes several unincorporated communities. These edits seem similar to long contention in Connecticut about whether villages and CDPs and historic districts are the same or not; clearly in many cases they are not the same. Also, I am not sure whether your edits include suitable referencing about the CDPs, which should be given upfront. What source are you working from. --doncram (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Polaron apparently has a valid source for those edits that newly identify places as CDPs, but he hasn't shared his source yet. If you look up Bascom, Ohio, in GNIS, you will see that a CDP entry was added in June 2010. That's similar to what I've found for some of the other places where he's made similar edits. My guess is that the story is along the lines of "Bascom is an unincorporated community; it is a census designated place for the purpose of the 2010 Census." However, Wikipedia can't tell that story based solely on those mysterious GNIS entries, and I've yet to see any source(s) for these new CDPs. I wish :Polaron wouldn't be so mysterious about his information sources. --Orlady (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't get how a point location indicator is sufficient for indicating anything meaningful about an area. A big distinction that matters in all the discussions of hamlets/villages/neighborhoods vs. CDPs vs. historic districts is what is the area involved, and to what extent do they overlap. That a CDP centroid point is given does not say anything about an area. I would think the CDP mention, with just GNIS source, might merit a footnote, but would not on its own justify changing articles' ledes to change what the articles are about. Seems like speculation / original research if the GNIS link is over-played. --doncram (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Polaron has discovered the important information that the Census Bureau has identified a whole lot of new CDPs for the 2010 census. I'm glad to see your recognition that the GNIS centroid for the CDP has no particular significance (seems like we argued about that in the past); it appears to me that the only reason for adding it to articles is the fact that GNIS is (thus far) the only identified source that documents these places as CDPs. I personally think it's premature to add that information to articles (particularly to the lead sentence) if a cryptic GNIS entry is the only source for it.

And Polaron has resumed the additions, unchanged, such as with this edit for McDermott, Ohio, changing it similarly. Whether or not GNIS reference asserts something encyclopedic worth mentioning, it does not justify wiping out the article's assertion of the place being an unincorporated community, which P's edit wipes out. --doncram (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, I agree with you: Even if it were sourced, the fact that Census Bureau has decided to compile data for a particular village/community/etc. as a CDP does not suddenly make it necessary to stop referring to that place as a "village" or an "unincorporated community." A CDP designation is data unit (i.e., a statistical abstraction) that is supposed to represent a real-world place; I continue to dislike the long-standing Wikipedia practice of treating a data unit as having more significance than the real-world place it represents. For example, Blountville, Tennessee is one of the oldest "towns" in Tennessee and a county seat. The fact that it is unincorporated is an accident of history (it used to be incorporated, but years ago they dissolved the incorporation due to money problems, and now state law would prohibit its reincorporation because it's "too close" to another city). Because it is unincorporated, the Census Bureau treats it as a CDP, but that does not mean that the CDP (a data unit) is the county seat.

Hope Valley CDP

Please see my comment at Talk:Hope Valley, Rhode Island. --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Brazil population clock

I don't really know how to put this Population Clock in that article and then to make its number to automatically update itself. Do you know how to do that? Guinsberg (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Polaron at 3rrnb

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: ). --doncram (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have declined this report, mainly because it wasn't dealt with until several hours after your last edit and more since your last edit to the relevant article. That said, you did violate the 3RR and the only reason the report was declined was based on a technicality. Please don't make a habit of edit warring—discussion is always key and, if you can't resolve it between yourself and another editor, consider requesting a third opinion. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Per his comment at WP:AN3, HJ Mitchell has re-opened the complaint to allow another admin to consider it. It appears to me that both parties have edit-warred, and sanctions ought to be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Prospect Hill (New Haven)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Prospect Hill (New Haven). 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: Both 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring noticeboard

Another report filed against you by an editor here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72h for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I reverted only twice and mentioned the source of the information in the edit summary of the second revert. The lack of a source appears to be the reason why the other use reverted me in the first place and I have already addressed that concern in the second revert.

Decline reason:

You don't have to break 3RR to be edit warring. Considering your misuse of Twinkle (for which I'm removing your access to the tool, by the way) and your block not one week ago, this seems justified. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:17, 14 September 2010 (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.

