User:Smallbones/Archive 3

I've nominated Nancy Chang, which you started, and I expanded, as a possible DYK. Crossing my fingers (first time I've tried this, so hopefully I did it right.) Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why I was named in the investigation. I am only a university student on holiday and I have always followed the rules. Please tell me about this. What is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnery Sgt. Jethro Gibbs (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

:No clue, I thought maybe you could tell me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

::I live in a residence hall with many other students. In this situation we have very little privacy, so the bit of privacy we have is very important. All of us share the same IP address. Only one of us edited the article that concerns you. Is there anything else you need to know?

:::I'm surprised that you care about it. After all, you've only made 5 edits to articles, plus 2 here and one to the SP investigation. I'd think if you have anything to say to anybody, it would be best to go to the page User:DeltaQuad, click on the link there in the left-hand column that says "Email this user" and send him an email with everything that you want to say. In any case I don't think you can get hurt if you have nothing to hide. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the Bennett Greenspan article and comment on its review? Many thanks. --RebekahThorn (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=563172477 your edit] to White Sea – Baltic Canal may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just [{{fullurl:White Sea – Baltic Canal|action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+typo+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3ABracketBot%7CBracketBot%5D%5D}} edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}§ion=new my operator's talk page].

:List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *Yakov Davidovich Rappoport {{red|(}}:ru:Раппопорт, Яков Давидович, deputy chief of the BBK Construction Directorate

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

{{tmbox

|style = notice

|small =

|image = Image:Updated DYK query.svg

|text = On 7 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nancy T. Chang, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that biochemist Nancy Chang (pictured) became interested in biology after reading James Watson's book on the discovery of the double helix? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nancy T. Chang. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, [http://stats.grok.se/en/201307/Nancy_T._Chang quick check]) and it will be added 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.

}}  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your inquiry. Here is what I know.

• I looked for some reference information I put into Talk:Scott_Prouty, and I found that someone had deleted not only the reference information I put into Talk:Scott_Prouty but also had deleted the whole page Scott Prouty -- even though there was a Keep decision after a whole [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scott_Prouty AfD debate].
• Since I don't have time to watch over the Scott Prouty page to make sure that those who want to delete Scott Prouty don't cheat and get their way anyway, I thought it would be best to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012&diff=prev&oldid=563239524 remove the self-referencing link] that just points back to the text that contains the link.
• I trust your judgment. If you like the self-referencing link that I removed, I will not feel offended in the least if you revert my removal of the self-referencing link. I appreciate your diligence and your artistic judgment in this matter.
• In the words of Mark Twain, I apologize belatedly for not having time to write to you a concise and short explanation of the situation.

Thank you again.

--- Rednblu (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for restoring Scott Prouty --- Rednblu (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Smallbones, I want to make sure I have the best email address from you for the FDC Advisory Group, as I'm not sure if you've received the emails. Can you kindly let me know which address to use? Many thanks! KLove (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Looked at your userpage just now for the first time, and I found the no-parking signs amusing. One of them looked familiar — if you go to the spot where I took :File:First Baptist Church in Goodland, Indiana.jpg and walk around the corner, you'll see another "Thou Shalt Not Park Here" sign. I'd never seen another until looking at your userpage :-)
2. I've repeatedly tried to view videos such as :File:WoMS Adamstown PA.webm, but apparently my computer doesn't have the software necessary for processing .webm files. What would you recommend I use? Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

:Wow, you were in Goodland? It's way out of the way unless you have a local destination, such as two of the five sites on National Register of Historic Places listings in Newton County, Indiana. I've not noticed your movies in articles, but when I see them on other pages (e.g. WT:NRHP), they're always a still image with the standard triangle button that you're supposed to click to play the movie. On the Adamstown video, I see a brick house (Queen Anne?) with a porch on the left side and something like four towers at various points, plus a chimney on the rear, to the right side of the image. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

::Okay, you win; I'm just impressed that you've been in some of these small towns so far west! But I have you beat in one way; back in April, I got lost in Maunie, Illinois (look at it on the map and you'll see why I was embarrased); I was driving all around and couldn't find the road that would take me to Rising Sun. When I stopped and asked for directions, they saw my Ohio plate and asked if I were going to Marion on the interstate, so they must have been rather surprised when I dropped the name of the crossroads a few miles away :-) And about Macs, I just remember you complaining that you couldn't use CRGIS with your Mac — just another reason I prefer to use a computer, not an Apple :-þ Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

