Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Great houses with great stories  





2 Userboxes created  





3 Recognition  





4 Eakins  





5 Samuel Fraunces  



5.1  Complaint  





5.2  Complaint (with comments by User:GramereC)  





5.3  Walls of words don't work here  







6 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring  



6.1  User:GramereC reported by User:Smallbones (Result: Blocked)  
















User:BoringHistoryGuy

















User page
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
User contributions
User logs
View user groups
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts (1871-75), Furness & Hewitt, architects. (Photo by Bestbudbrian)
With apologies to John Ashcroft. How did a sculpture this erotic wind up on a Civil War memorial?
(Photo by Carptrash)
University of Pennsylvania Library (1889-91), Furness, Evans & Company, architects. (Photo by Smallbones)
Atlantic City World War I Memorial. (Photo by Smallbones)
Be sure to bring the kids!

Great houses with great stories[edit]

Userboxes created[edit]

/User Jack Daniel's

/User Frank Furness

/User Sudoku

/User Thomas Eakins

/User Pennsylvania Impressionism

/Saved by Rock 'n' Roll

/Saw a UFO

Recognition[edit]

On3 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Modern Gothic cabinet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Modern Gothic cabinet (pictured) is considered one of the finest American examples of the style? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Modern Gothic cabinet), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Updated DYK query OnApril 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Fairman Rogers Four-in-Hand, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it 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.
The Photographer's Barnstar
For your original photographsondrinking fountains in Philadelphia!AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for significantly expanding Walter Elmer Schofield!Zigzig20s (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for all your hard work at List of American painters exhibiting at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition. The average wikiclod such as myself has no idea as to how much work goes into something like you created until they try it themselves. Carptrash (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This Working Wikipedian's Barnstar goes out to BoringHistoryGuy for his inspired work at List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield. Having discovered that over time the National Park Service was changing its web locations for over a thousand monuments he soldiered through all of them, making the necessary corrections where needed. Wikipedia might never die, but it can kill you so don't attempt this sort of thing yourself at home. BoringHistoryGuy is a highly not paid professional. Carptrash (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar
For writing encyclopedic content that makes this a better encyclopedia, at George Washington's tent and many, many other pages. E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
All Wars Memorial to Colored Soldiers and Sailors. Carptrash (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
I give you this barnstar for your important work on Hercules (chef). The article has become highly relevant, and has helped a lot of people get real historical knowledge about Hercules. I wish Ramin Ganeshram had read it before writing her book.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar
Temple Gold Medal. Nicely done! 7&6=thirteen () 15:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The Dripping History Award
BoringHistoryGuy has been awarded the Dripping Faucet Barnstar.
Just point him at an article, List of the tallest statues in the United States for example, but there are many others, and, like a dripping faucet s/he will "drip, drip, drip" away at it for days, weeks, months even, until only a polished gem remains. Then after that s/he will come back and do some more. Only the most dedicated Wikipedia editor can win one of these. Carptrash (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
Beautiful work. Daniel Pabst didn't make great beer, but he made awesome furniture. Your 'boring history' is almost lyrical. 7&6=thirteen () 03:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The WikiProject Barnstar
For your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your nomination in the 2014 "Military Historian of the Year" awards, I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
Thanks for creating the new Drinking fountains in the United States article, and for expanding Wikipedia's coverage of water-related topics. NorthAmerica1000 04:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
THUMBS UP AWARD

Congratulations on your second Thumbs Up Award - (a record as far as I am aware) - this time for your awesome work on conceptualizing and actually using the concept on setting up and organizing the List of equestrian statues in the United States. My paltry attempts pale next to the perfection that you have produced. Perfect!! Carptrash (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So . . ... I have a lot of sculpture related articles on my watchlist and you are slowly, one at a time, hitting them all. Because this is a good thing you have earned the seldom coveted Thumbs Up Award. Way to go. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Awarded to BoringHistoryGuy

Congratulations,
you are one of a very select few
to receive this
seldom coveted award.
Carptrash (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what to say, except to quote Sally Field: 『You like me … You really like me.』== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Editor of the Week for the week beginning September 23, 2018
Recognized for Creating an article that is Wikipedia at its best: List of American painters exhibited at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition
Researched and constructed an amazing chart. Found and dealt with copyright issues for dozens of images.

