Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Fair use rationale for Image:Windham Seal.JPG

Image:Windham Seal.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

Almost every town website or town's historical society - or at least towns of this size - has a standard section that describes the town's history in a nutshell. Perhaps someone could add the standard town history in the history section? Midtempo-abg (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Windham, New Hampshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Affluence

Someone removed the term "affluent" from the lede of this article. An IP restored it. I reverted it again, asking the IP to gain consensus before replacing it. Again, the IP put it back, this time with a totally nonsensical edit summary claiming the term in question is an objective adjective, and additionally arguing that the fact that the term had been there a while somehow means it should be there. Well, need I remind editors that endurance is no test of truth? Frequently, it simply means no one is paying attention. I await the IP's cited objective definition of affluence. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here and was surprised to see "affluent" removed, as it had always been there and is so obviously merited by anyone who knows the town. I am quite surprised it was removed. If you take a look at this sore "John" guy above, he seems to be some totally foreign, bored Idaho person who like to come here and pretend to know about NH communities. I hope someone ties together the basic census data that will persuade this idiot to get off our page. 2600:1000:B116:1679:94DC:5C4B:7A07:5642 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page does not belong to the locals in this town, in no sense is it "your page". Personal attacks are not appropriate. And ILIKEIT arguments are not persuasive. You do not have any consensus for the inclusion of the subjective adjective "affluent" in the lede. FYI, no amount of demographic information, no matter how well referenced, can "prove" the factuality of a subjective term that has no precise definition. What makes a community affluent? High median income? How high? High median home value? How high? Obviously, you can't answer these questions with anything but your opinion. That is why we don't use terms like that. It isn't to say the community is somehow a lesser place. If what affluence is comes down to the readers opinion, why not just let them decide from the factual information provided? John from Idegon (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this and couldn't help but respond to this guy's baseless, nonsensical argument that Wikipedia articles are essentially forbidden from using adjectives that don't necessarily have a quantifying values in their OED definitions. Someone needs to get "affluent" back immediately, with properly referenced census info, to persuade this ignorant foreigner that the qualifier is justified both on the grounds of subjective reputation and objective median income stats. In fact I believe the town was the richest in the state a few years back (now Exeter).
From Somalia: "In antiquity, Somalia was an important commercial centre." How important? How high? So what do you think John, should we go an rewrite every single Wikipedia article because you might not agree with a majority census opinion extracted from reputable sources? (Kendrick and Casson in the former). Just give it up - the claim you are making is so far-fetched and absurd I am shocked someone has the energy to attempt intent perversion of an otherwise factually illuminating adjective (maybe not so obvious to some foreigner Pacific NW person who presumably hasn't even ever been to New England.) Do you know a thing about Windham, John? Have you even ever been here?
From Charleston, SC: "Known for its rich history, well-preserved architecture, distinguished restaurants, and mannerly people, Charleston has received a large number of accolades" I supposed you are likewise offended by the "mannerly people" of Charleston, SC - a statement so subjective compared to Windham's evident affluence it is shocking you even have the audacity to persist in such a moribund and pointless argument? Looks like you will need to go criticize their article too - another place you have likely never even gained any first hand knowledge of.
I'll likely regret directing your attention to our friends in Weston, MA, the article lede of which uses your despised "affluent" not once but twice, again which is verified by objective data in the same way against which you have made an illogical blanket criticism above.
I suggest you quickly end this pointless campaign of yours to question basic, factual descriptors and learn for yourself, in fact, a thing or two about New England the people of which are the reason you have a free country to live in today. Alternatively, you will have quite a large job of policing your antics on all the thousands of other uses of appropriate "subjective" descriptors on Wikipedia, only a few of which I easily aggregated above for your education. 216.66.104.3 (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. John from Idegon (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, we don't extrapolate anything here. This is an encyclopedia, by definition a tertiary source. Everything here must be verifiable to a reliable, previously published source. Perhaps if you would have taken the time to look for newspaper or magazine articles that support the use of affluent to describe this community instead of searching for other articles on Wikipedia that need attention you'd at least have an argument. Content of Wikipedia articles is determined by the consensus of the editors. Right now, there are only two editors that are interested; me and you. You have not made any argument to persuade me. So, there is still no consensus to use the term. You must have consensus to include disputed content. You don't. Consequently, I have requested protection for this article due to an IP editor editing against consensus. John from Idegon (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with John here. Windham's "affluence" scores are based at this point on U.S. Census American Community Survey data, which in turn are based on a sample. Windham's "ranks" for household income or other measures of affluence tend to fluctuate from year to year. Yes, Windham is ordinarily in New Hampshire's top ten, but one can't simply say it's the most affluent, or fourth most affluent, because the numbers are not that precise. And relative affluence in New Hampshire means what for the rest of the world? It's a vague term. An editor is welcome to find other published sources that sort this out, but sifting the Census data for a hoped-for result amounts to WP:Original research. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am now the third editor. I am new to Wikipedia, and have wanted to be a contributor for many years. I figured I would start with what I know. I regret to see that my very first edit resulted in a page being created about me by this trollish "John from Idegon" character stating I had a conflict of interest. I am a 100% unpaid volunteer who spends 1000's of hours in the real world volunteering for the State, my community and surrounding communities as well as various non-profits. Apparently that means I have a "conflict of interest". I am the current Chairman of Windham's Board of Selectmen, to be transparent about any conflict of interest. I served on the Planning Board for two years also and worked on Windham's latest Master Plan, including the Demographics and Regional Concerns chapters so I have considerable expertise and understanding when it concerns population, income, educational demographics, etc. When you think about it - there's a benefit to having people who know what they're talking about actually editing these articles.