:::FYI, I know of three sites that were delisted before they were listed. Kent Jail was delisted in 2000 and (re)listed in 2001, while the nomination forms for the Gramelspacher-Gutzweiler House (Indiana) and the John Marshall House Site (Illinois) speak of their subjects as having previously been listed, so the forms are re-nominations. Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The article on the Social Register website suggests the Silver Hill Plantation was a different plantation, if I understood it correctly. John Withers's son ended up buying four more plantations on top of the Friendfield Plantation, including the Silver Hill Plantation. But it's not clear whether those four plantations were added to the Friendfield Plantation, or if there remained separate plantations. I am looking for a map of the Old South with all the plantations--this would make life much easier. In any case, here comes the confusion. I am not sure. If there are five different plantations, then each one should have its own page. Btw there is more to be said about the Friendfield Plantation--I think Dr Alexis Forster tried to grow tea leaves at one point, being the first planter to do so in the United States. This page could probably be expanded to GA status given its apparent prominence in pre-Civil War history. How much do you know? It's a work in progress. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

if you're interested in getting a coffee. dm (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

On lunch break at work (I can take the break when I want to, even if it is at 2:30) and just finished doing a little for the Kansas City theater; no time right now for the Emporia theater. Check what I did with KC; was this what you were requesting? Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A number of South Jersey articles have come on line: Port of Salem, Port of Paulsboro, Salem Branch, Penns Grove Secondary, Glassboro-Camden Line. Wonder if you have any photos that might work for the above and/or if you'd mind keeping them in mind? thanks Djflem (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Answering out of order. (1) Saw the barnstar, so thank you! I guess it helps that I, like Ammodramus, am in an area with fewer potential photographers; barring a few KLOTZ images, it's been a while since someone else uploaded an image of a site soon before I was there. I'd like to get all the sites in Indiana's eight remaining counties (imagine being able to say that you'd visited every single site in every single county in a state!), but they're far enough away that I really don't have time for it. At the same time, I've been able to take advantage of how southeastern Illinois has tons of counties with very very few sites; I've gotten every site in thirty Illinois counties, even though I have photos of just 168 sites statewide, and that includes sites in not-fully-illustrated counties. (2) Done with school, but job-hunting and working a couple of hourly jobs to pay the bills. It is rather competitive, but there's seemingly a little less competition for jobs at the smaller schools, and I'm more interested in liberal arts colleges than in research universities. I'll be glad once I'm in a real job; I've not felt settled since I finished my undergrad in 2009. On the advice of others in academia, I'm doing my best to integrate Wikipedia work with the job-hunt; it's complicated, but basically I'm mentioning the education/Wikipedia collaboration potential to a small extent and placing emphasis on how my work (particularly with historic site photography) can help the institution that hires me to collaborate with other institutions, whether SHPOs or community groups, and finally I'm noting that my Wikipedia interests demonstrate my interest in helping students to integrate into the communities where their colleges are located instead of staying in the campus bubble. (3) Didn't yet figure out the videos. I really really wish we were allowed to use real video formats instead of WMF forcing us to use substandard ones. (4) Regarding "add photo", I really like the idea of the simple text! Not a placeholder, simpler, accessible to people with screen readers (although I suppose they'd have a hard time adding photos...), and because it would add text instead of an image, I expect that it wouldn't slow down the process of loading a page like the column of placeholders did. I don't remember mentioning this before, but it frequently took a lot longer to load a page during last year's WLM than it did when we weren't using the images. Wow Sorry for the wall of text! I guess I started rambling and forgot to stop myself... Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

::I was rambling a bit myself. It sounds like your personal stuff is working out, I'll send e-mails if I need more info. The webm format is supposed to become the new standard everywhere, e.g. YouTube, and is built in to HTML-5 (to the best of my limited technical understanding). But MP4 would be great too, and take less time. Thanks on the "add photo". All the best. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

:::By the way, I'd suggest that we put the link in parentheses: (upload photo) or (add photo). It better conveys the sense of "this is a temporary thing and not part of the encyclopedia". Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

: :-) :-) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

::Thanks so much for the barnstar! (and glad to see you got one too) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smallbones. I saw a familiar name on the Talk page of the article on Prostate Cancer Screening. I have a self-citation COI with RTI International, a non-profit contract research organization, who published a study in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject. The study found that despite recommendations by the United States Preventive Services Task Force not to get a prostate exam, most men believed the advice, but chose to ignore it.

I've been talking to a few editors like User:John Broughton and User:OlYeller21 about this kind of self-citation COI. It certainly doesn't "feel" as COI(ish). But I'd be interested in getting your thoughts [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prostate_cancer_screening#Self-citation_COI here]. It's helpful to get input from editors with a more critical perspective on COI (can I say that?), to test if my actions are objectionable by the measure of a critical editor. CorporateM (Talk) 23:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello --

I'm a reporter with The Philadelphia Inquirer and I'd love to talk with you about your work. Would you mind sending me an email at tschleifer@philly.com so we can connect?

