User talk:Look2See1

en-3

This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English.

A Barnstar for you !

Well hello-ooh there !

• File:Great white shark south africa with Teeth by David Shankbone sml welcome.png

File:Natchez City Cemetery (2903701426).jpg

Hi Look2See1. Could you please fix the error you introduced? --Leyo 11:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Building 170

Why are you adding a parent category of Category:Washington Navy Yard? (Category:Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.) Also, there's no need to reformat the text. That does nothing to improve the category description. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I reverted all of your Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. additions to categories that are not individually listed on the National Register. (ex: Category:Embassy of Afghanistan (Washington, D.C.)) Please read contributing property. Buildings that are contributing properties and not listed on the National Register do not belong in this category. You have added incorrect information to many category descriptions and images. On the Embassy of Afghanistan category, you changed the description from "Built as a private residence in 1912, the Colonial Revival-style building is designated as a contributing property to the Sheridan-Kalorama Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1989." to "Built as a private residence in 1912, the Colonial Revival-style building is designated as a contributing property to the Sheridan-Kalorama Historic District, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. in 1989." (emphasis mine) It is not listed on the National Register. The historic district where the building is located is what is listed. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Category:Building 170

• I have since removed Category:Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. per your information. Please assume good faith here. I did not know if it was within the Navy Yard boundaries or just in the neighborhood, thank you for the clarification.—Look2See1 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: National Register of Historic Places

NOTE: AgnosticPreachersKid, please do not alter your already posted comments here. Add them in a new paragraph with a new signature/time. Your choice here is rude, deceptive, and confusing to me.

On an unrelated note, I reverted all of your Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. additions to categories that are not individually listed on the National Register. (ex: Category:Embassy of Afghanistan (Washington, D.C.)) Please read contributing property. Buildings that are contributing properties and not listed on the National Register do not belong in this category. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

— DONE AT 20:44

On an unrelated note, I reverted all of your Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. additions to categories that are not individually listed on the National Register. (ex: Category:Embassy of Afghanistan (Washington, D.C.)) Please read contributing property. Buildings that are contributing properties and not listed on the National Register do not belong in this category. (FOLLOWING ADDED by AgnosticPreachersKid LATER, without new signature/time — WRONG) You have added incorrect information to many category descriptions. On the Embassy of Afghanistan category, you changed the description from "Built as a private residence in 1912, the Colonial Revival-style building is designated as a contributing property to the Sheridan-Kalorama Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1989." to "Built as a private residence in 1912, the Colonial Revival-style building is designated as a contributing property to the Sheridan-Kalorama Historic District, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. in 1989." (emphasis mine) It is not listed on the National Register. The historic district where the building is located is what is listed. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

— NOT DONE AT 20:44

• Meanwhile, however you wish to handle NRHP in Washington, D.C. is fine. Again, please assume good faith here. I hope you did not just revert Contributing property houses to no bldg. category, but changed their placement to under Category:Houses in Washington, D.C. or [Category:"decade #" houses in Washington, D.C.]. If not, please correct that lacuna.

There is much discrepancy by editors across the U.S. on use/non−use of Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in xyz (U.S. city/county/state) and/or Category: Historic district contributing properties in xyz, with [Category:Historic districts in xyz]. Some other editors delete all [Cat:contributing properties] if there is a [Cat:Named historic district], fine for signs and plaques, but often leaving specific buildings without a U.S. city/county/state place subdivision. I'm sorry I don't recall, but that may have been my motivation when adding Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. earlier this year.

In addition [Category:National Register of Historic Places in xyz] (U.S. city/county/state) is often not under the parent [Category: Buildings in xyz], leaving those buildings (of any type) without place categories. In en:wikipedia the [Cat:NRHP in xyz] always are under the subdivision [Category: Buildings and structures in xyz] (U.S. city/county/state), as only a small minority are archaeolgical/military/historical sites without structures. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"Your choice here is rude, deceptive, and confusing to me." - Rude and deceptive? Wow. I was expanding my comment and did not change the meaning of my original statement in any way. You want me to assume good faith, but call me rude and deceptive. I think we're done here. You stay away from me and my page. I'll do the same to you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes AgnosticPreachersKid, "Your choice here is rude, deceptive, and confusing to me," and not acting in good faith. Please choose to expand your comments honestly and with transparency, that is acting in good faith. You may choose to stay away from my talkpage. However, you will not tell me where I may choose to communicate in good faith.—Look2See1 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Look2See1. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

 AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: The editor "AgnosticPreachersKid" will not discuss issues directly with me, here on my talk page or on their talk page. They have deleted my brief and polite comments on their talk page 3 times today. Oddly, they began this discussion. It appears when I did not auto-agree, but actually thought and replied with constructive points, they took their talk toys and left, swinging by the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard instead of seeking resolution together. There is a faint smell of a cyber-bully, and strong scent of autocratic control habits in this sequence of behavior choices by AgnosticPreachersKid.—Look2See1 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)