Hello, Orlady, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —Wrathchild(talk)03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colin Cunningham
Hi. I am new to Wikipedia editing and am having an issue with a fellow editor. I am trying to fix and update the page on actor Colin Cunningham but my edit was immediately taken down by a person who claimed I have a conflict of interest! I have been Librarian for over 25 years and teach Ethical Information Sources to High School Students. The person in question did not even ask my qualifications or reason for wishing to update this page prior to removing my edits and making false accusations. They have failed to respond to me at all to clarify the thought process behind these accusations. The mistakes on the page were noticed by a gentleman I do research for from time to time. He does not feel qualified to become an editor and make the corrections himself. He asked if I would do it since I am a Librarian. I am not being paid in any manner other than in my capacity as a Librarian by the institution that employs me. I have fact checked all of the information he has given me with the appropriate bodies (Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences website, Leo Awards Archive of Past Awardees and Nominees website, etc.) But as I said, I corrected only one sentence and posted a new photo (that I got written permission from the actor to use, per Wikipedia rules) before my work was taken down.
My intention for this article are as follows:
Add the new photograph I got permission to use. The old one was from 2012 and is not how the man currently looks.
Fix an error that credits the actor with being the founder of the Open Fist theatre company in Los Angeles. He was a member of the founding company, which is a very different thing. (see Wikipedia article on Open Fist Theatre Company: Open Fist Theatre Company)
Fix a number of grammatical errors and awkward wording so the whole page reads better. The page has been edited by multiple people since first posted and it's a bit choppy and disjointed.
Add a table of the actor's many award wins and nominations. He was shortlisted for an Academy Award Nomination, has won 3 Leo Awards and been nominated for 11 and has a number of other awards to his credit as actor, writer, director and producer.
I am happy to have another Wikipedia editor fact-check my work when I am finished, if it is indeed standard practice.
17:40, March 1, 2014 Orlady moved page Talk:The Saguache Crescent to Talk:Saguache Crescent over redirect (Removing definite article -- see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) for the reasons)
Too many administrators believe themselves to be infallible, even quoting policy and guidelines they've obviously never read, as you did in this case. What would you suggest as a kinder way of saying "you're a wanker"? EricCorbett22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with Eric's comments. However I do find this comment unprofessional: "I might have returned to this a bit sooner if the comments on my talk page had been a bit "nicer". Just saying." Why should my article be held up because of something that Eric said, though I can't imagine what he said that offended you. Gandydancer (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who says we are "professional" around here? I am not paid for this. I edit Wikipedia and I do DYK reviews for free -- and most of my DYK reviews are never claimed for QPQ credit.
In interacting with humans who are volunteering their time, you need to account for some human psychology -- including the existence of human emotions. Most (more likely all) of us have conflicting demands for our time (Wikipedia is not the most important thing in my life) and most (if not all) of us have emotions that we can't always account for. If a request here rubs me the wrong way, it reduces the chance that I'm going to be motivated to drop everything and respond. If this were a professional assignment for me, I would suck it up and respond immediately, but this isn't a professional assignment, so I don't feel I have to do that. Anyway, by the time I responded to this request, I was no longer feeling grumpy about it, which probably was a better thing for all of us. --Orlady (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being an infallible administrator Orlady found it difficult to admit that she was wrong, and childishly held up your DYK review in retaliation. Just the way it is here. EricCorbett23:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady sure does believe in her infallibility. This talk thread[1] is very interesting. Multiple editors have told her that telling an administrator to resign isn't a personal attack but she has yet to admit she was wrong with this edit[2]....William00:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going by this statement: "Any autoconfirmed registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose)". You could always modify the template and put yourself as nominator. I've commented on your talk page as I don't want the nom to be crowded with a wall of text not related to its promotions. EagerToddler39 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That statement describes the reality that only autoconfirmed users can create a template. That was drafted as an explanatory statement and added to the DYK information pages sometime after the current template-based nomination mechanism was created (before that, nominations were created directly on the noms page, which anyone can edit). I can see why you interpreted that statement to indicate that submission of DYK nominations is some sort of right or privilege that is limited to autoconfirmed users, but that was never the intent. DYK has always encouraged the participation of anonymous contributors. --Orlady (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested that anons should be "block[ed] ... from participating in DYK". As you quite rightfully summarized on the nom page they are free to recommend nominations at the DYK project talk page. However I'll defer to your explanation of the situation. EagerToddler39 (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Belated thanks
Belated thanks
I know this is very late but I wanted to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that demonstrated fairness and compassion regardless of how they voted. Its the feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back. So, thank you for your participation and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to continuing to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, — Keithbob • Talk • 21:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this nomination and see if it is ready for approval. The initial review was done by that IP-hopper who posted to WT:DYK last week, and I'd like someone who is clearly judging based on DYK rules to make sure it meets our criteria—the fact that "citation needed" templates were not considered important enough to have corrected prior to approval makes me wonder what else might have been overlooked. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have just been informed by a bot that there had been a discussion about an article that I had created and you had contributed to at Template:Did you know nominations/Helen Fraser (feminist) because of a particular fact that I included. It was nice to have been informed of this and it would have been nicer to have been informed of this before the discussion had been closed and a decision reached. I appreciate that as the nominator, the responsibility was not yours. It occurs to me that you may be interested in helping address an issue that I think important. I have a view about how the role of women has been undervalued by history and I think wikipedia has a moral duty to rectify this but has policies that prevent this from happening. I would be happy to ellaborate on this to the relevant person/people. Graemp (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Graemp. Discussion of your concerns about the DYK appearance seems to have occurred on several different pages, and it took me some time to sort it all out. The WP:DYK feature exists primarily to bring attention to new and newly expanded articles, as well as new Good articles. It does this by presenting interesting facts from those articles on the main page. I nominated the Helen Fraser article for DYK after seeing it on a list of new articles. Before I nominated the article, I checked the sources that I could access and I did some editing to the article, including revisions to eliminate what I perceived to be WP:Close paraphrasing of sources.