Thanks, and all the best,

Teddy Schleifer

The Philadelphia Inquirer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.188.211.240 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

{{talkback|Mono|ts=16:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)}}

Mono 16:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

25px An article that you have been involved in editing, Discount window, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going {{ #if:Talk:Bank rate#Merger proposal |here|to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article}}, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. greenrd (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the fire station has a Christmas tree recycling program, so they make sure that you take your tree somewhere else? It's a long stretch, but I can't think of anything less implausible. Nyttend (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

:Never having heard of Leesport before, I initially wondered if it were somewhere in the northeast where they do lots of logging: the sign might mean that log trucks aren't allowed to park there. However, it quickly occurred to me that they'd have the sign say "log trucks" instead of "trees", and then I checked the map and saw that it wasn't in a logging region anyway. I thought of the Christmas trees because of the parking warning at the bottom of the sign: it made me think of people abandoning cars there, which made me think of abandoning other things, and used Christmas trees are the only kind of trees that I could imagine being abandoned. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Meaningless formalism" - I agree, and I was happy with the page the way it was. So, don't take it up with me, talk to BD2412, who slapped an "incomplete disambiguation page" tag on it. I think it's a silly rule. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BD2412#Incomplete_dabs] Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

:Or maybe just have that article redirect to Our Lady of Victory (disambiguation) which already disambiguates the three NYC churches. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just starting to get involved in editing a nut shell page like this. I try to present in neutral fashion and view expression of concerns in prose the same burden of proof as article editing. I understand consensus as something different from majority vote of those who bother to appear in discussion and when the discussion participants are overwhelmed by those with vested interest, it can glide to a systemic bias. I presented my premises, while you didn't present any convincing argument. My understanding of consensus building involves presenting, dissecting and validating every party's premises rather than let an interest party shove someone aside by numbers game. If pages like this follow a different set of guidelines, please aware me of them. Thank you,Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you add a little bit clarifying what you're meaning? I'm not clear if your challenge involves illustrating the most hitherto-unillustrated sites or if it involves raw numbers of photos. Presumably the latter would be easy for someone who lives near a large HD (just photograph every building, like I did for :Commons:Category:Bloomington West Side Historic District), but that sounds like gaming the system, but you didn't say "unillustrated sites", so to me it's ambiguous. Nyttend (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

:Oh. I completely misunderstood what you meant! Thanks for the clarification; I don't think I need to ask for more. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

::I liked your scavenger hunt challenge! I didn't see it until after last weekend, when I made a photo trip to St Louis and got everything except (obviously) the small town #10 category. Your "should be easy!" comment on the single-family residence I found ironic, since I got so few of them — I got photos at more than 100 different sites, but only three of them were single-family residences. If only I'd noticed the challenge before the trip; St Louis County has tons of small communities and tons of listings, so I surely would have been able to get something for the small town category. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

:::Now I'm confused. I thought that the WLM categories were strictly tracking categories meant to show the extent to which the map/upload links were being used. Is there some good reason for me to use the map or the upload link, since I'd be uploading these photos anyway, even if WLM didn't exist? Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

::::Ahh, not particularly interested, but thank you for the reminder. Given the level to which Indiana's illustrated, I don't expect to get anything here other than a few new listings that are pending — other than a few on the access-restricted Jefferson Proving Ground, the nearest unillustrated Indiana site is 180 miles away! Of course I have some recent photos in other states, but the St Louis stuff is the large majority (and even there, the majority of the 100 sites were already illustrated), and those images aren't wonderful (example), so I can't imagine that I'd win anything. I've begun taking multiple workable pictures at almost every site: as long as more than one is suitable, I'll upload the second image, since I'm seeking to save the best ones for professional purposes. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your addition to Redskin (slang), and have added a comment on the article's talk page. FriendlyFred (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smallbones, I hope I am leaving this message correctly as i am a Wiki neophyte. I tried to check out your fotos, but it seems like mine are still on the wikipedia page. I didn't necessarily think my fotos were optimal, so if you feel you got a better shot then more power to you. BTW, you also beat me to the punch with fotos of Hubbard House. My husband and I were fortunate to get into a conversation with the current owner and occupant who gave us a full tour of the house. I believe that you posted your fotos as we were touring the house! When I have a chance later, I may add a couple of other images. And will continue to add Brooklyn pics as I can. bkcrabby Bkcrabby (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: foto switch -- I guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. Glad you had an enjoyable day among Brooklynites. Lots of history here, so hopefully you will be back to document more. Bkcrabby (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, on my iPad, the packed gallery has captions that cover up the images, which I don't find helpful. But hey I won't stand In the way of progress.. I'll take a look on the laptop later.... - PKM (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

:Yep, packed-hover behaves like packed-overlay on the iPad. Weird. Reported that. - PKM (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=572877530 your edit] to Postmodern architecture may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [{{fullurl:Postmodern architecture|action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+typo+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3ABracketBot%7CBracketBot%5D%5D}} edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}§ion=new my operator's talk page].

