Talk:Mount Morris Bank Building

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Attempt to own article

An editor appears to want to take ownership of this articke -- which incidentally, he did not even create -- by deleteing my edits to it, which are backed by eminently reliable sources.

One issue appears to be the two images which were in the article of the building in question. One was from 1883-1889 and the other from circa 1895. I removed the first image because the two images were from about the same period in time, the second image was a closer view of the building, and the building itself had not changed substantially (if at all) in the period of time between the two images. The editor appears to have objected to this and reverted my edits, but I restored them, as there were no reasonable grounds for the reversion.

I will not be deceptive. The editor in question and I have had problems in the past. I helped him when he first came to Wikipedia, but he soon turned against me after I criticized his image placement in an article. Things between us have continued to be iffy since then. Nonetheless, there are no neutral and reasonable grounds for rejecting my edits to this article, which are extremely reliable sources, and I've explained why I altered the images - duplicative images are not useful to our readers.

I would ask this editor to attempt to be as non-partisan as possible, to not automatically reject my edits because they come from me, and to think of the good of the article and the encyclopedia first. BMK (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My latest edit summary said: "Vzeebjtf - we have had our differences, but let's put those aside. You cannot WP:OWN this article, whiuch you did not even create, and you must allow other editors, myself included to contribute to it". His response was "No, I haven't", and he reverted my edits. I very much do not want to resort to WP:EWN to report edit warring, but if this editor doesn't stop reverted my edits on sight, I'm not going to have any choice. I am asking him here, publicly, to be reasonable. BMK (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor has specific problems with my edit, Wikipedia policy requires that you discuss it on the article talk page, and not continue to revert without explanation. So, please, take this opportunity to explain your specific objections to my edits. BMK (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor had copied some text from his user talk page here, but, unfortunately, copying commentary text from one place to another on Wikipedia without the permission of the writers is a violation of copyright, so I had to remove it. You can find the discussion here. BMK (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to the editor's comment is that, yes, I read the entire article, from start to finish, and, yes, I examined both images and compared them, and that was why I made the changes I made. The editor in question apparently feels that he is incapable of making any errors, which, unfortunately, is not true. I have corrected the errors in the article (which, I remind everyone, was not created by him,in the first place), including his quite poor editorial judgment regarding putting two almost identical images in the article. My concern, as always, is not to make someone feel good about themselves and their efforts, but to make the best possible article for the encyclopedia. I stand by my editorial decisions. BMK (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the earlier discussion:

Mount Morris Bank Building Please don't try to WP:OWN this article, it's totally against Wikipedia policy. Thanks. BMK (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

As for the specific edit I made, there's no need for two images which are taken from about the same angle, show the building at around the same general time period, and in which the building hasn't changed at all. BMK (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Please don't accuse me of trying to own the article when you have no objective reason to do so. You didn't bother with an edit summary, much less a comment on the talk page, and it isn't my job to read your mind. You're so disrespectful of the work of others, even though you always object to changes others make to your work by saying, "A lot of thought went into it; please respect that." It doesn't occur to you that a lot of thought might have gone into work I did, does it? You didn't bother to look at the two pictures, or read the article, did you? If you had, you'd know the building doubled in size in 1889-90, which significantly changed the outward appearance, especially the Park Avenue side. As a user, a before-and-after view is interesting to me, and I thought it would be interesting to others as well. Don't my thoughts warrant any consideration or discussion? Shouldn't you treat others as you ask them to treat you? Vzeebjtf (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Last chance, you;ve deleted information from extremely reliable sources. If you want me to take this to the noticeboards, I'll oblige you. You cannot WP:OWN this article, period. BMK (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC) That's up to you. Vzeebjtf (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

End of the quoted material.

In altering the talk page, you are destroying the record. Please do not do that. Vzeebjtf (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to let in pass this time, but in the future, please be aware that you cannot move editors' talk page comments from one place to another without their permission for reasons of copyright. You can, of course, move your own edits, but you must ask the permission of any other editor you've engaged with.

As far as your comment, yes, I am indeed aware the the size of the building increased in 1889-90. I'm also aware that the second image is labelled "c. 1890" which could mean that it dates from a range that could be as wide as 1885-1895, or ever wider. That's why it's "circa", the exact date is not known, but the date given is a reasonable guess somewhere in the middle of the possible range. I also know that visually examining the two images (see below) doesn't show any significant diference between building as seen in the two images. For this reason there is no need for both images. If there was some difference in size visible, then there would be. BMK (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See below, I was incorrect and withdraw my objection. My mistake, my apologies to all. BMK (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image dispute

The editor Vzeebjtf wishes these two images tyo be in the article, at these sizes and with these captions:

I content that the two images are very close in time, that one is more close-up than the other, and that the building is essentially the same between the two images, which means that they are essentially duplicative. I chose one of the two (the closer one) and put it inthe article at this size with this caption:

I invite comments. BMK (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my objections to the two images. I now see the difference between the two. I was concentrating on the length of the building, but the expansion happened in the width. My mistake, my apologies. BMK (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your gracious apology.

"The Morris" was the name above 81 East 125th Street -- the apartments. It doesn't refer to the whole building. The center entrance, 83, was for the safe deposit facilities, and its name was likewise carved above that door; and the east entrance, 85 was for the bank. Vzeebjtf (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Morris Bank Building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]