The statement in the article that I found most interesting for DYK was (in the original article version) "In 1922 she was the first woman to be adopted in Scotland as a parliamentary candidate when she was selected as National Liberal candidate for the Govan Division of Glasgow for the 1922 General Election." The wording of that sentence was confusing, so I looked at sources to make sure I understood what was meant by "being adopted in Scotland as a candidate". In the National Dictionary of Biography I found "After the war Helen was employed as a commissioner for National Savings, resigning in 1922 to stand as the Liberal candidate for Govan, the first woman to be adopted as an official candidate in Scotland." After reading that, I added the word "official" to the sentence in the article. It was clear to me that she was a candidate for UK parliament. When I wrote the hook I retained the wording "in Scotland" to ensure consistency with the sources (I thought there was a remote possibility that a woman "in England" had previously been named as a candidate to represent Scotland, so I didn't want to say "from Scotland"). In retrospect, it's apparent that the words "candidate for parliament in Scotland" could be misunderstood as indicating that she was a candidate for parliament of Scotland (that didn't occur to me because such a parliament didn't exist in her time), but several people (including me, as well as User:Victuallers, who you contacted about this) didn't think of that possibility. It's not uncommon for people who are familiar with a topic to fail to see how someone else could misinterpret their words; linking the word "parliament" to the UK parliament was a good "fix" to indicate the meaning.
You are hardly alone in thinking that Wikipedia needs to do a better job with women's history. I suggest that you get involved with the Women's History WikiProject here. (I have, however, been dismayed to find that the W.H. Wikiproject seems to have a restrictive definition of "history," such that most accomplishments by women in the last few decades are considered to be outside its scope.) --Orlady (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Victuallers asked me if I had done any similar articles and I flagged up Ursula Williams, but I understand that DYK runs a set of criteria that means it is 'too late' for this article to be nominated. If you are involved with promoting womens history month, this is the sort of article that might have an appeal. Graemp (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a learning curve involved in contributing to DYK -- starting with understanding those esoteric rules for article eligibility. Now that you've had this introduction, I look forward to your contributions in the future -- we are always looking for interesting content about women (not just in Women's History Month, but pretty much every day of the year). --Orlady (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Marie Dollinger
On 8 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marie Dollinger, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that runner Marie Dollinger represented Germany in three Olympic Games, broke Olympic records and set a world record, but never won an Olympic medal? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Dollinger. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Orlady, I was wondering whether you were planning to come back to this one now that Wnt has responded to your concerns, or if I should instead call for a new reviewer. If the latter, please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, we have the situation here that a pair of articles about a team of two lugers, both named Tobias, had their articles expanded with effectively the same 600+ character Olympics section (plus other material specific to each person), and each just barely makes the 5x expansion using that repeated material. Is this something where we could (or should) do an IAR and let both names (and articles) be bolded, or require that one of them be unbolded? (Another reviewer felt that the articles were padded a bit to get them up and over the 5x level.) Can you please take a look and decide what ought to be done? I've superseded the tick because of the duplicative expansion (which was only part of the new material), and will defer to your wisdom here. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, Thanks for your kind help in editing Mohammad Samir Hossain. I have tried to change the lead sentence and this time its exactly as the reference presents, and the reference is also mentioned beside the word that can create question about verifiability. Still, if you feel like changing anything I shall always welcome. This time I have uploaded a free photo and I don't mind if the previous copyrighted one gets deleted to uphold wiki rule. Thanks.
Bolton007 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the Givhan DYK
You do realize, though, that one of the secondary sources you found, that William & Mary law review article, is in the article as a source (see note 52, the very last one). Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sunuvagun! However, I discounted that "Analysis and Commentary" section. I was hoping to see secondary sources get used to help support the parts of the article that describe the case, the opinion, and subsequent jurisprudence. --Orlady (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you noted, there's still a lot of uncertainty there. I generally feel that most judges (or, let's be honest, their clerks) write in clear enough prose that summarizing and paraphrasing their opinions, with generous quotation, is sufficient. As for secondary sources, it's later decisions interpreting that decision that generally make the interpretation that counts (Honestly, I would class most appellate or higher opinions as secondary sources by our standards to begin with since, after all, they are really little more than commentary and analysis of the lower-court decision.
I just saw your WT:NRHP discussion with Dudemanfellabra regarding the Jesse Whitesell House and Farm, as well as the stub you created. As the photographer for the images currently in the article, I can tell you that it's rather confusing on the ground, too; I wasn't quite clear what I should photograph in order to get elements of both the original and the increase. If I correctly understand your words, I agree with what you've said: although it was originally located just in Kentucky, it needs to be listed as a duplicate because the increase causes the listing to include resources on both sides of the border. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, can you please take this one under your wing? Nikkimaria had some objections, and I'm not entirely sure they've been answered. There was a suggestion at User_talk:Nikkimaria#Poultry that someone be found to look over sources—perhaps you could do whatever might be appropriate? If not, I think this one will remain stalled for the foreseeable future. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was it the bad pun that put you off? ;-) If you aren't interested, I can certainly try to find someone else, maybe Crisco when he's fully recovered. Please let me know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I started looking at it, but it was a bigger job than I had time for at the moment, and I forgot about it... Maybe I'll get to it soon. --Orlady (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea what this photo has to do with Hackney Chapel? I uploaded it to Commons (it's from 1912), but I wasn't sure how it was related to the church, other than being located in Unitia. Bms4880 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have the right idea regarding "both being located in Unitia". Unitia School apparently was the black school in Unitia. There's a little bit of information about it in the sources for the Hackney Chapel article, but the sources didn't clearly indicate a relationship (unlike St. Marks Presbyterian Church (Rogersville, Tennessee) or Durham's Chapel School, where there is a strong connection between church and school).
The Middle Tennessee State University folks had (or possibly still have) a major project to survey historical black churches. Since other community institutions were closely related to the churches, I guess it seemed natural to their archivist to put that school photo into the same bin as the materials about the local black church. --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Mt. Zion Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
I just noticed this by accident. Good work, especially since I appreciate my photos getting used :-) Did you find anything about whether the congregation is still in existence? Between the dilapidated appearance and the damaged historical marker (I vaguely remember seeing something about the marker getting hit by a truck), I got the impression that it wasn't used for religious purposes anymore. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find anything when I researched the article, but after seeing your note, I looked again. I've updated the article. :-) --Orlady (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, Gerda's latest comment contains the phrase "your turn", so I think she wants/needs/is expecting you to take the next step. Can you please take a look to see what needs to be done? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
Orlady, I hereby bestow upon you The Barnstar of Diligence for your continued commitment to maintaining the quality and excellence of Wikipedia's Did you know project. I've been a big fan of your contributions for many years now, and so I felt that it was fitting to commend your efforts with this small token of my esteem! -- Caponer (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, the creator has asked a question here, in a response to your previous comment. Did you want to answer it, or should I put out a call for a new reviewer? Please let me know if it's the latter. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That article had some gnarly issues with POV -- and also problems with presentation and sourcing. Rather than attempt a discussion with an elusive IP user, I've been editing it on-again and off-again (to the extent that my time and my limited patience with tabloid sources and opinionated blogs allow): edits since the anon's last comment. It's getting close to being ready. --Orlady (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
name="GlenvilleHist">{{cite web|url=http://www.schenectadyhistory.org/resources/citycounty.html#gle] |title=Chapter V: The Township of Glenville |work=History of the City and County of Schenectady,
NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square
Dear Fellow Wikimedian,
New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.
Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter.
I'm bothered by this post[3] of yours too. You accuse of someone of using multiple accounts. Where's your proof and why haven't you started an SPI? Didn't I hear someone not too long ago say 'serious allegations require serious evidence'?...William22:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm campaigning against you now. That and your link above are possible proof of you violating WP:CIVIL You still ignore WP:SPS. For the second time, explain how a wedding announcement and miscarriage are trivia and helping in a campaign and who somebody supports for President isn't? Maybe I should be preparing an ANI post when I get up in the morning....William03:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is supposed to be about a television show. What has happened to these people since the show went off the air isn't relevant to the show. Stars on tv shows, marry divorce have kids etc. after their show goes off the air, but it isn't in the article on the show. Take The Andy Williams Show for just one example. A biography article on the Bates is where it would belong. If its RSd. FWIW Musdan77 thanked me for cutting the trivia and other things out of the article....William04:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, the edit that Musdan77 thanked you for was an edit whose main effect was to revert one of the edits in which DC788 had added a lot of the trivia that DC788 had been adding -- and I had been deleting -- over a period of several days. --Orlady (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new about you campaigning against me. You already declared your intention [5][6] to follow my work looking for actions that you could attack me for. I refer in particular to your statement that I'll be leading the charge for you at ANI and Arbcom till you resign or someone at wikipedia shows some guts around here to take away your absolute power to do harm to someone for absolute bullshit!
As for the article, I started it as an article about the family (who are local to my county) before the TV series existed, but after the family seemed to have established notability due to their appearances on another reality TV show. Someone else later recast it as an article about the show. Many of my edits to the article have been aimed at removing unsourced personal details about family members that were added by fans; I've also sparred with this particular user, who has unusual theories about the need for reference citations to describe TV shows, and who believes that information that possibly could be extracted from studying a table should not be presented in text. As for the family, the family continues to receive a lot of attention (partly because continues to appear on that other reality TV show) and family members have been taking advantage of their reality-TV fame for political activities, including their widely documented support for Rick Santorum. The marriage has been in the article for some time, but enthusiasts keep trying to add redundant statements about it, accompanied by information about blog "announcements" of positive pregnancy tests and subsequent miscarriages. I continue to contend that even though a 22-year-old woman announces a miscarriage during the first 3 months of pregnancy in her family blog, that is still a bit of fundamentally private information that does not deserve to be preserved in an encyclopedia; apparently the other user agrees, as they also stopped adding that detail. --Orlady (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undoing editor's work when they don't follow WP:SPS is something I do.(Not counting UBOA, at least 7 times in my last 5,000 edits[7]) I've written about the use of blogs as sources on my user page. Your failure at that, WP:CIVIL aka responding to my concerns with a link to CNN story about sadistic trolls, WP:IDHT ignoring multiple times my concerns with your edits, and WP:AGF is appalling. Your contradictory behavior at United Bates of America raises WP:COMPETENCE concerns or questions whether you're practicing WP:OWN. Example- You have labelled the same source both not a RS[8] and yourself used it[9] as a source. I'm practicing WP policy but you think its a campaign against you. The only campaign being done against you is the one you yourself are practicing....William13:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you declared I'll be leading the charge for you at ANI and Arbcom till you resign or someone at wikipedia shows some guts around here to take away your absolute power to do harm to someone for absolute bullshit!, you clearly indicated why you are now scrutinizing me. This isn't random interest on your part.
As for your accusation of contradictory behavior, I believe you are confusing me with someone else. On what basis did you determine that I was responsible for that second diff of yours? That edit was by IP user 38.108.87.20. As it happens, that's one of the IPs used by the person who is currently editing as DC788. --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're really very paranoid. I'm fixing wrong edits but you think its malicious. As I said above 'The only campaign being done against you is the one you yourself are practicing.'...William22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want people to assume that your actions are motivated by personal animus, I suggest that you stop making statements like this and this. --Orlady (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was this edit[10] not out of personal animus or was it due to total incompetence? I can cite at least three times, here's one of them[11] and here's another[12] where you were told your actions were wrong. Whether your answer is A or B, you shouldn't be an administrator. Resign before you once again bring disgrace to Wikipedia or cause harm to someone who didn't do anything to deserve it. Your block of me was overturned because you were dead wrong and you can't admit it. In the meantime I will continue to make sure youf and no other administrator does to some other editor what you did to me. There is nothing wrong with that kind of scrutiny either. Sphilbrick said[13] I didn't have to shut up when he unblocked me. When I am checking on you, if I see articles you worked on that can use further work, I'll continue doing that....William22:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick WP:RDH-style question
Thanks for the comment at my talk. On a totally unrelated matter, as you've probably guessed if you've looked at my latest series of major edits to NR lists, I'm planning another photo trip, which will take me almost through your neck of the woods as well as through lotsofotherareasallovertheplace. As far as you're aware right now, are there any big construction projects (or other plannable things, versus problems like car accidents) on I-75 between Chattanooga and Knoxville? The goal is to go to church in Dayton on the morning of the 20th and then go a little past the Cumberland Gap that afternoon; I especially don't feel like getting stuck in a traffic jam if it's something that all the locals (and semi-locals like you) already know about. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an ambitious plan for a 3-day road trip! (I hope you're planning on a bit longer than 3 days, if you want to cover that much territory and take pictures, too.)
I haven't been to Chattanooga recently, so I'm not aware of any construction on I-75 in that direction. The Tennessee DOT website is a fairly good source of info on roadwork on the Interstates, though. Anyway, if you want to go to Dayton, you probably are going to be away from I-75 for a substantial part of your trip. US 27 and state route 58 are a lot more interesting than I-75.