:List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• jpg| Portland Building in Portland, Oregon by Michael Graves and Emery Roth & Sons{{red|]]}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

do you break these out by hand or have a script to do it? just curious dm (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of a subject on a notable person's list is not a subjective decision. The two people you removed qualify to be on the notable person's list for Chester, as a)they are notable as they have a Wikipedia biography and b)that biography connects them to the town. Whether you think their career choices make them notable does not enter in to the equation. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dodge County, Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dodge County Courthouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I've started an RFC about the inclusion of the image we discussed earlier in Batting (baseball). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello - I wanted to touch base w/ you about some of the video links you have put up for the U.S. first ladies for the programs from First Ladies: Influence & Image. I have been meaning to put up some external links on each of their pages, as I did with Dolley Madison and others, but then I realized that you had already linked to the First Ladies page with your video box. However, it does not look like you have done it for all of them; For instance, Lucy Webb Hayes does not seem to have a link. Was there a pattern to your work on this? Or did you just not get to all of them yet? Either way is fine with me, I just wanted to see if we could coordinate so as not to step on each others' feet in putting up the links. And, it seemed easier to ask you this on your user page rather than on each individual first ladies' article. Thanks, let me know if you have any thoughts. KConWiki (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

TFD suggested an alternate caption for your photo, which I posted to the talk page there. If you're ok with it, I think you can go ahead and post the edit request. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi --- I've received a request from User:Joannafbb to delete this image. Apparently the property owner is quite upset that it is on Wikipedia. While I understand the policy, I'd rather assent to the request. Can you advise me on how to delete this image? Any guidance is greatly appreciated.--Pubdog (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks for your excellent assistance with this matter. Hopefully, this will be resolved to everyones satisfaction.--Pubdog (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Just want to thank you both again. Please know that you are making one very private homeowner very very grateful. He is working now to supply to alternate image that you suggested. I am new to Wikipedia as a user - can you tell me how best to get the replacement image to you, User:Pubdog ? Joannafbb (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

:Glad to be able to help. To upload a photo to Commons you need to be registered there. I'm assuming that the homeowner could rely on you to do this and you may already be registered there (when you registered for Wikipedia). Also I assume you have the photo file on a computer where you can find it easily, and have put a descriptive file name on it (no names like DSC12300021, please). At that point go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard (you can get there directly from any Commons page by clicking "upload file" in the left hand column) and follow directions. "Own work" may be appropriate. A CC-BY-SA license is fine. Please send me a note here with the photo name and I can put in the proper categories. That should be it.

:One little note - there are "mirror sites" that use the photo when they copy material from Wikipedia. There's nothing we can do about that. But, I suspect, in a couple of months all of the mirrors will have copied the new material and use that instead. All the best, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to reply sooner — I'd like to help, but I've found myself to be a rather poor judge of aesthetic things like this, and I expect I'd do a disservice to lots of good photographers and photographs. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering your zealous approach to stamping out paid direct editing of Wikipedia articles, what are you doing to shut down WP:RB? - 2001:558:1400:10:6CDA:AD4F:2207:8B09 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

:It seems to be defunct and a non-issue. I doubt that a dozen rewards have been paid in its entire history. Theoretically, it could operate because it is transparent and any abuses would be out in the open. Perhaps that's why it is defunct. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

::It might look defunct, but the Reward board facilitated the creation of the excellent List of Wikipedia controversies, and that was as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reward_board&diff=550518654&oldid=550034855 recent as April 2013]. You're probably about right in estimating "a dozen rewards". Here are some:

:::#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reward_board&diff=407652703&oldid=406730962 $50]

:::#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reward_board&diff=239508167&oldid=239143253 $285, across 6 rewards]

:::#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reward_board&diff=203840170&oldid=203164537 $50]

:::#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reward_board&diff=193305179&oldid=193121924 $50]

:::#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reward_board&diff=175354233&oldid=173907585 $50]

:::#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reward_board&diff=168681646&oldid=168080288 $50]

:::#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reward_board&diff=283095922&oldid=283052830#Dinosaur_FA $50]

:::#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reward_board&diff=180358716&oldid=180310655 $20]

:::#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reward_board&diff=316301825&oldid=315040885 $35]