I agree with Ken Gallager in regard to the adjective 'affluence'. The adjective should be replaced. Windham's average household income is $125,000 according to WS Development who is a large developer in Windham. (http://www.wsdevelopment.com/images/Properties/72/factsheet.pdf) See page 2. As stated in Windham's 2005 and 2015 Master Plans, Windham’s Median Household Income in 2012, according to the NH Economic Labor Information Bureau, is $118,242. This is the second highest median household income among many towns in the region. The Town of Bedford has the highest median household income at $128,656. Clearly, this qualifies for the use of the simple adjective "affluent". 2601:18C:8501:70E0:A829:D9E1:6F35:D0D3 (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Joel Desilets2601:18C:8501:70E0:A829:D9E1:6F35:D0D3 (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joel, thank you for your contributions. Can you perhaps add some of these unequivocal, factual statistics as sources after the word "affluent" (which I just restored)? I confirm that this "John from Idegon" character has achieved an absolutely horrendous record of antics on this article and has attacked Wikipedia users in violation of basic Wiki policy - even calling them "elitist pricks" on his talk page last fall. If dissent over the verifiable adjective is continued, we can ask a level-headed administrator for arbitration help. 73.238.21.186 (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The cited facts support the restitution of "affluent", with the onus of proof being on he who can demonstrate otherwise. The numbers don't lie. Reverting. 75.68.35.78 (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the cited "facts" don't state "affluent", any interpretation of the facts to reach that description is original research. Also, as a whole, Wikipedia has established a community consensus against the use of the term within the lead section; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 19#Request for comment, which addresses use of "affluent" in lede section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Barek on this one. The addition of the word affluent in the lead adds nothing to the article. Data is fine, interpretation is not.--Jayron32 01:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Please be aware that this is not the town's website or a blog. It is an encyclopedia. The content here is to be factual, not an interpretation of something, and it must be based on a previously published, reliable source. It also must be of importance in understanding the town in a long view for the entire world. The stuff the anon editors have been adding regarding the possible demise of a rail trail does not fit any of those qualifications. Local editors are welcome and encouraged to edit, but you gotta remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Anon editing is blocked for a while. If you want to try to discuss the info on the rail trail by providing sources and coming to a consensus about how to handle the information, feel free to start a discussion here. John from Idegon (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The continued existence of a Rail/trail

It is all factual, and supported by a WP:RS. I put it in a note as it is somewhat peripheral. John from Idegon said you don't give a Expletive deleted about this article. That you are inert or alienated or don't WP:Like is irrelevant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misquoting is not productive. I said I don't give a flying fuck about this town, not about this article. For the most part, I have no personal feelings about any article I edit. There are of course some exceptions. I care about my alma maters, and my hometowns, and my notable friends and relatives. On those articles, I'm very careful to double check my neutrality. On all the other articles, the detachment of not giving a flying fuck serves well. I am not disputing the existence of this study. Its existence is an undisputed fact. I am disputing its relevance. It's 6 years stale. So someone said six years ago that a proposed project would cause the removal of a recreation asset? Has anything been started on this proposed project? Have any other proposals been brought forth? Is the project proposed that will cause the removal of the asset currently funded? Or even economically viable? What I don't see primarily is how any of this speculation could possibly matter to anybody outside the local community, which is the target audience for this article. The locals have access to newspapers and local informational meetings for this kind of info. The inclusion of this info does nothing to increase a person's understanding of this community. John from Idegon (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The logistics, limited and overlapping space, and proximity have not changed. I think it adds perspective. By putting it into a note only I tried to validate and compromise the deteriorating concerns and the untoward exchanges that have developed.
WP:Own seems to apply. WP:Civil applies to everyone, the IPs and to established editors. See User talk:73.219.217.243. I understand the frustration as evidenced at Disrespect and antagonism on the Windham NH article Some fights are not worth fighting. WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Serendipitously, I just found this on a WP:User page: “It’s really hard to be conscious of this on a minute-by-minute basis online, but the Internet is made of people, and it works best when we remember that this thing is not a series of tubes but a conglomeration of human beings.” — John Green 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I follow John's talk page, and also edit a lot of US town and city articles. I too would have deleted this edit. It doesn't really impart any information, except that something nearly happened six years ago. There are a few ponts in WP:NOT in the edit. Could the edit be trimmed? Is there any current information about it? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edit is bare bones as it is. It merely emphasizes the space constraints and the possible public policy choices that would have to be made. And it does it in a note, which is as close to note mentioning it as one can come while mentioning it. The edit was my attempt to put 'oil on troubled waters', and you ought to recognize that. This was a budding edit war that was getting out of hand and personal — an increasingly acrimonious spiral. I've steered clear of admonishing the concerned editors, and now we are debating a trifling diversion that hopefully broke the chain. I would suggest that one should not blow up the 'bridge over troubled waters.' De minimis non curat lex. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please update the town governance list and titles, and correct the website address

Presuming I can get some consensus here, can we please update the town webpage from "windhamnewhampshire.com" to "windhamnh.gov"? We currently do not have the old address set up to redirect, for various reasons. But you can clearly see the new address functions and is identical. Soon, the old one will be eliminated. Even sooner, if people will stop going to it. Please allow for this edit.

Please also update the Board of Selectmen to match what is shown on the town website. (http://windhamnewhampshire.com/committees/board-selectmen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8501:70E0:A829:D9E1:6F35:D0D3 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All set. I added a ref for your changes to the Board of Selectmen - thank you for initiating that. It's not common to require that level of citation normally. --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Windham,_New_Hampshire