ScroogieII

According to the Wiki page, whether or not it is accurate and believable, "A commemorative stone was unveiled on 28 June 2010" , so you should have no problem. Yet further: "In English, the inscription on the stone reads: Kinda difficult to say that what you have is as yet a true monument. It will be up to the officers. Keep us posted. Keith EDIT: After a few more moments thought, were I an officer in the proposed category, I would have to vote with a "Nay". The stone only bespeaks a future monument and does not declare itself a monument. Sorry, Andreas, but much as I know you'd love to have a Waymark in said category in said country, I don't believe this one should fly. Again, keep us posted.

Does that happen a lot there? Keith

You Bum!!! You've never mentioned your LEGO fixation/addiction to me. For Shame!! <snip> BTW, what's an AFOL? And that's because I've decided to volunteer my services to a couple of local charitable organizations. As a result, I, too, likely will have less time in the future to donate to Waymarking and, more importantly , kibitzing on these forums. However, like Ivo, I fully intend to continue with my duty as officer in the categories I manage, though often in a "slightly" less prompt manner. You see, I've volunteered to look after the refurbishing, cleaning and pricing of all the appliances and electronics which have been donated to the Grand Forks Hospital Auxiliary Thrift Store. Then unbeknownst to me, that is a very busy store which receives a lot of donations, especially of appliances. Last week was my busiest ever, while this week has become much less busy, allowing me some free time to venture here and kibitz. Meanwhile, I have also volunteered at the Grand Forks Learning Garden, a learning garden intended to encourage folks to learn about all aspects of gardening, thence embark on a gardening venture, or even career, of their own. Having been an organic gardener for 45+ years, I was asked to create a "veggie" section in the garden, thereby encouraging more locals to "grow their own", as it were. Touché Ivo. Keith

And we have ANOTHER WINNER!!! Keith

Hey CW. How gozit for you in La La Land? You're quite welcome. I don't have anything to add, wuz just wondering how you're doing, as I've been pretty busy of late and haven't had much time to hang out hereabouts. BTW who approved it? Keith

As do I, as I have not much else to do.

Indeed, T0SHEA has marked it thus: "(This dedicated bench may have been removed)" However, I'm not about to voyage up there to ascertain its actual status. Mebbe, some day, someone can do that for us. Keith

I don't yet see it in Figurative Public Sculpture. Has it been approved, as it should be? OR, am I mistaken and you were simply using This Sculpture as an example? If so, GO GET IT!!! Keith

I shall now assume that your WM has been approved, but ... To answer your question, CW: "Is it okay to approve my own waymark?" No, as it tends to brand one as being a somewhat less than totally honourable Waymarker. Basically, that's what our Wayfroggie is for. Should a Waymark go unapproved for a sufficient length of time, our Wayfroggie will eventually get to it. I understand him to be a busy Froggie, yet retain confidence in his ability to finally get to all the outstanding Waymarks hereabouts. So, my advice would be to chill and, at least temporarily, worry about a few of the more important aspects of your life, as I'm sure that, as with the rest of us, Waymarking occupies a relatively insignificant portion of your cerebral activity. Keith

Sorry to say that it's not a situation which might be aided by category officers. I've not been back to any of the sites for a few years, so have no idea what might be on the sites given above. A Former former? Sure, the McDougall Memorial United (formerly Methodist) Church actually is now the Former Former Morleyville Methodist Mission. Keith

"clumsy with words" you're not, Erik. Keith

Indeed Snowdog, you have uncovered a truth regarding the two. Waymarking simply isn't for everyone. Waymarking, at least for those wishing to produce commendable Waymarks, requires one to invest time and energy toward the research required, then the putting to paper, as it were, of one's newfound knowledge, as well as their personal appraisal of a given site, or object. Quite simply said, most are unwilling to invest that energy - and that assessment includes a great many of those who do partake of the Waymarking game. Keith

DING! DING! DING! Sorry, CW, the bell and the light bulb both just now went on. I now remember where I had previously lived this experience, I think. Am I right? Keith