:::#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reward_board&diff=51058673&oldid=50990139 $10 or $20]

::I'm befuddled how you think "it is transparent", when you have pseudonyms offering other pseudonyms money to create and modify content on Wikipedia. - 2001:558:1400:10:6CDA:AD4F:2207:8B09 (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think something [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_paid_advocacy&oldid=577152204 like this] would work and should be proposed as policy, the shorter and simpler the better. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

:I'm not against this at all. The tag at the top should just say "policy" not "policy or guideline" You might request that all paid editors identify themselves in discussions. If you know the proper place to post this and get the required input, then go for it. I'll then suggest to everybody at WT:NOT to go there and close that discussion (but not of the minor wording change below it). I'm sure you know how to do this better than I do. I just want a straight up or down vote on a clear Bright Line policy. Go for it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

::Yes, it should be a policy, not a guideline, but it's just a proposal at the moment, hence the tag. We would need to set up an RfC to gain consensus to make it policy. I would say the best place for the RfC is on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

::Done. See Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy. Please tell people about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

My trip to Alaska was planned long before the challenge, but the timing worked out pretty well. Alaska was amazing and well worth visiting, as were the wilds of Brooklyn. Thanks for coming up with such a fun challenge that inspired many people to get out and improve articles. dm (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do something something similar next year. Generic1139 (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, thanks for organizing the contest! I like the emphasis on variety and new places. Faolin42 (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Since you contributed to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=577691634#Community_ban_proposal_for_paid_editing_firm_wikiexperts.us discussion] resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this image; the building has since been destroyed, leaving the site a dreary empty lot. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

:That's a shame. I see Kepper44 (?) has 3 pix of it. I'll check my files to see what else I have on the same date, but likely they are worse pix. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

::Of course I agree with you, and I feel the same way whenever I learn that an NR site is an empty lot (I got a few Davenport and Rock Island photos two weeks ago while passing through, and several were empty lots), but on the other hand, it's mildly exciting when I see a story like [http://www.wthr.com/story/13906892/demolished-building-seen-as-eyesore this], because I have a concrete example of the way in which my image is now an irreplaceable part of the historical record. The possibility of preserving a building visually despite modifications or destruction is perhaps the single biggest reason that I do more work with photos than with article writing. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the discussion has concluded, assuming you are willing to accept the most recent proposed caption. As the initial proposer of the edit, I defer to you to post the edit request. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

One of your images is the subject of discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/PAHMC.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I manufactured a user box[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Coretheapple&diff=579018172&oldid=579016977] out of the illustration you posted on Jimbo Wales' talk page. Hope you don't mind. Coretheapple (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)(though actually I see that it was posted by someone else!) Coretheapple (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I figured this out, at least for my own sake (people may think about it differently philosophically).

If a marketer and their employer/client embraces the spirit of WP:COI, they will do their best to imitate the contributions they would make as a disinterested volunteer. If they do so successfully, the lack of disclosure is an extreme technicality. It is "as if" the content was crowd-sourced anyway and the fact that the reader doesn't know how the sausage is made is unimportant.

However, most BrightLine produced articles are very different than what a volunteer would produce. They have a shiny, smudge-free appearance, large Philanthropy sections with only primary sources, and so on.

The fact that a marketer uses the BrightLine does not protect them from criticisisms and controversy, nor does it eliminate ethical ambiguity, because Wikipedians are not professional journalists. It is not good conduct for marketers to take advantage of a volunteer's laziness, lack of spin-detection skills, or naiive sense of good-faith.

It is 100% ethical for marketers to bring our attention to problem articles, point out errors and whatnot and for them to genuinely attempt to mimic a volunteer's contributions. However, BrightLine articles that differ greatly from what a volunteer would produce raise some ethical questions with no clear answers - it's a form of gaming the system by being a professional taking advantage of amateurs. Whether amateur editors "approved" the content or not, the company is accountable for their contributions and must be able to vouch for them. CorporateM (Talk) 17:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

:I'll have to think about this, but my first reactions are 1) this looks difficult to monitor/police, and anything that's difficult to monitor will likely be abused; 2) nothing we do can really affects the advertisers' liabilities under US law (with the exceptions that we could put something in place that would allow clear disclosure on the article page - which I'm not willing to do, or maybe in *borderline cases* under the law, where the advertiser can claim "this is explicitly allowed by wikipedia policy" or the FTC can claim "this is explicitly disallowed by wikipedia policy," i.e. perhaps we can fine tune the border. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

