Talk:Fort Point National Historic Site

California: San Francisco Bay Area High‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance).

Military history: Fortifications / European / North America / Spanish / United States / American Civil War / World War I / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Spanish military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

The fort tells the story of its years spent guarding the Golden Gate. - Wow! Where is the fort's mouth?

The text of this article appears to have come from the Park Service brochure. Perhaps having first stopped at this website: http://www.pashnit.com/roads/cal/FortPoint.htm

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of spamming

the primary issue is not the spam, it is that the document relates to the wider topic You have already conceded elsewhere that this is not spam, @Beetstra:, so why are you resuming this assertion here? Qwirkle (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument for inclusion, nor does it address why it has been removed multiple times now. --Ronz (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly addresses why it has been removed, it was mistakenly labled as bookspam, by you. In the course of a drawn-out thread elsewhere, @Beetstra: acknowledged that it was not, and yet here he is, later, raising this false claim again. The only other possible explanation is that he doesn’t know the implications of using the definite article in English. Qwirkle (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz:, you altered the meaning of someone else’s post with your last edit; I’ve reverted it for that reason. if you wish to raise a different point than this, then open another section. Qwirkle (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALK: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate

Can I assume your removal of my comment was an error? --Ronz (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are raising an irrelevancy. Your edit changed the meaning of someone elses words, and used that change to misrepresent the point raised...or, perhaps it allowed you to misunderstand what point was being raised. If this isn’ about something, then don’t claim it is. Qwirkle (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored my question. Could you please answer it? --Ronz (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That a subset of edits by someone is called spamming is something else than an accusation that someone is a spammer. 'Spamming' is a term used for 'massive cross posting' ... Now, whether or not it was spamming does not matter, the point is that the link is inappropriate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, no, your first sentence is not true in all contexts. Next, most people define “massive” as something more than “five”. Next, there is no “cross posting”, even in a metaphorical sense, involved, the cites were relevant. Finally, outside of kindergarten, repetion does not equal Big-T TRVTH. You find them inappropriate, perhaps, but you’ve tried several reasons why that must be so. Why? Qwirkle (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is on more than 5, only the 'mass addition' is 5. No, what is it if 4 to 5 people tell you that the links are not needed ... I am consistent, not repeating. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As before and elsewhere, you seem to have based your removal on an inaccurate claim. The subject is covered in its own section, and even listed in the table of contents. Perhaps you would consider self-reverting? Qwirkle (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, tell me, what is my inaccurate claim? I know the subject is covered in its own section, and that it is listed in the table of contents. So I think you do not understand my claim: '.. the document relates to the wider topic'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]