This is like reliving one of my (misremembered??) yesterdays. I'm quite certain that I had responded to a very similar query in the relatively recent past, but have gone back three pages worth of posts, yet can't find the appropriate subject. Anyhoo, I shall try to respond similarly to how I (believe I) responded then, with an example I'm quite sure (if I'm sure of anything anymore) I included in that thread. I have had many buildings and objects destroyed following my Waymarking of same. In some cases Waymarks may well be the last published accounts of their existence, hence the Waymarks might become valuable, in an historical sense, and should not be summarily destroyed. To indicate how I believe all defunct Waymarks should be handled, I'll follow with a couple of examples of how no longer extant objects or structures of note have been handled by myself: St. Mary's and St. Paul's Anglican Church - Lytton, BC Lytton Joss House Site - Lytton, BC And, in Alberta: Former Morleyville Methodist Mission - Morley, AB Unfortunately, I no longer have access to this series of Waymarks, so am unable to interject the appropriate title changes. Keith

All the above notwithstanding, CW, where the hell is that? I don't recognize the logo on the door of the truck. I suspect that it may have actually been (if you're counting, I'm quite certain this may well be my 10,000th {or so} split infinitive) WMed by T0SHEA, not myself, as it is she who was into Dedicated Benches, and not myself. Either way though, I don't really recognize the locale. Gotta guess BC, but where????? "mak[ing] an escape" ?- It appears more likely about to experience an upcoming incarceration. Keith

Hi Guys! Haven't been able to spend much time here lately but thought it appropriate that someone should make mention of the fact that one of us has recently marked their 90th birthday. That would quite likely make that nonagenarian the oldest member of our community. Who might that nonagenarian be, I hear you ask? Why, it would be none other than Don Morfe, a man who continues to fill my inbox with about a dozen "Contributing Buildings" each day, on a quest to climb at least one more step up the ladder of Most Waymarks Approved before he can no longer hit the keyboard, as it were. I feel that many in the community know, or are at least passingly familiar with, Don. That notwithstanding, I feel that it is now your duty, as it is mine, to urge him on, as I expect you also would wish to be similarly encouraged by your brethren, should you also de sufficiently fortunate to have enjoyed as many years on this planet as has he. So, please, at least say HI to Don here, and please include whatever best wishes you may wish to send his way. Thank You. Keith

As do we all. Despite your otherwise impeccable (here I even had to resort to the "typo" checker to get that one right) English, typos are inevitable, even those unnoticeable ones arising from conversing in a "second" language.

You and me, both!

And Thank You, FiGuy. "Paris" - you lucky bugger! Been many, many years since I've been there!!!! Mebbe again someday!! Keith

Fi Guy, I realize you're not an English language, first language, speaker, so I'll try to be as gentle as possible. As I understand the language, "Olympic Non-Competition Venue Structures" and "Olympic Non-Competition Structures" would appear to be identical in theory, at least with regard to their purpose and this discussion, and that is to house or host all Olympic activities NOT directly related to competition. Neither is directly related to, nor houses, nor hosts, competitive events, hence are Olympic Non-Competition Structures, regardless of definition. The only difference I can discern between "Olympic Non-Competition Venue Structures" and "Olympic Non-Competition Structures" is that the former would be located on the site of an Olympic venue, while the latter may or may not, yet would still be related to the Olympic Games in question. To attempt to clarify further, would an Olympic "Non-Competition" venue exist? To me, it seems not. That said, I remain firm in my contention that a building which has housed the Olympic Committee of any country, whether it continues to house the committee or not, is worthy of inclusion in said category. Andreas, I would, have you not already, resubmit the Waymark, possibly adding gleanings from the above discussion, should you deem them valuable . Good Luck. Keith

WOW! Thanks Erik. My number given above seems to have even managed to outpace inflation over the last few years! Didn't have any idea which particular emoji might be appropriate here, so I included a few, from which yall may choose or, better, add one of your own. Keith PS - to what do the "former categories" refer?