::We have very few means to enforce anything here - even civility or verification. I see no reason for COI to be any different. The community cannot even enforce disclosure on Talk. I would expect legal repercussions only for the very worst and most obvious cases. The rest is a grey area that will remain indefinitely unresolved and controversial. CorporateM (Talk) 19:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Here is a question, if two editors make the same exact edit, and one is paid to do the edit, which edit is "better"?--v/r - TP 00:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

::That is the idea - that an editor with a COI should strive to make/propose the same edits they would make if they had no COI, but in practice this is only the case in a very small number of cases. CorporateM (Talk) 14:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not a part of the public affairs office at any level of the USAF. However, I have been in contact with them. I had a [https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/GLAM:_The_untapped_potential_of_the_Military proposal] for last year's Wikimania to try to connect Wikipedians with public affairs and history departments. Both of these departments share a common goal of trying to educate the public about the military. They both have resources not available to the general public and the idea was to teach them how to edit Wikipedia properly and teach Wikipedians how to engage with these folks (and even just find them). The potential for WP:MILHIST articles was tremendous. Could you imagine how many pictures and how much history sits on a shelf? If only folks knew who to ask.

When I spoke to the public affairs offices, they said one of their biggest problems with Wikipedia is the blocks on government IPs because of the huge user base and the potential for vandalism. These folks want to learn how to edit Wikipedia properly and get real knowledge out there. They are experts on their bases and have access to information that most editors will never have. And the crazy thing is, with the exception of classified, FOUO, Privacy Act, SBU, and OPSEC data, it's all in the public domain. The public owns it, but has no idea how to get access to it. It's a real tragedy.--v/r - TP 00:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was clear, but, of course, as I wrote it, I know what I meant. I changed to emphasis for clarity.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring Wikimedia LGBT, a proposed user group and thematic organization that promotes the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT communities, to your attention. I am sure you are so busy with your current projects, but I hope you might be able to direct people to this group if they are interested in LGBT content in any way. Of course, you are also more than welcome to indicate your interest/support, if you wish. Hopefully we can get some LGBT-related GLAM/Education/etc. projects up and running in the near future. Best, --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I see they keep deleting some guy's barnstar. Well, here's one I dare them to delete.

:{{ping|Coretheapple}} Just to avoid any misunderstanding, the questionable barnstar was placed onto ninety pages in just over an hour by this sockpuppet. This abuse has nothing to do with the debate about how to detect and deter biased editing. - Pointillist (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

::I garnered as much, but I felt Smallbones deserved one anyway! Coretheapple (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

:::Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

::::I moved the other barnstar to User:Smallbones/Barnstars. If anybody wants to remove the barnstar there, all you need to do is follow the directions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::That's up to you, of course. I'm a bit surprised you decided to present the sock with your own [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Banaster_Giver_Extra_Polite&diff=580892416&oldid=580889498 Thanks, and don't let them bring you down.] barnstar, though. - Pointillist (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest listing an actual vote (e.g., Support, Oppose) at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit rather than just a comment. The various proposals are being evaluated, and several of them are being closed in the next day. DavidinNJ (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Interested in your opinion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=581846969&oldid=581842638 here]. -- Stylecustom (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are a user who has participated in one or more of these discussions. Thank you for reading this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

:While it's not precisely on this topic, you may want to see the "Overtly Using Wikipedia for Marketing" section of WP:VPM. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I seem to have made you angry, which was not my goal. My goal is to try to find ways to reach consensus on the COI issue. I recognize it as my goal; I made my query to get answers to the question I had, which was, is there any data on extent of the problem. I was pretty selfish in pursuing the kind of answers I wanted. I know you have been living the struggle to get a COI policy in place for a long time and I respect that a lot. I want to try to find some orthogonal way to get out of the chorus of "support" and "oppose" with everybody repeating the same arguments, many of them based on vapor. Anyway, thanks for your attention and words during that discussion. I am going to keep trying to talk to opponents of a COI policy, one by one, trying to learn how to meet honest concerns with defensible answers. It is very useful to me, (to me), to know that neither side has much of a leg to stand on when they talk about the extent, or lack thereof, of the problem, with respect to damage to the encyclopedia caused by paid advocacy. Thanks again, and apologies again for frustrating you. I am sure we will see each other around.Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.fpcphila.org/building/

https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/ce/Application/ASP/Report/HistImage.asp?HistImage=H000134_01B.jpg

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I created an article on this home. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