There is a major construction project on I-640 in Knoxville that is causing traffic delays, particularly during rush hour. That's relevant to you because I-75 is concurrent with the western leg of I-640 (I-640W), but I believe that the current construction is on I-640E. Anyway, if you are on a photo trip, your route north from Knoxville to Cumberland Gap might not include I-75.
When traveling in this area, you need to be aware that the ridges and valleys trend SW-NE. Travel across the grain of the topography (for example, on roads like US 25-E) can be slower than the linear distance suggests it should be, but it's often interesting. --Orlady (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response! I hadn't at all thought of checking the TDOT website, and now that you suggested it, I've found their helpful Smartmap. I'll definitely remember your comment about the across-the-ridge driving — with one exception, all my hill-country driving has been in places like southern Indiana, where the ridges go in random directions, so no direction is naturally simpler or quicker than others. I've got a campsite reservation at Mousetail Landing on Friday night, Saturday I'll work my way to Dayton by way of MS/AL/GA/SC/NC (my parents have friends there, so I'll be indoors one night), another campsite reservation in Harlan County KY on Sunday night, and then north to Ohio to visit family for a week. Definitely not trying to get Indiana-style dense photo coverage or making long detours anywhere on this trip (except for the occasional county with just one or two sites), so the goal is to get something in six states that I've not visited in a long time (or never), and at least one site in almost every county through which I pass. Re your comment about "might not include I-75", I'm looking to go east to Athens and then northeast, and it was a debate between going interstate (and getting off for photos) or just staying on US11 until hopping on the interstate at Lenoir City and taking it as far as northern Knoxville's US441 exit, then state highways toward US25E at Tazewell. I guess I'll stay on I-40 through downtown Knoxville and skip the beltway. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Orlady, assuming you're still active in the category of "Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles," could I inquire if there's a way to see the version of Alexander McCurdy that was deleted in 2008, according to User_talk:Rbiswanger#Speedy_deletion_of_Alexander_McCurdy? I'm working on the current version of the article, whose history started in 2009 -- and for comparison I'd be very interested to see the article's previous incarnation that disappeared in 2008. Thanks very much for your help, or if you can point me in the right direction. -Patrug (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've been talkpagestalking at my talkpage, so I might as well return the favor :-) Patrug, the entire contents were as follows:
Alexander McCurdy was an acclaimed organ teacher at Philadelphia's Curtis Institute of Music and was also organist of the city's First Presbyterian Church. Among his many notable students are Michael Stairs, Keith Chapman and John Binsfeld.
Orlady, thank you for reviewing and editing the article for Diamond Ranch Academy! I forgot to mention this in my initial comment on the talk page, but there are also two words in the top section that the past editor added without providing adequate citation. I'm wondering if you could look into this as well? These are the words "misdemeanors" and "felonies" in the first section.
Thank you for all of you help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosettej (talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Charles I. Barber - See Also
Well, color me corrected. I don't quite see the point of omitting relevant links while maintaining lists of marginally-related ones, but it does tell me here that it a general rule not to include in a "see also" something that is otherwise referenced in the article. [14]. Who knew? :) Well, I suppose I ought to... I'd still make the case for including his father in this list, since when he appears in the article, it's basically as his father. The rest of the "See Also" list is so marginally related as to be slightly wacky - not at all related by facts, only partially related by chronology, and only tenuously related by topic. The topic, obviously, is "other architects who have lived in Knoxville at any point in time in their lives," but out of a list of hundreds of people who would fit that bill, being that there are four who have existing Wikipedia articles, excluding one because he happens to be Charles' father certainly, to my mind, muddles whatever the purpose of the list actually is. I'd argue, contrarily, that common sense would encourage leaving him there. Archarin (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has more policies and guidelines than any one person can possibly expect to be fully versed in... I happen to know about the guidelines for See also sections, and now you do, too!
Rather than adding bloat to the See also section, I suggest that the article could be developed so that (1) it contains more content about his connection to his father and the rest of the family and (2) any items on the "see also" list that are actually relevant to this article are linked within the text of the article. --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady is right. Per WP:See also, the section should not contain links to other articles that are already linked to in either the article or any navbox that is in the article....William13:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee
Dear Orlady,
I know I might be asking too much from you now a days, still I like the way you paint an article. Will u please pen through Death and adjustment hypotheses at least for once? I know it might not be a topic you are expert on, but I need some wiki expert who would shape it as a better wiki-article.Bolton007 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but the article was made before as an advertisments, now i made just simple article. NO REASON TO DELETE --Mr.Agabi (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I am working there and if somebody wrote an article which was full of advertisments and unclear informations and you deleted doesnt mean you allowed to Delete any article written about ABMS GmbH, OTHERWISE we will Prosecute WIKIPEDIA if this unnecessary jokes stop now --Mr.Agabi (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But Sorry we are new online business School in Switzerland how can you expect to see informations about us everywhere? check our website, you welcome to call us, and if in the article i wrote was anything unclear than please tell me, but just deleting because you didnt find enough sources, its normal because we are new, if you keep deleting than we must Prosecute as person and Wikipedia --Mr.Agabi (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are misunderstanding the purpose and scope of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a platform for announcing or publicizing new organizations. Encyclopedia content must be based on content that has already been published somewhere else by reliable sources independent of the article's subject. Please see WP:NOT and WP:Notability for more information. --Orlady (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but sorry i can show you 1 million article on wikipedia and dont have reliable sources and sorry you can find about us on Governments website and other website like QS-TopUniversities, Educations and many other websites, i can list 100 websites well known for education. tell me what is the solution now? can i write a normal article with reliable sources about or school OR we not allowed to write about our organization on Wikipedia because you decided we are not reliable sources? we need to know what to tell our lawyer when we start the case against you. thank you --Mr.Agabi (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
should i make another article with reliable sources like Governments website, QS... and than you have look on it, if OK tell me and keep it, and hope to solve this problem without going to court, because it will be just headache for both of us but if court is the only solution for us to be on wikipedia than we will do it. I am trying here to find a solution, i hope you too. please tell me should i create new article or no. thank you --Mr.Agabi (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The government website indicates only that this institution is a registered business. That information does not indicate notability and it is not a sufficient basis for writing an article.