Seems indeed to be the case, and... ... now, it you were to actually look around, you would, in all likelihood, find a MESS of non Premium member category leaders, possibly a commensurate number of nonactive leaders, and a pretty large number of no longer active officers. Interesting situation. Lots of Waymarkers from waaaay back have either initiated categories, or taken them over, and have now gone on to other pursuits, leaving yet another leaderless, or even an officer free category behind, for our Wayfroggie to minister to. I once read, many years ago, on the page of our Wayfroggie's other personality, that (it) was officer in 243 categories. For some reason I can remember numbers, though I seem able to remember little else. In any event I see now that that page (Wayfroggie's alter ego) has been expunged of such statistics, so I shall assume that (it) remains officer in 243 (or more) categories. Anyhow, 243 seems a pretty large number of categories for one person to handle in anything approaching a responsible manner. That's not really germane to the issues posed above. Just thought I'd mention it. Anyhoo, with regard to categories with which you have issue vis a vis the proprietorship, I would simply suggest that you realize that this has become purely a do-it-yourself site. So, you're advised to follow one or more of the steps outlined below: 1: If a category has become utterly leaderless and officer free, complain to our Wayfroggie. Should you achieve no satisfaction and submitted Waymarks remain unreviewed, move on, knowing that our Wayfroggie will eventually approve your Waymarks. After all, it was prolly one of (its) 243 anyhow. 2: Should you experience the incredible fortune to actually come into contact with an otherwise inactive officer of a particular inactive category, and assuming that you have already had the sense previously to join the group, immediately request that they propose a vote to have you elevated to officer. If you don't know how to do any of that, go back to Geocaching. 3: Really, what do you care? If your Waymarks get approved sometime this year, what more can you expect from a website to which you pay no dues nor fees?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Keith

I might try for this paragraph of the requirements: "6. Olympic Non-Competition Venue Structures, (athlete villages, arches, bridges, decorative venue signage, plazas, countdown clocks, museums, etc.) - For athlete villages, unless separated geographically, multiple buildings in the same general area are considered one waymark." The building is/was, by definition, an "Olympic Non-Competition Venue Structure". (BTW, buildings are structures.) Athlete villages, arches, bridges, plazas, museums, etc, should be included, yet not a National Olympic Committee building? Makes no sense whatever to me. Though I've never been privy to the meetings or workings within the Olympic Committee of any country, including that of Canada's, I'm pretty sure that, within each country which participates in the Olympics, their national Olympic Committee is a pretty important part of that country's participation in The Olympics. Witness This Website. Though the country of Moldova appears not on the aforementioned website, that's not to say that Moldova's Olympic Committee was any less important to them than was the Olympic Committee of any other country intent on participating in The Olympics. Though It can't be stated with certainty, it seems to me that each country's Olympic Committee would appear to be that country's most important and influential body with regard to decision making vis a vis Olympics participation. Hence, the Olympic Committee headquarters of a small country such as Moldova, a country likely possessed of comparatively few training or practice facilities, should, in this context, be accorded greater than common stature with regard to its "Olympic Memorabilia" category acceptability, if solely for its outsized importance to the country's Olympics aspirations. Google Maps indicates THIS to be the building indicated on their Olympics page, given the address provided. THIS is their home page, so it would appear that they're certainly not extinct. Please give it another shot, Andreas - I believe it deserves acceptance. (not that I have any say in the matter, though, but it's DEFINITELY worth a shot.) Keith

Well said, not really unexpected, and Thank You, Andreas!!! You (almost {I'm sure that hours of deep thought could unearth a situation to the contrary [though one just won't come to mind here and now (though that's not to say that such won't occur to me just after I click the Submit button {though that's actually unlikely})]}) always tend to say things deserving of a smiley from me! And here it is! - Now, anybody else willing to step up and put emojis into words? Keith

What, Andreas, you trying to bend my head with yet another new Gazebo Descriptor? Or is it that you just don't spell well in Englisch? Love, though that Monopteri appears an acceptable plural. Not that I was at all surprised at that. Keith