User talk:Valis55

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Valis55! Thank you for your contributions. I am MrBill3 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! MrBill3 (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Foundation Beyond Belief Logo 228.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Foundation Beyond Belief Logo 228.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Valis55 this is a problem I ran into with another article. You can't use the logo in your sandbox version of an article. It won't be a problem when you put the article up on WP. You will have to reupload the image because it will get deleted as an orphan.MrBill3 (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work

We need lots of NRHP pix in Arkansas!

Feel free to add the pix to the NRHP county lists, e.g. [1], but don't worry if you don't, we have a system to take care of it (sooner or later on holidays). And stop by WT:NRHP if you have a question, or just have the time to say hello. (Yes, we really need Arkansan photographers for the project!)

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second the thanks for taking some very nice pictures. Unfortunately, like most photographers, you've photographed the wrong thing at least once. (Don't feel bad, my "oops" count is somewhat higher.) In this case, your picture of the William Welch House in Cane Hill does not match the description of the house at all. The Google Map for the house you photographed is here, while I think the Welch house is actually a bit further south, although the street view is not very good. Given that there seem to be several similar houses in Cane Hill, you should (in case you go through Cane Hill again) look for Victorian scalloped woodwork in the gables and eaves, which seems to differentiate this house. Magic♪piano 18:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nod and the info. I tend to agree with you about the William Welch House, but I photographed and included it after a long conversation with the man in Cane Hill who is spearheading the historic preservation of that area. He steered me right on a number of points there. He explained that that is the Welch House, even though I doubted it. I am not likely to pass through Cane Hill in the near future, but I believe I can find that fellow's contact information and ask him to verify the identification. If need be I'll make a run up to Cane Hill to get the right house.

Valis55 (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly within the realm of possibility that you got the right house, and that the description is wrong (or otherwise confused) -- it looks like it could have been built in 1850, and I've seen cases of confused identity elsewhere (some of the description of the Welch house strongly resembles that of the Earle House and the Zeb Edminston House). If you do make contact with the local gent, and he's adamant that you got the right house, tell him to raise it as an issue with the Arkansas SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office). Magic♪piano 02:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got word back. That is indeed the incorrect house. The Welch House is not visible from the highway, and not accessible. He does not know the owners. I guess that will have to remain elusive. Thanks for your diligence. I try really hard to get these things right, but sometimes the obstacles are just too great.

Valis55 (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely unrelated property, if you happen to get to the Jackson House (Fayetteville, Arkansas), can you get its address? I was unable to discern it in Google Street View. (The house has a listed address on Highway 45, but is now on North Jordan Lane because the property was subdivided.) Magic♪piano 01:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had given up on the Jackson House, having looked for and failing to find it some weeks back. But since you asked, I went back and tried again today, and found it. The address is 1617 Jordan. The address I had was 1500 Mission Blvd, which was the address when it was listed. As it happens, the house sits well back from Mission. The original property was sold, subdivided, and developed. Jordan was built as a side road off Mission Blvd, running up next to the Jackson House. So while it does face Mission, the house is turned 90 degrees to the street where it's currently addressed.

Valis55 (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you have trouble finding a property, look up the nomination (in Arkansas here), and look for maps and coordinates (which are sometimes given in UTM and need conversion to lat/lon). That, along with Google Street View, was what made it possible for me to see that this house was still there. Thanks for the pic! Magic♪piano 15:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got another one for you. Your image of the Mulberry Home Economics Building is wrong; the listed building is entirely stone, and has a gable-on-hip roof. I've moved the geolocator to what I believe is the correct building, which is across an open quadrangle behind Mulberry High School. (I have no idea why this building is described as being on Church Street, unless there's more than one building matching the description; its main access appears to be via Alma Ave.) Magic♪piano 14:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's another I relied on a local for identification. I don't understand Church St. either; the entire school campus is a block away from Church. At any rate, I got the right one this time. Keep checking my work. Valis55 (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're probably right this time. I thought it was the building east of that one, because it has a gable-on-hip roof (unlike this one's gable roof). However, other elements of the building description in the nomination are consistent with the one you've photographed (specifically the northern and western elevations are a better fit in terms of window type and placement, and the chimney location). I suspect the nominator missed a detail... Magic♪piano 15:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Eastern building sports a stone on one of the front pillars which identifies it as something other than the Home Ec. Bldg. The building I shot yesterday, however, has this stone:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mulberry_Home_Economics_Building,_Dedication_Plaque.JPG hidden behind one of the front pillars. So this is definitely the right bldg. Valis55 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pleasant Methodist Church