:I added some other article with photos you took recently (Indiana related). I'm actually not a big fan of info boxes, but I try to tolerate them since it doesn't seem wroth tussling over. Hopefully it will get expanded. I like to include the architect as well, but I didn't have it at hand. And just including NRHP refs gets a tag now too so... Anyway, thanks for taking so many great photos. It's nice to be able to include them for these historic buildings. Interior shots? Party on. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough - as an uninvolved, but trusted editor - to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help#Notion Capital, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones, could you explain to us (given that you hate the "garbage" of Wikipedia articles appearing like advertisements) how the three sources used to document Kat Walsh are sufficient in your mind, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kat_Walsh&diff=next&oldid=584214215 no need] of further attention? Two of the sources are press releases published by the charity she chairs. The third is a staff directory published by her employer. There are no references to third-party, independent sources documenting her life in any detail. Why are you railing against garbage PR handiwork on Wikipedia, but then you yourself are promoting and nurturing it? - 2001:558:1400:10:7D3D:EE03:C7FC:C86A (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:The answer seems obvious to me, as does the your intent to manipulate the rules. There's clearly no commercial motivation here, except perhaps on your part. Feel free to nominate the KW article for deletion, but it's a slam-dunk keep as you well know. Also please keep your nonsense off my talk page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Have reverted this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Influenza&diff=prev&oldid=584563139]. There is discussion ongoing here at WP:MED. Never mind I see you have already found it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

:I would be more open to posting external links to videos if Khan Academy ever made a public statement about why they are choosing to do this. If it is a thoughtless decision, then I feel that they should reconsider. If they have a well-considered rationale for doing this then I would like to hear it. I have trouble understanding why they would feel that non-commerical licensing is best. I hope that they understand why most Wikipedians feel that it is not. I have a huge amount of respect for you doing this and I want Khan Academy to succeed in whatever it attempts, and I want it to be able to collaborate on common ground with Wikipedians. I feel like I am lacking an understanding of their perspective and I wish that I were not. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry I never got back to you on that. Yes, the videos are fine and load up well. I trust you saw the advertorials article in the New York Times today? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/business/ftc-says-sponsored-online-ads-can-be-misleading.html Coretheapple (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this [https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_23JuoVF5e7dgDl3 brief survey.] Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I can work on the courthouse first, but am fairly busy and may be slow. I got some more photos of the Eagles Mere HD this summer - see :Commons:Category:Eagles Mere, Pennsylvania. Will try to get more of the courthouse eventually. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

:Sounds good. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I came across the discussion at WP:COI. IMO, discussions on the topic continue to - if anything - degenerate and become more polarized. It did remind me to take a second look at my little essay, How WP:COI would read if I wrote it, that is about one-fourth as long (I hear folks at the Help Desk and others use it from time to time). I don't think any legal content should focus on the FTC, because similar laws exist all over the world and even internationally. Lawsuits by the WMF and competitors (as happened in Germany) are also issues. I thought if you haven't seen the essay yet, I should point it out, as it covers the same issue in a more general way. CorporateM (Talk) 00:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind rating Carnegie Free Library of Beaver Falls, which I've just expanded 10x? I think it's big enough to warrant better than "Start", but I'm uncomfortable using anything higher than that; the Stub-Start boundary is pretty clear, but everything past that is ambiguous enough that I won't self-rate with them, and I won't complain if you think it a Start. Thanks for the Merrick article, by the way; I've been meaning to create that for five years without ever getting around to it. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks! Did you see my note on the article's talk page? I've suggested a research angle for Merrick's personality. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

::Thanks. I wish I could have gotten anything from the Centennial History, but at least I was able to find decent coverage in the much newer book; until I took it off the shelf, I thought I'd have to go with nothing except the nomination form. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw User_talk:Ruhrfisch#Sullivan_County_NRHP_sites and have expanded the Sullivan County Courthouse article. It's kind of on the stub-class/start-class line, but there are not really many sources (at least online), so I think it's safe to say it's a start-class article, per WP:CL-RULE. If someone can find maybe two more paragraphs in the next few days, it could be a DYK. --Jakob (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

:Update:It's now been nominated at DYK. --Jakob (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Warmest holiday greetings to the person most responsible for my 10K edits in Wikipedia/Wikicommons! I hope the New Year brings you the best in everything! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I sent an email to the address you provided. I will let you know if they tell me anything. Though I wouldn't expect much, as I've tried to reach out to them previously. However, I imagine if more editors bring it to their attention, they are more likely to see that there is widespread concern. CorporateM (Talk) 06:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please explain your rationale for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia&diff=587802869&oldid=587797409 this deletion]. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

:Gregory Kohs is not a reliable source on paid editing, as explained in the edit summary. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

::Try to keep up, Smallbones. The deletion linked to above has nothing to do with Gregory Kohs. - 2001:558:1400:10:A88E:BE0C:116C:D108 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In the ref you just added for its nomination form, the link points to the form for the Rittenhouse Square Apartments instead. Can you fix it?--BillFlis (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

