Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
iconions

Kentucky Historical Markers

Recommended Posts

Question for the group... Yes, I wrote privately to the officer in question without getting a response.  Also, the two markers in question were denied by a vote of the category, of course, the only person that voted was the officer in question.

The category description - 

Seek out a Kentucky Historical Marker. Record the coordinates, text, and a picture of the marker.
Expanded Description:
The waymarks for this category are marks for Kentucky Historical Markers
Instructions for Posting a Kentucky Historical Markers Waymark:
In your post:

Please include a quality picture of the marker on the description page (No need for you to be in picture, actually preferred that you're not)

The text on the marker

The lat/long in minute decimal format WGS-84 datum of the marker (N37 13.432 W083 56.913 for example)

 

Also, there is a variable that asks for the Group(s) responsible for placing the marker. 

Here are my questions...

 

1.) Where in that description does it state that it must be an official Kentucky State Marker?
2.) If one is true, then why was the variable asking WHO placed the marker added?  Kentucky Official Markers are only placed by the Kentucky Historical Society in conjunction with the Kentucky Department of Highways.
3.) and just a side note, Signs of History also believes that Kentucky takes all markers.

I don't like calling people out publically - but please, seriously, yes, the category needed to have someone other than Andreas to approve stuff, but you can't be making up your own rules.  I'm going to leave this at that...
 

 
 
 

 

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post

According to the category description for Signs of History, your Kentucky submissions should have been declined by Signs of History, were they?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, elyob said:

According to the category description for Signs of History, your Kentucky submissions should have been declined by Signs of History, were they?

Ah, the plot deepens.  An "officer" joined back in on 31Mar20, <snip>, he went in and deleted ALL of the old non official from the start of the category.  He did this before in other categories he officered.  If you look back on 31March20, there is an absolute crapton of denials in the Kentucky category - yea, tell me that this was the way it was from the start of the category...

Edited by wayfrog
taken out a name

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Tell me that did not really happen!!

image.png.5bb3a6e8eb79e36811c46f85a4619163.png

 

This is the very top one...

image.png.5ec9778a65dfdd2f679c197e9522dc81.png

 

Yea, it didn't happen...  Seriously, I'm getting more pissed off by the moment.  

Share this post


Link to post

...and we got a current "officer" following and condoning this behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I asked you not to tell me that! (Correction is mine)

Wayfrog, PLEASE!!!

I've got a message into wayfrog.  I also messaged the new officer in question.  I'm waiting to see how this turns out.

Share this post


Link to post

We use to accept now Kentucky Historical Markers in Sign of History, but if we follow our requirement we should not.

Share this post


Link to post

It was recently brought to my attention that this forum post was created. As one of the only active members in that category, I have personally reached out to iconions regarding his submissions and our category. We will be discussing these issues, how to fix them, and how to move forward. Please give us time before I give an official update here on this page. Thank you.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bluesnote said:

It was recently brought to my attention that this forum post was created. As one of the only active members in that category, I have personally reached out to iconions regarding his submissions and our category. We will be discussing these issues, how to fix them, and how to move forward. Please give us time before I give an official update here on this page. Thank you.

Umm, yea, interesting email to say the least.  

 

5 hours ago, Alfouine said:

We use to accept now Kentucky Historical Markers in Sign of History, but if we follow our requirement we should not.

Sorry, there is nothing stating that in the category description.  Yes, the category owner is inactive.  There are ways to get changes made to descriptions so that stuff like this doesn't happen.  As of right now, there is NOTHING stating that non-official markers are not accepted in the category description.  This is my whole point of contention,  You should not and cannot make up extra requirements that are not in the description.  
Also, bottom line, you don't retroactively deny old waymarks because they no longer fit the vision of the category. you grandfather them.  There is absolutely no justification for this.

 

So there we have it.  How many other historical marker categories have had old waymarks denied because they no longer "fit" with the new vision of just accepting "official" markers.  Kinda like how many licks to the center of the tootsie roll pop - the world may never know...

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, iconions said:

Umm, yea, interesting email to say the least.  

 

Sorry, there is nothing stating that in the category description.  Yes, the category owner is inactive.  There are ways to get changes made to descriptions so that stuff like this doesn't happen.  As of right now, there is NOTHING stating that non-official markers are not accepted in the category description.  This is my whole point of contention,  You should not and cannot make up extra requirements that are not in the description.  
Also, bottom line, you don't retroactively deny old waymarks because they no longer fit the vision of the category. you grandfather them.  There is absolutely no justification for this.

 

So there we have it.  How many other historical marker categories have had old waymarks denied because they no longer "fit" with the new vision of just accepting "official" markers.  Kinda like how many licks to the center of the tootsie roll pop - the world may never know...

You did not understand what i wrote :

"We use to accept now Kentucky Historical Markers in Sign of History, but if we follow our requirement (That means Signs History category requirements and of course not Kentucky Historical markers requirements)) we should not."