Moving on, I'm wondering what you think of the difference between your picture of Mount Pleasant Methodist Church and this photo of the nominated building. I suspect the old building may be gone, unless the other building visible on the church property in the sat view bears any resemblance (it doesn't from above, but you've been there...) Magic♪piano 16:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the difference in appearance when I took that. The church I shot is at the coordinates given. It also has a big sign out front touting the year of the church's founding. Whether the building has been replaced, or perhaps renovated over the old bones, I don't know, but that's what's there, and they seem proud of its age.Valis55 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the second building is obviously recent construction. It's a Sunday School/Youth building.Valis55 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of what I figured. The present building, if it is in fact built on the bones of the old one, has some non-trivial issues: the roofline differs (never mind the missing tower), the number of windows on the side differs (4 vs. 5), and the orientation of its main axis differs (it's described as being north-south, the present building is east-west, although nominators get this sort of thing wrong with frequency). Thanks for your feedback; now I just have to figure out how to write about this... Magic♪piano 21:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoag House

I hope you had fun driving around White County, that must have been a bit of work to get all those pictures! I do have a question about your notation that the Hoag House is no longer standing. It (or something with a remarkably similar complex roofline) is standing pretty near the coordinates given in the White County list, according to the Google Maps satellite view. Google claims the images are from 2015. Any idea how that might square with your field observations? Magic♪piano 16:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Well, you got me. I don't normally denote something as Gone unless I find some very concrete confirmation (e.g. a McDonalds standing at the address, or the smoldering ashes from where it burned the night before (as has happened twice now)). If it's simply a matter of "I can't find it", I try to make three separate attempts before declaring it Gone. This one, I simply cannot remember. I don't have documentary pictures of the site, and I've deleted the notes I took at the time. That roof in Google Maps could hardly be anything other than the Hoag House with that unique dormer configuration. I'm going to go ahead and remove that notation on the page, and I'll put it back on my maps for a second look if I'm ever in that area again. I have a bunch of those for White County. Thanks for being so astute and keeping me honest! Valis55 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Arkansas Historic Preservation database is now being annotated with listings in search results marking destroyed properties. This is one that has been so marked, so it is possible the house is in fact gone. Magic♪piano 20:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. James House

I've got another White County one for you. Your photo of the Dr. James House is quite definitely wrong. The house, according to its nomination (which I have by email from Arkansas Preservation, because it's not currently in the online database), was located at the SE corner of S. Gum and W. Center in Searcy, which is now a parking lot. It is (or was) an Italianate/Stick style two-story building, not the Tudor Revival thing across Center Street. Magic♪piano 17:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well Bother. I contacted the state about that at the time since it was missing from their page. I sent them the picture; they never told me that was the wrong building, or that the right one was demolished. Oh well, Thanks for all you're doing. I'll have another big batch before long. Valis55 (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the Arkansas folks to be quite responsive (typically same-day) in requests for nomination forms that aren't on their site. I haven't asked for recent nominations (since the site redesign), though. Looking forward to more pictures! Magic♪piano 14:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Federal buildings in Little Rock

You took a very nice picture of the federal building on the 600 block of West Capitol Avenue in Little Rock. It got associated with the listing called "Federal Building" (dunno if that was you or somebody else), when the building in question is the 1932 "Little Rock US Post Office and Courthouse" listing, aka the Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Post Office and Courthouse.) The "Federal Building" is on the 700 block, and is a more modern structure (1959-61). (I just got done sorting through quite thoroughly messed-up redirects and article names on these buildings, so others have been confused about those two buildings and the Old Post Office Building and Customhouse (Little Rock, Arkansas). There will be a stub the 1959 building in the next few days.) Magic♪piano 03:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A phone booth