I will explain why I suggested that you contact User:Stifle. It is becoming clear that you will not accept what I am telling you. That means that your next step is to ask for a formal reconsideration of the deletion decision. The Wikipedia procedure for disputing a deletion decision says that your first step should be to contact the administrator who deleted the article. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, earlier you said you would prosecute Wikipedia for refusing to include this article. That is not a good way to convince other Wikipedia users to do something. In fact, threats of legal action can cause your editing access to be blocked. --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted that article as a recreation of an article deleted earlier by XfD. I was unaware of it before seeing your message. --Orlady (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for expanding the Fruitvale, Tennessee article. It was on Nyttend's Zipcode Directory and I started the article with help from The Catalyst31. Again my thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
I was suspicious of that myself, but I didn't have the time to go through with the bureaucratic bits today; thanks for looking into it. You also might want to look into A1Houseboy, who has a similar pattern of editing (and is tied to this suspicious edit). TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation04:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had looked at that user briefly, but clearly I should have looked more closely. The recent edit on your talk page clinched it for me. I blocked that user temporarily and added the user name to the SPI case. --Orlady (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, given your issues with the earlier versions of this article, I was hoping you could stop by and check the finished version to see whether it now meets DYK standards. If you're not interested in reviewing it again, let me know here and I'll put the "again" icon on it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Please don't pipe intentional disambiguation links like this - the "(disambiguation)" needs to be in the link itself to keep the page from showing up as an error. Cheers! bd2412T21:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for posting your explanation with your edits. While the institution is not accredited through an external agency, the references to the U.S. Armed Services warning about diploma mills is not relevant in this situation. Hyles-Anderson College is approved for for VA Benefits through the Indiana Commission for Postsecondary Proprietary Education. The four warnings listed in the linked reference page do not apply:
The school does not require studying, tests or essays.
The school boasts of accreditation, i.e., “fully, nationally or worldwide accredited,” but has no legitimate accreditation.
The school relies on “portfolio assessments” or “life experience.”
The school advertises through e-mail messages sent to millions.
In this edit[16] of yours you removed the category 'People from Washington County, Tennessee'. I am relinking 'People from Kingsport, Tennessee' to that category because that city is partially in Washington County. Consensus is that if a 'People from' city category is even a slightest bit in multiple counties, it gets categorized in all of them. Please note 'People from Johnson City, Tennessee' and how its categorized in three 'People from' county categories though most of the city lies in Washington County....William18:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to lecture me about an edit I made over 4 years ago. I suppose you find it gratifying to take me to task for every mistake I ever made.
As it happens, I didn't even make the mistake you accuse me of. If you read the history, you will see the category had been configured to include all people from any part of a 4-county area as "people from Kingsport." My edit changed the category description to indicate that it is only for people from Kingsport, and not also people from places like Bristol, Virginia, and I removed it from inappropriate categories like Category:Bristol, Virginia and Category:People from Washington County, Virginia. Contrary to your allegations here, I didn't remove it from Category:People from Washington County, Tennessee -- because it wasn't previously in that category. --Orlady (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance
I noticed that you were instrumental in creating the page on Betty Bumpers, also with the information on Peace Links. I just had a page sanitized concerning an event that Betty and Peace Links were involved with a number of years ago. I was wondering if you would consider being of some assistance to getting some information restored and a image. Thank you 24.251.41.161 (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations for reaching this milestone of making other editors' articles visible from the main page. Keep up your good work! Oceanh (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation
Hello Orlady. I recall the good work you did on the Hillsdale College article, which included a lot of primary sourced description and other text. I wonder whether you could have a look at the Stefan Molyneux article, on which several editors have expressed concerns about the sourcing. Any participation there would be appreciated. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk03:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nuts and bolts, but mostly nuts
Re a posting by me that you responded to. I just want you to know my comment was not meant as a slip-up on your part, but a comment on mine. I think our nerves are a little edgy these days. Bad karma does that. I've not nominated anything since the gang blew into town. It's just too unpleasant to think about. Not that there isn't room for betterment straight across WP. But that's getting lost behind barf bag behavior. I realize you have been targeted lately. As has everybody, it seems, who dares to breathe and exist on the planet. Some sure know how to suck the joy right out of the room, but you would not be one of those. Didn't want any misunderstanding coming from me. — Maile (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining your words. I must say that I was perplexed by what seemed like negativity from you. I'm sorry that I responded as I did. My nerves are most definitely on edge these days whenever I go near DYK. This too shall pass, I hope... --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we're cool with each other now. I enjoy running across your work now and then over in the "greenest state in the land of the free", over in Davy's stomping grounds. — Maile (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, that interesting man who much preferred to be "David", but apparently is "Davy" forevermore. After you created the category recently, I was pleased to help populate it... --Orlady (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I made an initial comment on the TN project that it would be good to see that article as FA. And it would. However, since I made that comment, I've had a small experience on the Featured level: FA, FL, FLC and a GA, with the intent of reaching FTC. None of which I started out to do with my first cleaning up of references tagging on the original article. A learning curve, to be sure. And a learning curve that makes me realize that even if I had every resource ever published, I could never get Death controversy past the first hurdles. But I can dream that someone else can. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, I'd rather work on creating "good enough" content than on collecting "credits" from GA, FA, etc. I did shepherd a couple of lists through FL a long time ago, and I did a number of FLC reviews. I learned a good bit from that experience. I also have done a very wee bit of GA reviewing, and I had a small role in supporting Hawkeye7's eff ort that got Manhattan Project promoted to FA. That article had been subject to a good bit of edit warring before the FA campaign, and since then it's been pretty stable. If you ever get the courage to attempt something similar for Davy, maybe it would put an end to the battles over his death. Or maybe not... --Orlady (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working 18 months on Audie Murphy. What started out as one poorly written article has now become six separate articles/lists on him personally, plus one about his book, and two others about a museum and hospital named for him. Who would have known? Sources on Murphy are limited. It's not at the end of the line yet. It taught me a great deal about editing at WP and how a really-properly formatted article should be. I owe a lot to the folks at WP:MILHIST for that. I can see separate articles on Crockett, for his Congressional career and for his death. Way more sources to pour through on him than Murphy.
