" 

 == North Stonington Village Historic District == 

 Did you intend to list North Stonington Village Historic District for deletion at WP:RFD?  You tagged it with  but that is only the first step.    

 :Rats, I had meant to include it in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 31#various New London County, CT, redirects.  I just started a new batch to include it now, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 21#various NRHP HDs in CT.  Thanks!    

 == 4RR == 

 Poquetanuck. Protected.  

 If I see you referring to a content dispute as vandalism again, I will refer this matter to AN/I, where such talk is unlikely to win sympathy.    
 :You seem to be speaking to each other civilly for the time being, so I'll leave you to continue.     

 ::I appreciate that you protected the Poquetanuck article, which certainly prevents anyone from reaching 4RR in editing it.  I take it that you are objecting to my using the word ""vandalism"" in some recent edits, though.  What I meant by the term was the punitive nature of recent edits at random, unrelated articles by another editor, in lieu of discussion.  There has been, I thought, consensus that the other editor and I and others would discuss four CT NRHP articles, and not engage in edit warring at hundreds of other articles that have the same issues.  It seems like vandalism to me, to see an outbreak of edit warring at random other articles.  I even defined what i meant by my use of the term, in an edit summary at Wyoming, Rhode Island: ""(Undid undo apparent vandalism (edit warring apparently related to Talk:Poquetanuck)"", while at the corresponding Wyoming Village Historic District ‎I just wrote it shorter ""(Undid Undo apparent vandalism)"".  But, looking at wp:vandalism now, I see that in wikipedia jargon, vandalism seems to be given a specific meaning that is not what I meant.  In the sequence of my edits, and given the general discussion at Talk pages which I am participating, I don't expect that the other editor would misunderstand what i was saying in shorthand in these or other edit summaries.  I don't know what other short term would do, instead.  Anyhow, if the term is such a third rail as the wp:vandalism guideline describes, i will try to avoid using the term in the future.    

 :::Once again, any attempt at movement is blocked by Polaron who is content with the status quo and therefore does not engage in any meaningful attempt to remedy the situation, but just blocks and refuses to make any movement.  He says ""it is....""  Doncram says ""sources?""  Polaron replies, ""it is"".  We never get anywhere.    "