You have got to get a picture of this new National Register listing. Magic♪piano 18:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to hit a little close to home age-wise. But hey, there was a lot of design and thought put into them, and they were enormously successful. As silly as it seems, I've photographed dumber sites.Valis55 (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harris House, Little Rock

The Harris House (Little Rock, Arkansas) is described as a Spanish Revival style stuccoed building. I think you'll agree your photo doesn't match that. The house you photographed is about two doors west of the right house, which is at the SE corner of Fourche Dam Pike and Richland Dr. Magic♪piano 19:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody's a critic. I may be going back through LR soon to pick up odds and ends, so I'll check it out.Valis55 (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philander Smith College

I'm trying to square the pictures you took of Philander Smith College for the historic district with the nomination, since they don't look much like academic buildings. (Unfortunately the nomination for that district doesn't include pictures.) The descriptions and Google Street View (such as is available) suggest the academic buildings are larger (e.g. a former military barracks and a WPA-built gym), and the contributing Wesley Church is larger than whatever this is. Your friendly critic :), Magic♪piano 17:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was prepared to argue this one, but once again I'll concede to your position. The shots I took are within the boundaries listed for the historic site, but I just now looked at the nomination doc and saw that it lists very specific buildings. So yeah, scratch that one and I'll try to pick it up before too long. Valis55 (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Square Historic District

You got close to, but just missed, the houses of the Marshall Square Historic District. It's the houses on the north side of 18th and the south side of 17th, between Vance and McAlmont; you got some houses on Vance in your picture. The listed houses have taller hip roofs with projecting gables in front. Magic♪piano 23:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming on Commons

Please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_renaming

I've already done the request for the soon-to-be-former Zeb Edmiston House pic. It happens "all the time" so this is a good function to remember. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The renaming is done. You might go back to the file and correct the information (just click "edit" at the top). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy Cemetery

Hi, it's me again :). I have a question about your picture of the listing called "Hardy Cemetery". It turns out there is one in Sharp County and one in Faulkner County. Which one did you photograph? Magic♪piano 17:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one in Faulkner County, back off of Copperhead Road. I passed within a few miles of there today.

Hendrix Alum

I see where it says Hendrix College on your user page. Please see my user page. Rebecca and I got to wondering what old friends of ours are up to now. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 03:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old Oark School/Church

Hi, thanks for all the work you've done in Arkansas and Oklahoma. It looks like the image you took here is part of the current Oark School (high school, I guess?). The NRHP-listed schoolhouse is actually located just northeast of town, next to the cemetery. It should look like this. If you're in Johnson County again, maybe you could get this one again. Thanks again, and keep up the good work. kennethaw88 • talk 01:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're heading back to Oark sometime, you'll also want to get the N.E. Dickerson Store again. It's just west of the Oark General Store, which was what you got the first time. Magic♪piano 20:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your old file of the Oark School to commons:File:Oark School, Oark, Arkansas.jpg, since that is the name of the school there. If you want to upload your new picture under the old name, you can do that now, and preferably withdraw your deletion nomination. Of course, you shouldn't let the title keep you from uploading the correct picture. You can always just adjust the file name to anything else (change the punctuation, capitalization, or just add a "(1)" at the end). kennethaw88 • talk 01:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Valis55. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Valis55. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this one (Henry Clay Mills House)

The Henry Clay Mills House in Van Buren has just been delisted (along with a fairly long list of other Arkansas properties, some of which you've id'ed as demolished). I have no idea where your picture was taken, but it's clearly not the right building. See the nomination form picture, which has a two-story building. If Google Street View is to be believed, the building is no longer standing. Magic♪piano 16:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC) That's the house currently at the address. I've been pressing them for years to delist it. Valis55 (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Valis55. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]