This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
No way, Polaron, is it okay for u to just move / "repurpose" this article on a whim or vendetta or whatever. This was much settled after much discussion in mediated long discussion, etc. If you want to make some kind of new proposal, go ahead. But why? Why are u focussing upon just the settled issues, out of contended areas, rather than working on building wikipedia somewhere else. --doncram (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I totally agree. This was NOT one of those naked stubs of Doncram's that others so enjoy criticizing. This looked to me like nothing but intentional goading. I have no idea why Polaron so vehemently opposes there being any articles named so and so historic district, but whatever the reasons, it's just too bad. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you get to go around obliterating them. Take it to AfD, get some people to agree (which I highly doubt would happen), follow procedure if you must. Cut out the unilateral baloney and quit playing games. This is way past getting old. (All my own, unsolicited opinion, by the way). Lvklock (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