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

The waymarks that were wrongfully declined have been re-approved along with iconions' submissions. Thank you everyone for being patient. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Alfouine said:

You did not understand what i wrote :

"We use to accept now Kentucky Historical Markers in Sign of History, but if we follow our requirement (That means Signs History category requirements and of course not Kentucky Historical markers requirements)) we should not."

 

You didn't understand what I wrote - there isn't anything in the Kentucky Historical Markers stating that non-official markers aren't accepted.  Officers need to follow category requirements as they are written and then, if they get edit privileges, change those category descriptions.  Until then, an officer has the obligation to approve or deny waymarks based on the category description, not based upon some idea pulled from the orifice du jour.  Again, per the signs of history category as I read it at the time of submission into the Kentucky category, my submission was not allowed.  It was in writing in the category description in black and white.  I'm not going to waste time trying to "sneak" in a submission that doesn't belong.  I have been an officer in too many categories, for far too long to do that... 

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bluesnote said:

The waymarks that were wrongfully declined have been re-approved along with iconions' submissions. Thank you everyone for being patient. 

 

Excellent, thank you for doing this :cool:

 

I would like to decline all last Kentucky historical sign approved in Signs of history category, would you approve them ?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Alfouine said:

 

Excellent, thank you for doing this :cool:

 

I would like to decline all last Kentucky historical sign approved in Signs of history category, would you approve them ?

 

Yes, I will do that. More details to come, soon.

Share this post


Link to post

I got this notification on one of the waymarks in question.  Out of respect, I will not post the name of the user AND the comment has since been deleted.

 

Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida all have historical markers along the highway and these are commonly known as historical markers. These park signs are not Kentucky Historical Markers and should be in signs of history or another category. Tennessee and Virginia would not allow these in their marker groups.

 

The user is ABSOLUTELY correct.  Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina do not allow these kinds of markers in their category.  Neither does Texas.  The big difference?  The category description STATES that they don't accept them.  Kentucky category description currently does not state that AND the category did accept these before a certain date. So, sir, with all due respect, your opinion is just that, your opinion,  and not valid at this time. 

 

I can also state that Kansas, Iowa, Missouri and several other states accept non-official markers.  Again, what other states do is moot as far as the topic currently at hand with Kentucky.
BTW, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida would have accepted the marker I submitted into their respective state categories - again, I would do some research before making comments that aren't quite accurate...  Just Sayin'... 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, bluesnote said:

 

Yes, I will do that. More details to come, soon.

 

I declined all waymarks from Kentucky in Signs of history and hope you will approve them.

If waymarkers do not publish within 30 days in Kentucky historical markers , i will re-approve them in signs of history

Because a requirement of Signs of History category is "If the marker you are trying to waymark fits in one of the existing categories, it is NOT allowed here."

Just for information, Kentucky category exists since 2006 and Signs of History since 2007, so no waymarks from kentucky should exist in Signs of History category.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Alfouine said:

 

I declined all waymarks from Kentucky in Signs of history and hope you will approve them.

If waymarkers do not publish within 30 days in Kentucky historical markers , i will re-approve them in signs of history

Because a requirement of Signs of History category is "If the marker you are trying to waymark fits in one of the existing categories, it is NOT allowed here."

Just for information, Kentucky category exists since 2006 and Signs of History since 2007, so no waymarks from kentucky should exist in Signs of History category.

What a dumb move.  I've got people slamming messages into my inbox because of this.  You should have just left those waymarks alone and GRANDFATHERED them like you are supposed to.  Why do you think the rules are different for you?  You did this for Kentucky markers back in March and you got your hands slapped for it.  In what alternate universe do you think it was okay to do that with those old Kentucky markers, get the decision reversed, then, to do the same dadgum thing with Signs of History? 

Here's what should have happened - the old Kentucky markers should have NEVER, repeat, NEVER been denied back in March.  You should have grandfathered them and worked to either get edit privileges or have someone become the new leader of the group since the current one hasn't been on in a year.  My complaint was that until that description was changed, you were making up rules - you couldn't justify it.  This also goes for Signs of History - you stated that all Kentucky markers were allowed in Kentucky and should not be allowed in Signs of History.

 

So, now you COMPOUND the problem by going in and DENYING all old Kentucky markers in Signs of History.  C'mon man, did you not learn the lesson when you got your hands slapped when you deleted the old Kentucky markers.  LEAVE OLD APPROVED WAYMARKS ALONE.  FULL STOP.  How hard is this to understand?  Among the people you decided to deny was BruceS.  Yea, I'd say that was pretty ballsy.  I don't think I would ever have the testicular fortitude to deny a BruceS waymark, living or dead.  

Aggressive language - I was being nice and trying to get you to do the right thing with a personal email.  I was trying to give you a chance to reverse a very poor decision on your own, but, since you decided to come out of the shadows on your own, let's let the Waymarking community decide who is playing the bully.  All I was trying to do was figure out why my waymarks were being deleted when nothing was stated in the description - you guys have turned this into, I guess to make it as nice as I can, a giant snafu.  It should have been this hard to correct the issue.   