Re Crockett's death, I prefer to believe the people who were actually inside the Alamo and attest to where he died. Even if we AGF that de la Peña told it as he believed it to be...how did he identify who was who? No photo IDs in those days. Probably didn't have their names sewn into their underwear. We don't to this day know 100% who was inside the mission, so they didn't have a list of names. What was to stop somebody from claiming to be celebrity David Crockett in hopes of being given preferential treatment? I did see Discovery channel MythBusters on this. I believe they said de la Peña's diary was written by different people over different periods of time. However...as we are living through right now...there are those among us who want to keep an argument going just to feel important. — Maile (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me
I cannot fix this typo (government) and I noticed that someone wrote stuff like:
"The Council are having to sell off assets because for two decades their chief executives for some reason best known to themselves were not aware that women were being underpaid, and this initiated a flood of claims from other employees past and present with crippling results to Birmingham's prestige as the Second City. Liam Bryne the Labour MP for Hodge Hill has so far failed to support residents in their fight to have these sub-standard and dangerous blocks bulldozed."
Thank you for your efforts to correct misspellings of "government." That's a good way to get started as an editor of Wikipedia.
You couldn't correct the typo in State of Palestine because that article is protected from editing by newly registered users -- a restriction that helps prevent the frequent addition of opinionated rhetoric, like the content you found at Bromford.
Sorry for bothering you again but I found more "opinionated rhetoric" here. I started by fixing the typo, but then I reverted back to Dual Freq's version. The IP is blocked now but I am not sure if the most recent edit should be reverted. Thanks again, Poveglia (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That last edit was OK. The content that was deleted didn't belong in an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE for perspective on the Wikipedia policies that indicate why that content didn't belong here. --Orlady (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Orlady, your name came up in the history of the page so I figured I will approach you with this problem. The above linked article was stable for a number of years with the name Palestinian land laws. An editor came along moved it three times in one day and finally decided on the name above. This is obviously a controversial move and this should have gone through the process at WP:RM. It can only be moved back by an administrator which is why I come to your talk page. Can you please move it back so the stable name so that any proposal should go through the proper process required for such non-technical moves. Many thanks, --brewcrewer(yada, yada)05:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Calvary Episcopal Church (Cumberland Furnace, Tennessee)
Hello, I'm WilliamJE. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. For your less mature editor comment at User talk:EEng....William13:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this. The article was apparently expanded by banned user Russavia using an IP, and probably using a different IP to intervene in the DYK discussion. It's been sitting for 19 days; I'd like to get it broken free by an admin who better understands the issues around banned users, since I can remember some instances of nominations getting closed and some where they were preserved (though that difference might be due to self-nominations not surviving, while noms by others were retained). Thanks for anything you can do here; if you'd rather not weigh in, I'll see who else might be willing to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, orlady. Since you have edited this page in the past, I wanted to let you know that there is a NPOV issue on the latest revision to the Kevin Huffman page. It was made by Sallysuzzi at 04:34, 23 July 2014.
The added text is as follows:
"Since his appointment, Huffman has become known for messing up Tennessee's education system with unfair teacher evaluations. A record breaking number of teachers have left the profession due to Huffman's tactics. Children as young as age 5 had to take developmentally inappropriate standardized test under Huffman's lead. The SAT-10 test that many of the students took for teacher evaluation purposes was not based on Tennessee state standards. This means teachers were and still are evaluated based on a test that does not cover the material they teach. As a result many teachers have lost their jobs and a campaign has been launched by many state representatives and others calling for his resignation."
The subject article was published this past weekend, and I've been trying to get it placed in WikiProject areas that make the most sense. I believe HOP Ranch may fit better in American Old West than anywhere else.
I also feel strongly that it is well beyond start class. I think it's at least class B. I'm wondering if you might consider reviewing it and evaluating for yourself.
Hello User:Orlady, I am a relatively new editor and I saw a message on the Administrator Noticeboard saying that DYK was overdue. I would like to help as much as humanly possible, so I have proceeded to do 4 DYK reviews. Before doing so I read the DYK guidelines. The reviews I have done are:
I would be happy to do more if there is a need for it. I saw your name on one review so before I do more could you please review my reviews and advise me if I am doing everything ok. Many thanks, PNGWantok (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concordia College and University
Can you visit the Concordia College and University article? I know you have history on it and I'm hoping you can help resolve a conflict. There is information in the talk page under Location section changes.
May I beg you help with something I'm trying reorganize and get rid of the POV stuff I put in ages ago when I was a newbie. I don't know how to do stuff like redirecting sections. Basically the school stuff doesn't belong in the Michael DeSisto article. However a hotlink or howver it's done should point to the controversies section of DeSisto School to make both articles cleaner.
Orlady, both the nominator and editor of the article have commented since your last post here. I can't figure out where this stands; can you please take another look, and take whatever step comes next? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, start with the juxtaposition "rocky" and "top" (often interpreted to refer to the Smoky Mountains, notwithstanding the claims of the former Lake City), which indicates rugged mountain topography, not rolling hills. Then there are the lyrics about the two strangers who climbed on rocky top -- "climbing" suggests a significant amount of topographic expression -- and soil that's too rocky to grow corn. To me, those characteristics set the song in East Tennessee -- unless you want to quibble that those conditions can also be found in places in easternmost Middle Tennessee (e.g., Fentress, Pickett, or Sequatchie counties). What's your thinking on this? --Orlady (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's widely documented (or at least claimed) to have been written in Gatlinburg: [17], [18]. Every speculation I've ever seen about "where is Rocky Top" has always referred to places in East Tennessee (for example: [19]). --Orlady (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't help but notice that paragraph #3 in that last article you cited was copied-and-pasted from the Wikipedia article. In any case, the song is more popular with East Tennesseans, and the Bryants were probably thinking of the Smokies when they wrote it, but it is speculation to say the song's lyrics refer specifically to East Tennessee. Bms4880 (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at this nomination, which has been stalled for four weeks after a disagreement over the article's neutrality. Please let me know. Thanks as always for your excellent work on DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Annadel, Tennessee
Hello Orlady,
My name is Roni Freels. I am concerned about the article on your talk page referring to my hometown Annadell, Tennessee. I have information for the gentleman who apparently is arguing that Annadell is located in Scott county. I was born in the Annadell area of Lancing, Tenn. You are absolutely right about the Annadell Baptist church. My daddy helped to construct the earlier church, not the one standing in the same place today. We lived only a few feet from the church. I remember many Sunday's listening my daddy teach my class. I am crushed that the man writing the response to you that Annadell does not exist. I certainly can attest to its presence. Directly before my daddy passed away he turned the land he owned over to Guy Griffith, a friend and member of the Annadell Baptist Church. The reason my dad gave them the land was to establish another cemetery where he preffered to be buried. He and my mother are both buried in the Annadell cemetery directly across the road from the church. My daddy wanted to be buried under the tree where he and my mother courted, and that is exactly where he is. His grave is at the top of the cemetery next to the road marked "Freels".