You have been selected as Editor of the Week. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for 95% of edits to article space, including outstanding work on Gettysburg articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
BoringHistoryGuy
Image from the article Daniel Pabst, one of BHG's first articles and still a favorite
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning January 18, 2015
To BoringHistoryGuy, Wikipedia is an avocation. He will "research the hell out of a subject" and create or contribute to an article, many with a tie to Philadelphia. Just last week he was acknowledged as a pending changes reviewer and a trusted user and creator of referenced articles (autopatrolled).
Recognized for
Research, Research, Research.
Nomination page
North River (1908) by George Bellows, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts

Eakins[edit]

Commons copyright info: [1]

Samuel Fraunces[edit]

Archived from Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard:

User:GramereC is posting original research to the Samuel Fraunces article. She claims to be a descendant of Fraunces, and asks that others stay out of the way for a week so she can complete her work (approaching 200 edits): User talk:GramereC#3RR.

Yesterday, User:Tuckerresearch cautioned her on this behavior, and pointed out her conflicts of interest: Talk:Samuel Fraunces#What is happening?

I think it is time for an administrator to intervene.

Thank you. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Original research would be unsourced You have asked that I not use sources I published so I have added the primary sources.GramereC 14:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem. Self-published works should not be used, with a few exceptions. Primary sources can only be used when you are summarizing facts that are clearly stated in them. You are interpreting individual primary sources, sometimes even arguing with them, synthesizing your multiple interpretations of them, and sometimes even asking your family to do the same. We strictly limit that type of original research.
If you could do everybody a favor, would you for the time being write up your complete version of the article in a sandbox page e.g. User:GramereC/Fraunces. That way you can write exactly what you want to write and we could see exactly where you are trying to take the article. We could then include any reliably sourced, non-original research into the article, or even replace the entire article with your work, if that is consistent with our RS and NOR rules. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not the one who added my work to the article. so we do not have a problem there. The article is up there are corrections to the references to be made in format. I am not interpreting anything I have supplied the actual references in many case from the Founders papers. Which is a HUGE improvement to the statements made previously with no "Real" references. Beyond repeated and continued reference to two works the Pre-Visit paper by Jenny from the FTM and the brochure by Kym Rice. PLEASE cite an actual book by KYM that would be nice. Using the same to paid for by FTM pieces of work not listed on an authors page is where the problem is. Where do I get that source? Oh yes I have to go to the FTM and ask Jenny.
There are still statements up there right now with regard to staffing of the Washington households both in Philadelphia and NY there is no citation. Yet all but a few of the papers of Washington have been digitized and are accessible. If that is not original work I do not know what is. I did not do that. Someone other then Mt Vernon or Founders Papers has either added receipts of record and it is unpublished or published this who is it and where can we find it????GramereC 16:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you are entirely missing the point. You are editing with no regard for our rules. Please read WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:COI, and WP:AGF. If you read these you'll do a lot better in getting your material into Wikipedia. You can then practice your editing skill in an area that you are less passionate about. You can also do a complete reworking of the Samuel Fraunces article in your user space and we can see what you really want to do. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
No I am entirely getting the point. The article in it's previous state used the same two secondary sources for almost everything. When other secondary sources are introduced the same two or three editors throw the information out and revert it. It became necessary to place the primary sources. In this article you also had primary documents cited that were not what they said they were and were using it to express there opinion. Example of Washington's letters as documentation order of Mass arrest. Then followed Samuel Fraunces himself was arrested but let go for lack of evidence. What source was there for that? What secondary source was used? Whay do things like this get placed up and left. Placing the reference of the Will for Fraunces is necessary yet you yourself keep deleting the file number for retrevial so that it would take 3 days for any person educated or not to obtain the source. Then you tell me I can not use a primary document someplace else even if I have it in listing with active links to find it immediately. In this case there are two or three of you bullying at this point.
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
GramereC 17:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
"I am not the one who added my work to the article"User:GramereC claims above. Note that all the additions quoted in the complaint below were posted by User:GramereC or under one of her aliases. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
"Much of this text is not mine but is what was there to begin with by some unsigned editor who is never identified. GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)"
The complaint below includes links to the article immediately before each of User:GramereC's strings of edits, and immediately after. Anyone can compare the versions and see that all the quoted additions were posted by User:GramereC or under one of her aliases. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I suspect User:GramereC may be posting under a new alias.[2] User:2600:8803:3400:8200:2590:8c3c:59a7:70f4 today added details to the article that only someone intimately familiar with her work would know. (Note also the edit summary.) BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Whether I was wrong or right about this alias, I regret posting the above comment. I will not delete it because I believe in preserving the complete discussion. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Complaint[edit]