You guys need to get your stuff together, both hands.  

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, iconions said:

What a dumb move.  I've got people slamming messages into my inbox because of this.  You should have just left those waymarks alone and GRANDFATHERED them like you are supposed to.  Why do you think the rules are different for you?  You did this for Kentucky markers back in March and you got your hands slapped for it.  In what alternate universe do you think it was okay to do that with those old Kentucky markers, get the decision reversed, then, to do the same dadgum thing with Signs of History? 

Here's what should have happened - the old Kentucky markers should have NEVER, repeat, NEVER been denied back in March.  You should have grandfathered them and worked to either get edit privileges or have someone become the new leader of the group since the current one hasn't been on in a year.  My complaint was that until that description was changed, you were making up rules - you couldn't justify it.  This also goes for Signs of History - you stated that all Kentucky markers were allowed in Kentucky and should not be allowed in Signs of History.

 

So, now you COMPOUND the problem by going in and DENYING all old Kentucky markers in Signs of History.  C'mon man, did you not learn the lesson when you got your hands slapped when you deleted the old Kentucky markers.  LEAVE OLD APPROVED WAYMARKS ALONE.  FULL STOP.  How hard is this to understand?  Among the people you decided to deny was BruceS.  Yea, I'd say that was pretty ballsy.  I don't think I would ever have the testicular fortitude to deny a BruceS waymark, living or dead.  

Aggressive language - I was being nice and trying to get you to do the right thing with a personal email.  I was trying to give you a chance to reverse a very poor decision on your own, but, since you decided to come out of the shadows on your own, let's let the Waymarking community decide who is playing the bully.  All I was trying to do was figure out why my waymarks were being deleted when nothing was stated in the description - you guys have turned this into, I guess to make it as nice as I can, a giant snafu.  It should have been this hard to correct the issue.   

You guys need to get your stuff together, both hands.  

 

I think you are missing the point. We all agree that yes, those waymarks should have been grandfathered. We already addressed that. Let's stop discussing what the issue is and start talking about solutions. One solution was suggested by Alfouine. And to that, I agreed, would be a reasonable one. To my knowledge, none of the waymarks that were declined in the Kentucky Historical Markers group was from BruceS and I am well aware of that situation. As for the ones that were declined in Signs of History, I just approved quite a lot of them in Kentucky Historical Markers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluesnote said:

 

I think you are missing the point. We all agree that yes, those waymarks should have been grandfathered. We already addressed that. Let's stop discussing what the issue is and start talking about solutions. One solution was suggested by Alfouine. And to that, I agreed, would be a reasonable one. To my knowledge, none of the waymarks that were declined in the Kentucky Historical Markers group was from BruceS and I am well aware of that situation. As for the ones that were declined in Signs of History, I just approved quite a lot of them in Kentucky Historical Markers.

bluesnote - Alfouine went and DENIED ALL of the KENTUCKY markers in the SIGNS OF HISTORY category sometime last night...  This wasn't the current issue with the denied markers in the KENTUCKY HISTORICAL MARKERS.  Two separate categories.  Can we agree that we need to absolutely, positively QUIT denying accepted waymarks in categories where the requirements have changed.  Can we please agree on this?  Seriously.

Solutions - easy.  
If you want to change the Kentucky Historical Markers, get update privileges to the category or tell the current leader that this update is needed, and since he hasn't been on, if he doesn't reply, try to vote him out, and force the issue.  Make the change to the category and then,
GRANDFATHER, NOT DENY, all of the previous non-complying waymarks to the new requirements. 

Then, go into Signs of History and state that as of such and such a date, Kentucky no longer accepts non-official markers.  


Why is this so hard?  Seriously, this isn't the first category where requirements need to be changed, won't be the last - I've done it myself without any controversy.

 

Denying already accepted waymarks only pisses off waymarkers unnecessarily.  ...and denying BruceS waymarks just absolutely sullies his memory.  
Alfouine's solution of denying all of the old Kentucky waymarks in the Signs of History was NOT reasonable.  You should have left them alone and got on with your Kentucky Historical Marker update.  Instead of muddying up one category, now there are TWO categories screwed up.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post

Accepted waymarks must be grandfathered!!! Why would any waymarker be motivated to create waymarks if there is always a threat to have an accepted waymark denied at some unknown point in the future???

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, elyob said:

Accepted waymarks must be grandfathered!!! Why would any waymarker be motivated to create waymarks if there is always a threat to have an accepted waymark denied at some unknown point in the future???

Ding Ding Ding!!!!  We have a winner!   elyob, you are EXACTLY correct.  

Do you understand now?  As waymarkers, at the point of creation, we can only create to the category requirements as they are posted at the time of posting.  You, as an officer, have no right to go back to already accepted waymarks and deny because your category requirements have changed.  You cannot expect me, as a waymarker, to have ESP or be clairvoyant, and not only post to current category requirements, but to unknown future category requirements. 


 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...