(ec) Polaron: I'm not interested in the number of reverts, I'm interested in the fact that you came right off a 48 hour block for edit warring and started doing it again on multiple articles. When you return, please consider minding WP:BRD and you'll do much better. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What multiple articles? I listed the source I was using for my edits when I reinstated my changes. I am not edit warring. The Twinkle thing was a mistake -- I accidentally clicked on the wrong entry because my browser was acting very slow. I immediately reverted my self. Please let another admin review. --Polaron | Talk 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Stamford, Connecticut and National Register of Historic Places listings in Greenwich, Connecticut, for a start. You make a bold edit, you are reverted, and then you are supposed to discuss. You don't keep reverting, even if you put a source in your edit summary where it doesn't belong anyway. But I don't suspect I really need to tell you this, given how long you've been editing here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I see, so even if I put the source, I should not restore the information? Good to know.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not edit warring. I listed the source for the information when asked.

Decline reason:

Your second statement is not a justification for your first statement. TNXMan 19:42, 14 September 2010 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't understand the reason for the decline in the unblock. I'm not edit warring. I listed the source that was being asked for after I was reverted again.

Decline reason:

The reason for the decline is that you are not addressing the reason for your block. You were previously blocked, and when you returned from that, you continued with the same behaviour. That is the reason for the block, and the reason which you need to address. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:12, 14 September 2010 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't get the animosity toward me here. I didn't edit war. I was reverted supposedly for not having a source. I listed the source I used instead of just reverting again. Please try to see this from my side.

Decline reason:

There is zero animosity towards you - merely your actions. You also continue to fail to read WP:EW, and most importantly WP:GAB. If you had read either, then you might have actually submitted an unblock request that actually met the requirements, and actually discussed the reason for your block. As such, you've reached the line: if I see another unblock request that does not address the reason for your block and show that you understand WP:EW (and how you were actually edit-warring), I will remove access to your talkpage for the duration of this block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:02, 15 September 2010 (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.

Regarding Twinkle, by the way, I do see that you had reverted yourself in the instance I pointed out - thank you - however, you were still using Twinkle to edit war in several other cases: [1] [2] [3] [4] This is not what the tool is intended to be used for, and so it will remain disabled for you for the time being. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Those first two are not for edit warring but for reverting unsourced changes to statistics. The List of countries by population is subject to lots of random little changes that are not line keeping with the well-established list criteria. The last two I used an edit summary but I suppose you're technically correct there. --Polaron | Talk 22:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Polaron for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Orlady (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Please note that as you are blocked for the next 10 or so hours, you cannot edit there at the moment - you can either wait for your block to expire, or leave a message here which can be copied to the SPI page - I have left a message explaining that this account is currently blocked. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The autoblockfinder says you are not blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

But my IP address is still blocked. --Polaron | Talk 12:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any autoblocks associated with user Polaron or either of the two users named in the sockpuppetry case. Are you still getting autoblock messages? --Orlady (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Polaron. You have new messages at Rigel0's talk page.
Message added 04:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

edit warring pattern in multiple articles, about neighborhoods

In new edits at 5 Connecticut town or village or hamlet articles, you added unsourced content about neighborhoods and sections. You saw that i reversed 3 of those edits with edit summary "unsourced" (i note you made later edits in one of the 3), then you went on to do two more, which i have now also reversed.

Polaron, this has the appearance of your engaging in edit warring across articles. You are not so far making multiple edits of the same type at any one article, but the type of edit has been challenged by me now as being unhelpful, and I consider your replicating it in many articles as a form of edit warring. It is just like your rapidly expanding the scope of contention about NRHP historic districts vs. CT town/village/hamlet/neighborhood articles a year ago, by your making the same confrontational redirects in many articles, once challenged in a few articles.

I imagine you may have some wonderful source which you are withholding, perhaps hoping for me to extend myself in asserting your edits are invalid, so that you can then eventually come out and "prove me wrong" by eventually providing the source. Please don't do that. Would you please comment on what you are doing. Would you please discuss here what are your sources for all of these, and whether/how you will provide sourcing or desist in your editing on this topic. Otherwise I expect this to be considered new evidence of general patterns of edit warring type behavior on your part.

I am giving you a courtesy to open this discussion at your Talk page. I think you are already starting off on the wrong foot, in provoking this, however. --doncram (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, master, I should just stop editing. I am sorry. Please revert all my edits and block me again. Thank you. --Polaron | Talk 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Never too late to repair vandalism

Congratulations on repairing this instance of vandalism -- amazing that it went undetected for nearly two years! --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Merritt Parkway

The bridge that carried the railroad over the Merritt Parkway along the Pequonnock River has a 1935 construction date on it. Why does this bridge show up in the list as demolished when it's still there?Tomticker5 (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're seeing it as listed as demolished. In the Bridges of the Merritt Parkway, the notation is that the bridge was replaced, so there is a bridge still there. In any case, it isn't listed as a contributing structure on the NRHP nomination form. --Polaron | Talk 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)