Perhaps if the one in question would look in the Lancing area on route 27 he would find the road to the cemetery across from the old Haun place. Thank you for your talk. Perhaps this will help. God Bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.20.59 (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting my article
Can you please tell me why it was deleted? I see your reason however its because the school didnt have any accreditation that time, now if you can see on the article it has many accreditations. please check again before deleting. thanks--Markos200 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted for lack of evidence of notability. The article that I deleted was much the same as the one deleted after the earlier deletion discussion. The fact that this organization appears on the lists that you cite here does not make it notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Additionally, your citations do not convince me that ABMS is accredited. --Orlady (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new article I wrote was with MANY additional links to WELL KNOW accreditation bodies, I spent hours to prepare it, if my citations didn't convince you maybe because you dont know the links I sent you :) I dont need to convince you if its accredited or not, you are not ministry of education, we are here to help in order to improve wikipedia articles, BUT ANYWAY let me explain you about the links I sent if you dont have time to know about it, but please note, I am not responsible here to convince you, we just write true facts, even if it didnt convince you.
I have sent you too many links and I have more, I dont want to spend hours on explaining you, let me just give short information to you:
- IF ASIC and British Government (Home Office ITS A MINISTRY in UK its not a private company) are not notability source than I dont know what is a notability source.
- IF NCC, DCSF, Ofqual, DBIS is not notability source than I dont know what is a notability source.
4. its member by (ACBSP) on January 22, 2001, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) Board of Directors granted recognition to the ACBSP.<ref>CHEA Directory</ref> On September 19, 2011 The CHEA renewed its recognition of the ACBSP for a further 10 years.<ref>CHEA Recognition Summary</ref> its just a member not accredited but a member means that this school is equivalent to US Regionally accredited institutions or at least has right to grant degrees [22]
- IF ACBSP and CHEA are not notability source than I dont know what is a notability source.
- IF ECBE and ENQA are not notability source than I dont know what is a notability source.
DO YOU WANT MORE we still have many links, like EFQM, ISO...?? Believe me, they are more accredited than 90% of schools with articles on Wikipedia.
Please check links I sent you before just writing an answer. before I wrote this article, I called the accreditation bodies, I checked links, I wanted make sure what I write. I didnt spend hours on preparing an article in the end you say (do not convince me) I am not here to convince you, we are here to write true facts, if you are willing to know the truth you have to search not just read and say didn't convince me, please check before you answer
I FORGOT TO TELL YOU, ALL THOSE LINKS ABOVE they were not in discussion 1 year ago :) how can you say its the same, I am surprised --Markos200 (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that appearing on a bunch of online lists (regardless of who published those lists) is sufficient to make an organization notable by Wikipedia standards, then you haven't comprehended [{WP:Notability]] and WP:ORG. --Orlady (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
lets make it point by point, now you agreed that my new article was not similar to old article, that's great :) finally, but again my long explanation and after 4 days didnt convince Orlady, I know very well what a notability source is, but if all above links for you are not notability sources it means there are no more notability sources, I gave you links up a ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom but you still dont like, I am afraid to tell you show me HOW my links are not notability sources, start to give me examples if you can. REMEMBER you are here to write true facts and not your opinion. People are not interested to read on WIKIPEDIA what Orlady believing, they are interested to see true facts and Wikipedia is the right place where we should be neutral when we write something.
Links I gave you
British Government
Home Office (ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom, responsible for immigration, security, and law and order. As such it is responsible for the police, UK Visas and Immigration, and the Security Service (MI5)
ASIC (Recognized accreditation in UK, in UK you cant enter as student if your school or university not accredited by ASIC, QAA or BAC, just for you to know how important is this accreditation)
SFEDI (Accredited Qualifications)
Ofqual (its Part of Ministry of Education in UK)
ASIQUAL (Accredited Qualifications)
National Computing Centre (established as an Information technology initiative by the British Government in 1966 and Recognized by Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) in the UK)
ACBSP USA I hope you know it :) because you are from USA :)
CHEA USA I hope you know it :) because you are from USA :)
ECBE (well known accreditation body in Europe)
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) IF you dont know this organization you better check :)
EFQM (European first quality for management)
ISO (I think you know it :)
AND MANY MORE... ALL THOSE LINKS DIDN'T HAVE 1 year ago in the discussion.
What I can offer you in order to solve this discussion is to prepare a better article with many notability sources like british Government, CHEA, ENQA..., I will re-write it with all those new links and you may check, if you like it, means keep it, if not we can discuss again, because just ignoring true facts wont help you as administrator on Wikipedia, those links are well known worldwide and people use them as notability sources and nobody can say no. if ok, please inform me. thanks --Markos200 (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Q. Schmidttalkbackis wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS
Category:Historically segregated white schools in the United States
Hello, I wanted to let you know I nominated Category:Historically segregated white schools in the United States for deletion. I hope you will understand my rationale. If it is populated, it will contain most all of the high school-related Wikipedia articles in the South. Separate but equal was in name only and while many of the "white schools" are still in operation and racially integrated, the smaller black school buildings have long been shuttered. – Gilliam (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oak Ridge gatehouses
I was wondering if you could provide a reference for the last sentence in the History section on the Oak Ridge gatehouses: The Bethel Valley Road large structure was painted in 2005 but there has been no restoration or other attention to the interiors of the two Bethel Valley structures and the small structures at the other sites.Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've found (and inserted) a reference that supports some of the content there. I'm sure that there was a more complete source at one time. --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Further: The source of the information seems to be User:SmithDRay, who also happens to be the person quoted in the reference I cited. I can vouch for the truth of the statement that there has been no restoration of the Bethel Valley structure or the small structure at the other sites. If I wanted to know what year the Bethel Valley structure was painted, I'd ask D. Ray, as he probably has the records in his office. (But that's a detail that Wikipedia probably doesn't need.) --Orlady (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note: while there was no straight-up copyvio, the Corenbot notice was probably triggered by WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. I did some further rewording, and added material from two other sources, so it should be safe. Bms4880 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Sedona Sky Academy#Sedona Sky Academy - Copper Canyon Academy
support
Thank you stepping in wherever you see that you are needed, and that is a lot: translation, improvement of wording, understanding, and now coming to the rescue of an article a fighter for Human rights left us, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Orlady, where are you? It seems strange without seeing you around WP once in a while. Your last edit was 6 months ago. Just - poof! with no explanation? — Maile (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's reassuring to see that you are still at least watching your talk page. You are missed both as a solid content contributor, also for your opinions on debates, and as an admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimaltalk18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Bates family
Hello Orlady,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Bates family for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
Hi orlady. Someone connected to the program is deletingn large amounts of sourced contributions on the Island View RTC page claiming, again, that the name is changed so it is not historically relevant. I disagree. Please address. It would be most appreciated. 166.170.49.153 (talk)- —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OIKOS Software Inc. page deletion
Hi Orlady
You are listed as a editor that could provide a copy of a deleted page that was done in August 2015 as part of a huge deletion list under orangemoody. This is very confusing to our business a we thought a reliant wiki editor put up the page. It appears this person we was impersonating a wiki editor. Now we are deleted. Based on our recollection, there was no copyright issues on the page, but could have been deleted for such. Can you help us? We would like someone like yourself to tell us why it was taken down.
Kind regards,
Janice Leahy50.247.201.61 (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The topic ban imposed by Seraphimblade is rescinded. For clarity, this means that Doncram is permitted to edit existing articles but not create new articles that are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.
The following remedy is added to the case: Doncram (talk·contribs) is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.
Passed 10 to 0 by motion at 13:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi old friend. I just got off the phone with her sister and she was screaming at me and says Cheryl thinks I'm stalking her. I did the best I could to polish the article breaking it into sections etc. However, Cheryl herself wrote the bulk of the article herself. She is a COI editor, and I'm likely a little bit myself. I would ask you to take a look at it. Inho all the primary sources have to be chopped. The article is imbalanced overcited in some areas and sorely lacking sources in others. Is there anyway we can whittle it back to a stub by losing the weak cites, the trivial unsourced claims, and quite frankly self-indulgent puffery that I whittled away some from her article. She really is barely notable when you don't count the primary sources which are all redundant anyways I know you edit fast so that's why I'm asking you. Cheryl Arutt--Wlmg (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There may also may be a copyright vios issue on the pic as it is not a snapshot , but a screen shot from a Ted talk. Thank you for your help. --Wlmg (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You listed a number of significant concerns at the time, including possible overclose paraphrasing, broadness (not covering some areas, while covering others in excessive detail), OR, etc. You also raised the question as to whether the two articles ought to be combined into a general article on entranceways.
It is past time, three years later, to wind up these reassessments. As the issues you raised were significant, I don't think it's appropriate just to shut them down without a current assessment.
I'm hoping you return soon, and will be willing to post a comment to each of these. In the meantime, I plan to ask Nikkimaria to assess both articles as to possible close paraphrasing, and once she's done that, ask Wizardman to look over your points and see whether they have been adequately addressed. I did post a Status query to the Lamarck Drive GAR, pinging both you and TonyTheTiger, who replied and could thus work on any remaining issues.
Orlady, I appreciate the response on the reassessment pages. As I noted there, you're the official reviewer, and these are both individual reassessments. As you clearly believe these articles do not meet the GA criteria at the present time, it's up to you to delist them. (Instructions are at WP:GAR; I can take care of the technicalities if that part is a problem.) If you're not going to do that, then the other option is to close the reassessment with no action taken (effectively "kept"). (Again, I can take care of the technicalities.) If you don't want to make a decision but still want this pursued, then once your individual reassessments have been closed, a community reassessment could be opened, as TonyTheTiger mentions, but not while the individual ones remain open. Please post your decision on the reassessment pages. I don't feel I can act absent specific instructions on your part. Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, this is just a final ping. Since you haven't taken further action per the above, I'm going to consult with one more person who is quite experienced at GAR (though on the community side) to see what they recommend, and go with that unless you respond sooner. I hope you're having a very happy New Year. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed protection
Hello, Orlady. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi Orlady.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
Also, whether you want to come back to the DYK? section or not is completely up to you. Personally, I myself have generally alternated between being very active on Wikipedia versus not being very active. Indeed, it all depends on what exactly works best for you! :) Futurist110 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Content has been moved to more detailed Tate Springs article, there is not enough information to have the springhouse its own article compared to the resort it was part of.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Edits, several paragraphs, and the references I contributed to the page, Win-Win Games, have been deleted from Wikipedia. I would like to save the content from it to improve my contribution. Would you please copy the version which was before Mover of Molehills edited it, to my user page? Russell Moxie (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Russell Moxie (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please copy my last version of win-win games before it was edited by Mover of molehills to my sandbox? I’d like to work on improving it. Sorry I can’t find the source code. I appreciate your help!Russell Moxie (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity Southwest University until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
How we will see unregistered users
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.
The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [24] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Perry County, Tennessee
Hi there! I see you've edited pages related to Perry County, Tennessee in the past. I'm in the process of overhauling the page in the hopes of getting it to Good Article status soon. Any feedback or assistance in this endeavor would be greatly appreciated! nf utvol (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recovery of text of a deleted artcle
I was about to create an article on a New Zealand animation studio Mukpuddy Animation however have found that there was a previous article that was deleted in 2014. I would like to see what content that article had before I start drafting a replacement. I would greatly appreciate your assistance in obtaining a copy of the original article.
The studio has been in existence for over 20 years and produces children's programmes for both local (New Zealand) and overseas audiences. There are a number of fairly minor articles about the programmes they produce on Wiki. NealeWellington (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
I don't see any way that those two sources could be used to craft any article that would meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Unless you have additional sources from non-LDS publishers that establish his importance, it doesn't seem worthwhile to attempt to resuscitate an article about this man. Orlady (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was in the presiding bishopric of a fifteen million member church. There are tons of sources about him. It sounds like the article was quite poorly sourced, if it only had two. But notability and sources in WP articles are two completely different things. I would like a copy of the old article to consider. I guess I should ask someone else. Davemc0 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_by_Ron.jpg)