User:GramereC – a.k.a. User:Coroinn, a.k.a. User:CRCole; a.k.a. User:71.58.75.28, a.k.a. User:166.217.248.24, a.k.a. User:72.69.56.203, a.k.a. User:69.86.246.30, a.k.a. User:71.58.105.199 – has flagrantly used the Samuel Fraunces article to disseminate her theories about Fraunces’s parentage, ancestry and descendants; to discredit the documentary record and legitimate scholarship on Fraunces; to promote conspiracy theories about and imply racists motives to those with whose work she disagrees; and to promote her self-published Fraunces biography.

Some of her most outrageous claims and accusations have been made on the talk page. But this complaint will be limited to original research added to the article. Below are some examples of original research added during periods in which she was the only editor of content:

User:Tuckerresearch confronted User:GramereC on some of her most outrageous and undocumented claims.Talk:Samuel Fraunces#Edward Fraunces → Samuel Fraunces? Talk:Samuel Fraunces#What is happening?, and User:GramereC deleted the items. But how can Wikipedia tolerate this behavior? BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Complaint (with comments by User:GramereC)[edit]

User:GramereC – a.k.a. User:Coroinn, a.k.a. User:CRCole; a.k.a. User:71.58.75.28, a.k.a. User:166.217.248.24, a.k.a. User:72.69.56.203, a.k.a. User:69.86.246.30, a.k.a. User:71.58.105.199 – has flagrantly used the Samuel Fraunces article to disseminate her theories about Fraunces’s parentage, ancestry and descendants; to discredit the documentary record and legitimate scholarship on Fraunces; to promote conspiracy theories about and imply racists motives to those with whose work she disagrees; and to promote her self-published Fraunces biography.

Where has this happened??? again here is Boring History Guy going off on anyone who tries to remove anyting he says about Fraunces.GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of her most outrageous claims and accusations have been made on the talk page. But this complaint will be limited to original research added to the article. Below are some examples of original research added during periods in which she was the only editor of content:

So if we use the talk page Boring History Guy gets angry and turns everything personal.GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

All three things are true but have often been removed because YOU Boring Old History Guy say so. That is fine remove the birth certificate because the dates vary remove burials for the same reason. Which is what you do. Even when it is replaced with some other work you blank it out. GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Again much of this was removed by Boring Old History Guy. Not corrected with any type of note added. Much of this text is not mine but is what was there to begin with by some unsigned editor who is never identified. GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Tuckerresearch confronted User:GramereC on some of her most outrageous and undocumented claims.Talk:Samuel Fraunces#Edward Fraunces → Samuel Fraunces? Talk:Samuel Fraunces#What is happening?, and User:GramereC deleted the items. But how can Wikipedia tolerate this behavior? BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this recent round of edits can be researched on their own. Again If you are going to use other Tertiary sources such as the museum pre visit or the booklet Kym Rice did for the FTM and SR you need to look at what references they used to begin with. GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Prime problems are representing the current building as having been there since colonial times. It was a rebuild. GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The portrait that FTM uses was purchased at auction in 1913 and although they say it is Fraunces they offer no provenance. The only way to verify where it came from is from SR published minutes. The way the portrait is continually put up front without recognizing that there is another earlier published sketch of Samuel Fraunces provided by family. Plus written description in conflict with the description is reprehensible in that they are in need of reproof. There are other places where the documents are just as reprehensible.GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Limiting the secondary sources acceptable in your eyes necessitate exposing the primary documents because the primary documents are in conflict. Most of these conclusions were reached many years ago. You actual took WEB DuBois statement and had it written that Fraunces had no African blood. That just is not true all anyone has to do is read the final letter in the discussion. GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You continue to go back to Fraunces Will and you do not give a viable source to find it. Then when I place one in your text as correction you take it back out. GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

User:BoringHistoryGuy on this Samuel Fraunces article is an entire section that has NOTHING published about it. This poisoning attempt – if it occurred – would have taken place in late June 1776 at Richmond Hill, Washington's headquarters in Manhattan. The housekeeper there was a widow named Mary Smith,[85] although there were other female servants. Fraunces's tavern was about two miles away and provided catered meals for the general and his staff. The reference included here is for the wrong thing.