:Fixed, thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

See John Ruan House.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I corrected the address for the Nassau Inn. They are located at 10 Palmer Square, not 72 Palmer Square. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice image; I got a few inside when visiting Nashville last week, but this is better than any of them. Nyttend (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! Someone did tell me about the discussion earlier—I don't have strong opinions on it (having strong opinions about this would probably be harmful to my sanity), so don't mind too much if it gets deleted. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 18:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've signed. I think that it is really a matter of FTC regulations interpreting a law that was passed by Congress in the 1960's to deal with abuses such as "payola" and "free plugging". Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

:Thank you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

==Please see==

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules - Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"

DavidHobby (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones, you're making a mistake in asking the FTC for an opinion about COI editing. Asking for the intervention of a government agency in WP rule making is asking for trouble, as people besides myself have said on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smallbones/Questions_on_FTC_rules#Wait.21 the relevant talk page]. You are writing in the name of WP or identifying yourself as a WP editor (and very few people outside WP can understand the difference) without the agreement of the community. It is similar to past efforts to ask government agencies to interfere with our image policy: one cannot predict what will come of it--they might support what we want to do, or they might want to do something that would really harm us--and once we invite them in, we're helpless. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a chance it may backfire I guess, but I don't see the harm and I frankly was getting annoyed by the scaremongering and sky-is-falling rhetoric coming your way. Coretheapple (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Mrs Nopote Sinenjongo high school.jpg ]]

You have a photo now! maybe you want to start her page? she has a ted videoVictor Grigas (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

:: and another

File:Sinenjongo graduation matric 2013-10-12 0426.jpgVictor Grigas (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

How do we know tomorrow won't be "the crucial day". They've all looked pretty crucial to me... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

:BBC television news reporter Gavin Hewitt in Kiev was tonight quite clear that the people of Ukraine themselves see it as a revolution, and I see no reason to argue with him. So the recent article name change by User:Lvivske seems quite appropriate and timely. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

:: I personally don't think we need to wait for a wp:commonname when 'revolution' is the dictionary definition of what just happened. Uprising leading to total regime change. To call an event like that a "riot" is POV pushing at this point to dismiss what happened and make it look like anarchy among the minority. --Львівське (говорити) 23:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

:::You two seem to agree. I'll put something on the talk page - where the name has been changed back to Euromaidan. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

What it says on the tin. Risker (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-02-26/Forum&curid=42070983&diff=598249960&oldid=598240541] I am fairly certain you do not realise it, but that formatting trick is problematic for users who depend on screen readers; it is a usability and accessibility problem, which is why it's been removed from so many standardized pages and templates, and why it's deprecated in article space. Your comment isn't a new heading (the intention of that markup), it's just something you want to highlight. Please just bold it instead so that users who depend on screenreaders - as Graham87 does - don't have to deal with usability issues when trying to follow a discussion. Risker (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to discuss [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-02-26/Forum&oldid=598249960&diff=prev this revert of my edit]. Your use of a semicolon rather than a colon for indentation changed the structure of the HTML which made it more difficult to use for screen reader users. The semicolon and colon in wiki-markup create definition lists (or association lists in the new lingo). The colon creates half a definition list, which is alright, but your use of a semicolon followed by a colon later in the line (ppart of the timestamp) creates a full definition list that reads like this with screen readers: "Bluff called ... Smallbones (talk) 20
20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)". See the HTML source for evidence of this. I'd therefore appreciate it if you would undo your reversion. Graham87 14:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Smallbones,

That image you just posted on National Register of Historic Places listings in Bexar County, Texas. It's mislabeled. Scroll down to the image of First National Bank of San Antonio - same building, but it really is the First National Bank.. [http://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/viewform.asp?atlas_num=2072001348&site_name=First+National+Bank+of+San+Antonio&class=2002 Here's proof.] Now, look at the image you put for San Antonio Loan and Trust. Same building, right? I don't know why photographers keep making this mistake, but I just had [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:First_National_Bank_of_San_Antonio2.jpg This Same Image], taken by a totally different photographer two years ago, relabeled at Commons. Have a look at [http://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/viewform.asp?atlas_num=2076002006&site_name=San+Antonio+Loan+and+Trust+Building&class=2002 This image] and read the description. The SA Loan and Trust is a 5-story building. It's the one on the left. Isn't it interesting how this error has repeated by two different people? — Maile (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

:{{ping|Maile66}} Good catch - somebody likely added the NRHP registration number recently. Do you want to change it to the right one or should I try? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

::I have removed it from the NRHP page, and requested a rename of the file at Commons. There is no image of the Loan and Trust at Commons, as far as anything I can see, so it will just have to be without image on the NRHP page. — Maile (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)