This Wikipedia article then goes on to argue why Lossing's story is incorrect based on the assertion that the events took place at Richmond Hill. This is original work.GramereC 01:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Walls of words don't work here[edit]

Particularly when a response is interleaved with the complaint. Editors here will not be able to work through all of the above content disputes. The only thing that is clear is that the two editors completely disagree on the content and that they cannot communicate with each other. GramereC, you cannot insist that only your version be included in the article. User:BoringHistoryGuy is a respected editor here and seems to have very good knowledge of the general area. If you cannot reach agreement with him on what should be included in the article, or find other editors who back your version, then you just cannot force your version of things into the article. We do things by consensus here.

I strongly urge you to write up your own version of the article in your own user space, then we'll be able to properly judge both the overall content of the "two" articles and individual sentences and paragraphs. If you are only willing to give us a choice between "your article" or "his article", my feeling is that editors will choose "his article." Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I can do that tomorrow. The article right now has both sides which was never the problem.
Currently the only thing left is those numbers for the Presidential household which have no citiation. They are obviously the work of someone adding things up themselves but since there is no cite it is hard to tell what they are saying it is on the talk page under presidential household. Mt Vernon sent a list of known sources to cite the size of household and none match the numbers given.
As far as your consensus goes send it to an admin or an arbitrator. The gang of three is ridiculous.GramereC 23:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I have left as much of the old article as possible and if you look at just the Phebe edits you can see that. Boring History Guy wants his version and no other. You keep insisting that this is a thing between he and I which is not my feeling at all. I have not insisted mine is the only version and if you go back and look that is true. Boring History Guy has the agenda it is not me. I removed sources referring to me or my publications. Tried to leave his stuff there as much as possible. GramereC 23:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
And then this: I suspect User:GramereC is posting under a new alias.[8] User:2600:8803:3400:8200:2590:8c3c:59a7:70f4 today added details to the article that only someone intimately familiar with her work would know. (Note also the deceptive edit summary.) BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Is he talking about the overnight puncuation and text corrections someone did? They were fine.
Ok it is all in the sand box I think I got everything folks sent me overnight. I left spaces where I have issues not sure how you wanted that. There are still an awful lot of BAD REFERENCES. GramereC 17:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[edit]

User:GramereC reported by User:Smallbones (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Samuel Fraunces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GramereC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [22]
  2. [23]
  3. [24]
  4. [25]
  5. [26]
  6. [27], another after I filed this.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Talk:Samuel_Fraunces#Request_for_Comment, an entire section trying to deal with this over weeks and weeks. The entire thing has gone on for many months, possibly years.

Comments:
One user, an SPA who brings in OR simply will not listen to others and insists that she is the only one with a say of what is in the article Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There are three editors who will not even allow a correct citation to be added to this article. It is necessary to get this looked at up the food chain. I have tried adding the corrections one by one but the response is that they revert to the original article instead of looking at each change. I have added it to sand box uploaded it and was told to upload the complete new article which I did. Now they are reverting again without the corrections. GramereC 17:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talkcontribs)
Another diff on 3rr warning 7&6=thirteen () 17:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
If you decide to take action, please remember User:GramereC's aliases – a.k.a. User:Coroinn, a.k.a. User:CRCole; a.k.a. User:71.58.75.28, a.k.a. User:166.217.248.24, a.k.a. User:72.69.56.203, a.k.a. User:69.86.246.30, a.k.a. User:71.58.105.199 == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – 31 hours. Though several people have reverted, the only person who I noticed breaking 3RR was GramereC. This is a long-running dispute, and one of the editor's statements above tends to illustrate that GramereC's views are usually in the minority. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BoringHistoryGuy&oldid=1044281233"

Categories: 
Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons
Wikipedians who have been selected as Editor of the Week
Wikipedia-Philadelphia Museum of Art collaboration participants
Wikipedians in Philadelphia
Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Pennsylvania
 



This page was last edited on 14 September 2021, at 12:33 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki