User:Doncram/Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures
Do you mind if I move this back to mainspace, since you and he have gotten it past the absurdly meaningless state that it was before? Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On Nyttend's talk page, I said it was OK to move it back. I wouldn't call the page "fine," as it's still a choppy collection of facts, but it's an acceptable stub now -- the serious problems are all fixed. --Orlady (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean of course it isn't FA material - no one expects it to be... but if this was the initial state of the article, no one in their right mind would have criticized it.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept this medal for your outstanding work on American topics, putting 50 newly created and expanded articles on the Main page by introducing each one with a hook shown on the "Did you know" section. Wikipedia benefits from your contributions, and the world's fund of knowledge grows that much larger. Congratulations! Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Penny J. White
On 2 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Penny J. White, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Penny White lost her seat on the Tennessee Supreme Court because of her vote in a single court decision? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The edits removed valid maintenance templates, introduced inconsistent cite formats and replaced a detailed citation in Further Reading with a less detailed version of the same thing in Refs (even though the photos are not referred to in the article as such). I've reverted it & then reinserted the valid change of wikilink for John W. Ross. Am I right, or am I wrong? - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the spelling of "story/storey". Doncram did the same & I omitted to reinsert that correction. My bad.
I've now checked the NRHP website as well as the cited documents (again). As a consequence, I have amended the architectural styles and this has caused a redlink. There was no mention of the "Early commercial" style in the sources, nor of a standalone "vernacular" style: the wording is "Commercial vernacular". Furthermore, the vague "other" style in the infobox is nowhere to be seen in the sources, and looks rather like a catch-all along the lines of "less than 1 acre". Odd, this, as if Doncram automated the process then clearly the NRHP database's raw data is out of sync with its transformed (visible) data. However, since most people would look at the paper documents, I feel that is the version we should use. If Doncram wants to confirm the raw data then perhaps we'll have to include the fact that there is actually a discrepancy within the NRHP systems. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The story/storey spelling is the only place where I saw any need to quibble with your editing decisions. As for the NRIS database, it's only as good as the coding and typing done by the people who entered data into it. Since it is based on information extracted from paper documents, the paper documents always take precedence. --Orlady (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm glad to have some confirmation that I wasn't being silly. Hopefully, Doncram can accept the situation. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, he didn't. But I reverted his changes. I also reinstated the status quo ante of one of your edits, since I still feel that the wording needs clarification. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Please continue to discuss your change from the original wording on the article talk page and discontinue reverting the change until it has been resolved. EarlySquid (talk)
Two edits in a 24-hour period to address a potential WP:BLP issue associated with some apparent POV-pushing do not constitute an edit war. --Orlady (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please Stop
You're being abusive with the warnings on my talk page. I know why you are doing it, and I'm respectfully asking you to stop. You take this way too seriously. Go outside for an hour or so and get some fresh air. It might make you feel better. --EarlySquid (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huffman socking
I've asked at the SPI if you could explain the steps you've taken, as an admin, to correct this situation since you became aware, apparently a year or so ago, that this editor was using multiple accounts and sometimes using them to edit the same article. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI closed after finding that Huffman was using only one altnernate account. Since the Huffman account was only being used as a bad hand account to hound me, would you mind blocking it indefinitely? Also, could you tell me what you did when you found out a year or so ago that TallMagic and Huffman were the same person and had edited the same article together? Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply impossible to edit the article when Calamity assumes ownership of the article and continues to impugn the organization with unreliable sources and original research. As you are an admin, I wanted to ask you if you think it is fair to begin some sort of arbitration process against Calamity for all of these violations. I honestly believe Calamity is simply incapable of editing this article in an NPOV manner and should be banned. Cheers. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Krotite
On 18 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Krotite, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the newly discovered mineral krotite likely was one of the earliest minerals formed in the Solar System? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Sorry to trouble you but would you be good enough to take a second look at this, please? We are still awaiting sources but I have established that this institution is listed in a notable directory and there appears to be other documentation backing up the verifiability of its existence. TerriersFan (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 30 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Issaquah (steam ferry), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that when the steam ferry Issaquah was first launched in Lake Washington in 1914, it got stuck in mud? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for your conscientious scrutiny of this amateur's edit
Hey Ms. Orlady!!! It is an honor to be in contact with an actual Wikipedia Administrator. I'd appreciate the opportunity to appeal your nixing of my edit 431980668 (11:00, 1 June 2011) to the Wikipedia article WRT Sarah Cannon (Minnie Pearl), as follows:
##begin## Though not a country hitmaker, she did place a song in the top 10 of Billboard magazine's country singles chart in 1966 -- "Giddyup Go Answer," a recited answer song offering a different perspective to Red Sovine's No. 1 hit "Giddyup Go." ##end##
From this Wikipedia page: [Giddyup Go] subtopic: [Answer version] here is an excerpt:
##begin## A departure from her usual comic recordings, Pearl tells the story from the perspective of... ##end##
Unfortunately, Wikipedia can't cite itself. IMDB.com probably is a good source (it's not always reliable). I ended up revising the text based on a similar statement in CMT.com, which is a good source. --Orlady (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
##begin## In 1987, Dr. Thomas Frist, Sr., and Dr. Steven Stroup formed The Cancer Education and Research Council. After Sarah Cannon, also known as comedienne “Minnie Pearl”, was successfully treated for breast cancer, she became a passionate supporter in the fight against cancer and in 1992 offered her stage name to the Foundation, a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization. Funded through corporate and private donations as well as events supported by Minnie Pearl’s friends and fans, The Minnie Pearl Cancer Foundation is an active organization whose guiding principles honor Minnie Pearl’s generosity and caring spirit. ##end##
##begin## 7th Annual Hope on Wheels Saturday, September 10, 2011...Hope on Wheels is a signature cycling event in Middle Tennessee that brings wellness-conscious citizens and the biking community together to train and fundraise for an incredibly fun ride that benefits The Minnie Pearl Cancer Foundation (MPCF)
##begin## ...an incredibly unique event that puts Middle Tennessee on the map for cycling enthusiasts from across the country and has helped MPCF to reach out to hundreds of people through cancer education and inspiration. ##end##
The fact that Sarah Cannon was a good person doesn't mean she couldn't also be a comedian or sing comic songs. Thanks, however, for noticing the misinformation in the Wikipedia article and working so hard to correct it. --Orlady (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summary
The Verification section above shows that the song is not comical, which in turn means the current Wikipedia adjective "comic" is incorrect
The Motivation/Urgency section above establishes that if Wikipedia retains the adjective "comic" then it essentially says Sarah Cannon was a recording artist who poked fun at "Giddy Up Go", and this in turn would I believe insult many folks and dishonor her memory as a caring person
End of the subject "Thanks for your conscientious scrutiny of this amateur's edit"
Hey Ms. Orlady!!! I am so sorry I botched my message "Thanks for your conscientious scrutiny of this amateur's edit" to you by having inadvertantly yielded 4 separate "content" headers. Please feel free to delete all of them. Once again I sincerely apologize. --North Alabama 000 (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hall income tax, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that revenues from Tennessee's Hall income tax vary by as much as 26 percent from one year to the next, due to the "roller-coaster behavior" of capital gains from investments? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Sorry to bother you but I wonder if you have time to consider a possible semi-protection of Miss Universe 2011 ? No, it is not my usual subject area & I cannot recall how I got dragged into it. But I did, and there are constant issues regarding sourcing. As I see it, this is effectively a mini-BLP of every contestant and, while I did a lot of work a few days ago to ensure that their heights were correctly sourced, the changes continue & are almost always from new IPs. I haven't yet looked at the d.o.b.'s of the contestants, and nor do I particularly want to go down that road, but I do understand that particular statistic may be even more of an issue to the female of the species!
It is probably of no great interest as an article to you either, but the overhead in keeping track of this is a bit of a nuisance. Then again, if the article is of great interest then I am happy to devolve my watching of it ... - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 5 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article State Policy Network, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the State Policy Network of conservative "free market" political think tanks in every U.S. state has been likened to a franchising arrangement? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 5 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Newton Cannon, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Tennessee governor Newton Cannon's animosity toward fellow Tennessean Andrew Jackson, who was U.S. president during his governorship, may have started with gambling losses at Jackson's racetrack? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Why, oh why, did I get into this? Doubtless you will be asking yourself the same. Thanks for spotting the need for extended PP today. I have just had to revert a fair bit of stuff again and, frankly, am fed up with one particular miscreant. Please could you take a quick look at User_talk:Marleshy? The page may get blanked before you do but, of course, it will be in the history. I am hoping that it is self-explanatory but what is done about the situation is entirely up to you. I'll respect your decision either way. - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked, I got the impression that Marleshy's activity had already ceased, That still seems to be the case. --Orlady (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Unaccredited" template
Hello, Orlady. I notice that you commented on the Unaccredited template talk page a few years ago. My question to you is: is there some absolute requirement that this template be added? It's just ideal for editors who want to slime a school they don't like, Weimar Institute, for example. And, as your comment stated, it ends up being UNDUE in short articles. Thanks, I'd appreciate your latest thoughts. Kenatipospeak!16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemike is absolutely correct regarding the inclusion in articles of substantive information about the absence of educational accreditation. This is often extremely important information. My objection to Template:Unaccredited is an objection to the use of a template to create a substantial piece of article text. The text created by the template often does not fit in an article where it is placed, and users editing the article may not recognize/understand the template's behavior. --Orlady (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The template might be appropriate in an article about an unaccredited "diploma mill" that was attempting to hide its lack of accreditation (assuming this fact is properly sourced), but that's not the case with Weimar College. I don't think Wikipedia is meant to be the Consumer Protection Agency. It has a "policy" about "no disclaimers". It does not give legal advice. It is not a how-to manual. At the Weimar College article, the template is being used by an editor with an agenda to put negative info in the article. I'm concerned that you can't tell me what policy requires the template, Orange Mike. In the Weimar article, the fact the the college was not accredited was, at least after one of my edits, sourced directly to a page in the college's own Academic Bulletin and Student Handbook. Let me repeat my original question: is there some absolute requirement that this template be added? Kenatipospeak!16:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unaccredited is unaccredited, whether the absence of accreditation is due to being a diploma mill or similar scam, financial problems that caused the accrediting agency to revoke accreditation, or the school's own decision to eschew external involvement. In all cases, there are ramifications for students, alumni, and prospective students. The specific details to be included in the discussion of ramifications do vary, often depending on what school-specific information the article provides. However, I don't trust a school's own claims to being accredited (check with the accreditor and cite the accreditor as the source) or its assertions that other schools accept its credits for transfer (almost every flagrant scam school makes that sort of claim). When an article reports the credit-transfer claims that a school makes, and those claims can't be confirmed by a reliable third-party source, I believe that Wikipedia needs to ensure that the article also provides a large dollop of good information on the ramifications of not being accredited. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the move, I have some doubts about the ampersand in the title, but otherwise the move looks OK. I edited one of the redirects that points to the article to avoid double redirection. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I have no desire to create a new page for Uncasville since it is technically not a town but a section of Montville and thus should be redirected to Montville, Connecticut and NOT to Oxoboxo River because Uncasville is NOT part of Oxoboxo River but instead it is actually part of Montville. Another reason is I have in the past I have put some hard work on Wikipedia (prior to registering) only to have that work either reverted and deleted altogether because of ignorant people who don't know squat about the subject and simply want to put what they believe or decide to make up to be the truth as fact when in some cases it was an outright lie, not that I am accusing you because I'm not. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make an apologize that I did not respond to your message on my talk page, unfortunately for the past 10 days I was out of state for my cousin's funeral, visiting relatives in New Jersey and a wedding and I honestly did not have any internet access during that time, in fact I only just got home tonight. So please I hope you will accept my deepest and sincere apologizes for not immediately responding. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, didn't mean to be a nitpicker on the Archibald Roane bio, but as I've written much of the Virginia Spencer stuff on wikipedia, I was just curious about the particulars of the relationship ascribed to Archibald and Spencer Roane by the University of Tennessee library source, which has no details, aside from calling them 'cousins.' Given that Spencer Roane was born in Essex County, Virginia, and Archibald was born in Pennsylvania of immigrant Irish parentage, the relationship would seem to be nebulous. Can you help clarify? Thank you, and am glad to see that someone has the interest in fleshing out the bios of these early Southern patriots. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi- I came across Liberty Hills, Tennessee in Williamson County. Initially, it was Liberty Hill, Tennessee. However, GNIS mention the correct title was Liberty Hills so I change the name. If you would please check this out I would appreciate it. This is in relation to an NRHP article about Liberty Hill School. I did notice there are 2-3 Liberty Hill, Tennessee (no s after Liberty Hill) so you people might want to start articles to prevent any confusions. My apologies to you and members of WP Tennessee for any problems. Thank you again-RFD (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I have no actual knowledge of Liberty Hill or Liberty Hills. Doncram created the article and didn't cite his source(s). My guess is that he based the article on the name entered in the NRIS database. Neither "Liberty Hill" nor "Liberty Hills" is identified as a community in http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/64500624.pdf . --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some poking around, I'm inclined to delete the article. GNIS lists 10 populated places in Tennessee called "Liberty Hill," including one in Williamson County, plus that one populated place called "Liberty Hills", also in Williamson County. Moreover, the one called "Liberty Hills" is sourced only to a Chamber of Commerce map -- not a USGS map, and the "Liberty Hill School" coordinates correspond to the GNIS-listed place called "Liberty Hill." --Orlady (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for helping with this. I reverted my changes to the Williamson County templete and the article involving the article. I hope this helps-RFD (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. The town article had a lot of info about the HD, and the redirect was much less work than a complete rewrite would have been! --Orlady (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. You said that this page would be semi-protected but it hasn't yet and I've undone more unsourced speculation from IPs. If you could protect it soon then that would be great. The transfer window hasn't even opened yet and I'm getting irritated by editing based purely on gossip. Cheers. Argyle 4 Lifetalk10:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's protected now. I have no idea what happened to my earlier edit. I distinctly remember protecting it BEFORE I posted at the RFPP board, but there's no sign of that in the edit history. Sorry for the delay. --Orlady (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries fellow. Only a few minor things to correct this morning since most of the would be IP editors were probably still in bed. Hopefully it'll die down in the next ten days but I wouldn't bet on it, such is the media circus in this country when it comes to association football. Argyle 4 Lifetalk14:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orlady, I modified the Regional Accreditation back to how I had it, and provided more direct support that some states do accredit schools. Please note, also, that I removed an uncited (and incorrect) statement that the regional agencies accredit nearly every elementary through college institution. Accreditation of public elementary and middle schools is less common than public high school accreditation because HS accreditation affects college admissions, whereas Elementary accreditation does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.241.25 (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orlady,
I think HW has been busy, but I was wondering if wp:duck would apply to these users? User:Brettbass, User:Famguy74, User:Penn12, User:Metzfolife as they all only seem to edit user pages to get a deleted article recreated. Here is my original post on HW's wall from last week. I am unsure how to handle this, or if there is even anything that needs handling. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This collection of users is annoying all right. They may or may not be the same person, but at a minimum they are friends working together. However, although they pass the duck test, they haven't necessarily been violating the rules at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. I added Template:Noindex to the user pages that they keep trying to promote in article space. If the various IPs resume their practice of linking to the userspace page(s), talk page warnings against that behavior would be appropriate (to put them on notice to stop). I'm not sure how off-wiki linking to user pages is usually handled -- you might want to post a request for advice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I agree, I'm going to watch it for awhile longer before doing anything further. No reason to "go to the mattresses" over this. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HW,
I need some help/advice... The Chris Webby page was deleted in January 2011 for lack of notability yet now it is in this user's profile... and is not being improved since it's creation on 31 January 2011 (around the original article's deletion). A prior speedy delete tag in Feb 2011 was erased because "he's known by millions" and was apparently not followed up for some reason. It is being linked by Myspace and other social media, so it's being used as an advertisement of sorts.
(I googled ""Chris Webby" +Metzfolife", but I can vouch that [1] and [2] work.) There's another copy here too at User:Penn12/Chris_Webby and I'm not really sure what to do about this as it's not the sort of thing I usually deal with. Can you help? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there's something odd going on here. I'm not sure just how to handle it -- it looks at first glance that somebody's using multiple accounts -- and I'll look into it further, shortly. Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I feared the self-published source which claimed that the synagogue was the largest reform synagogue in New Jersey seems to be a false claim. I have documented by additional research here [3]. Your closing rationale was that it was notable as being the largest reform synagogue in New Jersey, but that does not appear to be the case. The other closing rationale you gave was the single event dreidel record which may in fact be true, but is a single event, and I can't seem to find any significant coverage in any reliable sources either. Just thought you should know, as it seems the AfD was closed with some misleading information from a non-reliable source. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC) P.S. I just noticed you were not the closing admin. I'll drop a note to them. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entire discussion is about whether or not WP:BEFORE is existing policy, and if it isn't whether it should be. I couldn't discern a consistent change in subject matter or theme after that heading, so I figured it was best to put my comment in chronological order. If there a consistent outline to that discussion that I failed to notice, could you please explain it to me? --Orlady (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the participants in the poll (bullet and bold) have placed their comments above the subheading. Unless your comment is a response to DGG, I think it might be overlooked down there. Flatscan (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Universe 2011
Sir, excuse me! I'm not advertising or whatsoever in Wikipedia. I just providing SOURCES for Miss Universe 2011 section. For your info sir. Besides Beauty Mania is not my personal website. It is a Organization concerning Beauty Pageants.
I guess you are from "Times of Beauty" website. Look at the other pages who also indicating sources from "Times of Beauty" website. Is that advertising also? Well I noticed that TIMES OF BEAUTY site IS advertising their site on Wikipedia.
It is UNFAIR for me the way you treat me like this. I just doing my work as a pageant observer. Besides I think my sources is more reliable than other sites.
FYI.
Anyway, I want to solve this problem and that is why I want to talk to you. We can solve this in a diplomatic manner.
I have no affiliation, nor interest, in beauty pageant websites. The rest of my response is on your talk page. --Orlady (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK sir, I understand. But please be fair. But I will still provide reliable sources in Wikipedia. I also want to clear things: THE SOURCES/ WEBSITES I'm posting is NOT my WEBSITE and I have NO interest with those wesbites. As a pageant observer who has EXCELLENT knowledge about Beauty pageants, I just want to contribute reliable sources. It happens that I find Beauty Mania more reliable source than other pageant websites.
Again, if you think I'm advertising, please look at Miss World 2011 page and see who's advertising their sites e.g. Times of Beauty, Global Beauties, etc.
Hello Orlady! I am new to Wikipedia and so be gentle and patient... but I do disagree that Allan Jones is not notable, at least in Cleveland TN which the page originates. I will not make any more edits on this page because of the COI WWIO articles, but I do dispute the addition of that one line. I have been a lifelong Cleveland resident and I assure you that everyone knows Allan Jones... I'd not even heard about some of the other people. Check out this Google search. PS it is faster to e-mail me at jennbo@gmail.com http://www.google.com/search?q=allan+jones+cleveland+tn&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.51.113.34 (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the third-party reliable sources are enough to establish notability under Wikipedia's criteria (please note that "notability" here is not related to being well-known locally). The references to his foundation's website at http://www.wallanjones.com that you supplied previously do not demonstrate notability. I restored his name to the article, but it would be nice if there were an article about him. Also, if you plan to continue contributing, I suggest that you register as a user. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A kitten for you!
Hi- I am not trying to vandalize, I was just correcting some obsolete terms, thanks for informing me. I will also cite my corrections..
I will go through all of them with you. But lets start with this one "In another example, it is noted that in October 2010 PBS was blocked for tendentious editing, then was unblocked after he promised not to edit the articles in contention or their talk pages while an ongoing RFC was open. While PBS apparently complied with the letter of that promise, he violated its spirit by pursuing some of his concerns related to those articles in a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard." Did you read the opinions of the other administrators involved in the discussion over that blocking? The general opinion was that it was out of order (see link to my talk page and the ANI) so why did you not mention that in you summary? You also make a statement of bad faith my bad faith without checking the times of the start of the thread. I started the thread before the Cirt block my account. So where is the bad faith on my behalf? Again if you are going to give an impartial summary then you should have noted that in your summary. Likewise "While PBS apparently complied with the letter of that promise" either I complied with the letter of the promise or I did not, if you are going to impartially summarise then you must have looked in detail at the events and know whether I complied with the letter of whether I did not, in which case whey the qualifier "apparently"? -- PBS (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up on your broad comment. I cited that incident as one example of a pattern of "manipulating Wikipedia process" to advance your goals. Interestingly (or should I say "ironically"?), your protest here seems to be another example of the same phenomenon. There definitely were serious process-related problems with that block. However, by focusing on the process issues, you seem to be trying to minimize the contentions that led to the block. I do not doubt that you complied with the letter of the agreement you made in order to get rid of the block. However, your subsequent actions did not comply with its spirit. It is very unusual for a contributor of your high quality and long tenure to elicit the negative reactions that were expressed in the RFC; I perceived (and I still believe) that one cause of those surprisingly negative reactions was a pattern of emphasizing process, while overlooking (or paying insufficient attention to) the effect of behavior on human emotions. --Orlady (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"manipulating Wikipedia process to advance your goals", is a biased way of phrasing it and not the wording of an impartial summary. It is bias because of the use of the word "manipulating" and the phrase "your goals". It is not manipulating a Wikipedia process to expect that all editors abide by the policies of Wikipedia. I follow Wikipedia polices and press for alter those policies and guidelines if I think that there are contradictions in the polices and guidelines. In this I am no different from may other editors who edit policy pages. "your goals" implies that my goals are different from other editors goals (and somehow malignant) yet do you have any evidence that I have ever done anything on Wikipedia that was not done to enhance the encyclopaedia? If you did not mean "your malignant goals" what exactly do you mean by "your goals"?
You write "There definitely were serious process-related problems with that block." then as an impartial closing administrator why did you not mention that in your closing summary?
"I do not doubt that you complied with the letter of the agreement you made in order to get rid of the block." The block would have gone anyway, I suggested a longer hiatus than was asked of me to give Cirt an easy way out so that he would not loose any more face than he already had:
(Actually, I had in mind the duration of the original block, but it might create a framework for discussion here, at least.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That would be agreeable to me, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
for the sake of harmony, I will agree not to edit either article Targeted killing and Assassination or their talk pages until the RFC ends (which will be more than a week). But Cirt this is conditional on the understanding that that neither you or I will block each others account again, or solicit another to do so with communications that are not logged on the Wikipedia pages. --PBS (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There were also serious breaches in the behaviour of the counterpart to the edit to the page. If an editor makes an edit which is reverted they are meant to discuss the changes on the talk page before reverting (WP:BOLD). They are not meant to accuse an editor who makes a good faith edit of vandalism, revert, make the vandalism claim again, revert, and then play the system by asking for page protection knowing that if the counterpart reverts before the protection is applied the counter-party will be in breach of 3RR. You did not comment on that behaviour in you summary to explain why the block was so out of order. The point is that I tend not to write down bad faith comments like this because I expect others to read the details. It was not I who played the system that day it was the counter-party. What should happened was that the page should have been reverted to the last stable version on the page (the redirect) until the RFC about whether the page should remain a redirect or become an article ended. That that did not happen was a shame. One has to wonder what was going through the mind of the administrator who protected the page and blocked my account because he ought to have been sharp enough to see when someone is playing the system through the blatant manipulation of 3RR and then asking for protection.
You write "your subsequent actions did not comply with its spirit" which subsequent actions?
Koontz House may soon be moved to another title but the interesting thing is that a new user has come along and tagged it as having multiple issues. This user is currently communicating at User_talk:Sadads and apparently is a "descendant" of the house (do houses breed over your side of the pond?)
It is, of course, a Doncram NRHP stub. I'll keep an eye on it and try to assist the user. I have no idea what, if anything, has evolved on the Doncram front of late but hopefully he'll be happy to see one of his stubs developed! - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orlady, and thanks for your invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Appalachia -- it's good to be wanted! I'm going to decline for now -- NOT for any lack of affection for that rumpled-blanket landscape of yours, just out of caution about over-promising what I can contribute to. Trying to be realistic. (A new thing for me.) Appreciate the thought, and hope to see you around! --Lockley (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to know that you care. Know that if you ever need advice on topics related to the region, you may find some input over at the Wikiproject. --Orlady (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oakridge, Tennessee in Montgomery County, Tennessee
Hi- I came across the article you started Oakridge, Tennessee in Montgomery County. I am working on articles on the various Wisconsin unincorporated communities when I came across your article when I started an article Oakridge, Wisconsin and added it to the dab page. Please check the Oakridge, Tennessee article if the gnis is correct. I hope you are doing well-thank you-RFD (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. I need to make some changes before it goes public, as there are some potential issues related to article balance and BLP. While researching it, I ended up researching and reworking the State Policy Network article, and haven't come back to the Tennessee article to make changes based on what I learned while researching the umbrella group. But thanks for reminding me! I'll tackle this soon. --Orlady (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you are referring to my edit at Wolf's Head (secret society). That article is full of direct quotations that do not contain in-text identification of the sources of the quotations. When the encyclopedia uses someone else's words in that fashion, it is necessary to identify whose words are quoted. Footnotes identifying the quoted work are necessary, but not sufficient. I flagged a couple (by no means all) of the problematic quotations in that article as needing in-text attribution. The specific quotation that you apparently think is OK is in the following sentence:
The Grey Friars, as had been written about the music of Charles Ives, "had a wicked sense of humor and deliberately set out to deflate every kind of pomposity."
I saw a double issue with the quotation in that sentence. Who wrote that about the music of Charles Ives and who applied those words to the Grey Friars? When you quote someone else's remarks, you need to identify the speaker. You have now nicely answered the first question (who said this about Charles Ives), but the second question is still unanswered. --Orlady (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hey...MISS II
I believe I've absorbed the spirit of your suggestion and have reworked the section that included the sentence you questioned.74.66.31.24 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)SLY111[reply]
I thought the other material was interesting, but it was not in line with the rewrite concerning the Grey Friars and the society's stand against "pomposity" or "arrogance", perceived and actual, of the other peer societies. What makes W.H.S.W.H.S. is a rigorous check on the arrogance associated with the other two peer organizations. Humor is often the tool of choice.
The first society is an international political powerhouse, and the second society is a national social powerhouse, both defined by membership that has matriculated at Yale. W.H.S. helps power Yale, and that is almost enough for it. The former Third Society has assumed the position of honest broker in a collegiate trust that dates back more than a century and manages the university, one hopes, for the betterment of "all".
Granted, I have my bias, and I in part made my choice informed by this really-inside-baseball-of-Yale stuff. Keys, for example, is snobby: Mayflower and Astor 400 families and that ilk. Bones, for example, is for the super-achiever among a tribe of achievers. Wolf's Head is for the gregarious preppy. I was one, and I haven't looked back. The gregarious loathes the snob, and looks down on the super-achiever who looks down upon you. So, for example, the Benet putdown (his older brother was a member of Keys) of the undergraduate aspiration to join a society, authored in fact with a classmate who was a member of Bones and future publishing star, John Farrar, was ill-placed with the edit you suggested. Pluck one apple, and all the apples move in the cart.
I suggest that the entry's tone is now fuller. Readers removed from the Yale community could almost care less about the "baseball" material I mentioned above, but it does inform the institutions mentioned above. I have received muscular help in modulating my tone for the entry,and I thank you and others.
Thanks again.74.66.31.24 (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)SLY111[reply]
Your desire to focus on the "really-inside-baseball-of-Yale stuff" would be appropriate if this website were Yale-o-pedia or an "Insider's Guide to Yale." However, it is an encyclopedia that is supposed to be useful to the world at large, so I hope you will continue your efforts to try to produce content that is both reliably sourced and comprehensible to people who don't already know most of the subject matter of the article. Section headings like "Bonesy..." are still inappropriate for a general encyclopedia.
Please note that boldface is supposed to be used only for the first occurrence of the name of the article. It should not be repeated throughout the article. I have removed the excessive boldface from the article.
Currently, I am puzzled by the sentence "The undergraduate delegation meets regularly on Thursday and Sunday nights during the academic year" that appears at the end of the "Bonesy..." section. I don't think it belongs there -- and note that it needs a source.
The Thursday Sunday meetings are a society tradition. I'll remove the sentence, but do me the solid of removing it from other like entries.
I'm using a handmedown DELL laptop, and from it I cannot log in at Wikipedia; God knows, I hide little, so I sign my posts.
When speaking about the societies, it takes help from editors like yourself to sustain content that might be useful to the general public. Keep up the good work.74.66.31.24 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)SLY111[reply]
If it's known to be true, I'd be happy for the sentence to be in the article, albeit with some sort of a note about the need for a source. It's not exactly controversial.
However, that doesn't answer the question of why it's in the "Bonesy" section of the article.
Sorry to hear you can't log in from that laptop. I've edited a few times from IPs when I was using a borrowed computer, but only to do things like fix typos in articles I happened to look at, nothing substantial. Is it not possible for you to request your password? --Orlady (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, allow me to say that working with you and your peers is akin to working on the Yale Daily News, which I did with some success, therefore the opportunity with Wolf's Head.
What else would improve the entry?
I like this version, given your suggestions. I've spent time on the entry, and I'm gladdened that it reads now as less a f ck y u to the peer groups and more an appropriate sharing of the facts that did allow W.H.S. to stand shoulder to shoulder with the other two; it is indeed because the other two, and the groups that came afterward, might not exist without the obvious double and triple dealing for good and for ill that created the group, and that would had been a loss for Yale, the USA and what's called history, I suggest humbly.
And all the poppycock associated with the 41st and 43nd POTUS and their affiliation begged an improved description of Yale's society system.
74.66.31.24 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)SLY111[reply]
I agree. The article is interesting, it appears to be well-sourced, and it looks like an encyclopedia article, not an insider's guide or an exposé. Hurray! As for improvement, I suggest that you work on getting sources for more of the past members -- and try to find reliable sources in lieu of dubious attributions like En.academic.ru. --Orlady (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opening sentiment.
The references for past members is a tough one, and I'm considering limiting that group to personalities with a bona fide, or reliable, reference.74.64.101.222 (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)SLY111[reply]
Hi Orlady,
I have cleaned up some of the language on the WGU page and thought that it was adequate; but after reviewing today I did some additional editing that I think has helped it not sound so much like an advertisement. Please suggest what else could be done to give the article a NPOV, as I would like to appropriately dismiss the maintenance template. Thank you. Snavejar (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 6 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Potsdam Sandstone, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that New York's Potsdam Sandstone was deposited in rising seas and consists of sediments eroded from unvegetated terrestrial landscapes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/Potsdam Sandstone.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Orlady, can you do me a small favor? Please look in at this page and tell me here (if and how) I could have handled it any better? I'm at my wit's end... this is only my third or fourth time as a third party and this debate was particularly troublesome. (I don't mind if you weigh in or not on the actual page, I'm asking for advice, not really help as I don't think it can constructively progress.) Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I brought you to ANI not to you get you blocked or anything like that. I brought it to ANI to find out how to handle the situation. I'm politely asking you to please end the discussion about my withdrawn nomination since the withdrawal should have ended it. Joe Chill (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can discuss things with me, I just asked for that DYK discussion to be ended. You seem to be looked highly upon by other editors which I respect. Joe Chill (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 14 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bertha Heyman, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the 19th-century swindler Bertha Heyman(pictured), known as "The Confidence Queen," conned men by pretending to be a wealthy woman who was unable to access her fortune? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/Bertha Heyman. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
thanks for the source, just filling in a red link of List of RHPs in DC (getting ready for wikimania next year). however i found a newspaper source that conflicts in detail. (left out the "most obscure" accolade) rewrite if you dissagree. Slowking4: 7@1|x17:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the nom (found a ref to "10 probably never heard of") the city paper has the local stories, cites sources (no wash post here) note, the park ranger may be mistaken. of course, now that we have gps on it, it's no longer obscure: the urban orienteering is easy. Slowking4: 7@1|x17:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orlady, Slowking, I made a comment on your DYK nomination for this article here--I am a bit concerned about the sources and have requested a second opinion. Cheers, --Pgallert (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orlady,
I'm trying to kill off some of the more useless categories in the project. This one that was started about two years ago, but not much was done with it. I feel it is useless because... what does "local" mean? Local to New Haven is not local to Hartford or New London. How can having a cat for random politicians from all over the state make any sense, versus having them in their own (precise) categories? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 24 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Earl Best, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the "Street Doctor", who delivers food to the poor of Newark, New Jersey, in his van and seeks to end street violence, spent 10 years in solitary confinement? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/Earl Best.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
There is currently a long and important thread on Jimbo's talk page that might be right up your (High) street. This may finally be the opportunity we are hoping for to get any ambiguities cleared up regarding any perceived interpretations of (non)notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that your an active reviewer of DYKs, would you mind taking a look at the two below. It would be much appreciated, not to worry if you can't. Thank you.
I see that your an active reviewer of DYKs, would you mind taking a look at the two below. It would be much appreciated, not to worry if you can't. Thank you.
List of United States Cities by Population, the rank as page shows hides the true population denisty ranking
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
I believe the value of this page is that it allows one to find the population density of a city relative to all the rest in the nation, these figures are helpful in identifying relationships the of pollution, transit usage, and carbon footprint to density in Municipal Planning. I believe the list should be set to open with population density as the ranked figure, and if possible to have the the number rank related to the the figure for which teh list gets sorted, so that if I click the button to sort the cities by land area, it automatically states their relative rank to each other.. ex: when the list is sorted to 'pop density,' remarkably takes 17th place, but the rank numbers still relate this time out of sequence to 'total population.'
A page sort list that auto adjusts the rank, much like a typical database keeps the row numbers proper, even when you resort would be valuable to under grads and post grads, studying urban development, &/or city planning. I live in Berkeley, and we have a school within the university dedicated to urban planning.
I appreciate your point about the value of a "by density" list for students of urban planning, but they aren't the typical encyclopedia user. List of United States cities by population is sorted by total population, just like the title indicates. It's a fully sortable table, so people interested in how the cities rank by other statistics can easily resort the list. --Orlady (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TY for response, when you sort the list the ranking numbers are jumbled as they relate only too the population rank.. Is there someway to make those numbers responsive to how the list is sorted. Or to simply identify the rows with numbers that don't shuffle so the data changes, i researched it and found a crude method of using to wikitables directly adjacent to each other, but I couldn't typeset them effectively while experimenting... Moped45 (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glendale "University"
Hello Orlady,
I suppose we have been engaging in a debate of sorts regarding the Glendale University page over a few points regarding the accreditation of their company. I think it's fairly clear that you have some interest in representing them in the worst possible light in this respect, and I can't really fault you for that given what they do. I do think you are a bit too cavalier with the terms you are throwing around, though. For instance, to say that its accrediting company lacks "necessary" legal recognition implies that such recognition is somehow necessary. While certain states do have legislation that would make it necessary for a degree-granting entity to have legal recognition in order to lay claim to an accredited status (as is the situation in Canada where I live) this is not the case outside of these few exceptions across the country.
It just seems that the term "unaccredited" is not accurate since they are technically accredited (albeit by a baloney accreditation company). If I may infer as to your motives from the justifications used for your revisions, I would expect that your terminology is meant to indicate your low opinion of this company but has crossed the line into counter-factual claims. I would encourage you to incorporate the problems associated with the accreditation system in the United States in your treatment of the Glendale company rather than to gloss over the issue by simply labelling them as unaccredited. To be frank, it seems that the immediate problem is not that they are unaccredited but that they are not accredited by an unbiased accreditation agency or according to any kind of meaningful standard, and the larger problem is that regulations do not exist to legally differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate accreditation (government recommendations notwithstanding).
Anyway, I do realize that Wikipedia is a fairly fallacious source of information anyway (especially in light of my experience with this matter) but I thought I would try to make it a bit more accurate. You may now proceed to completely disregard my argument and continue to rule Wikipedia with an iron fist.
As the section that you so-uncourteously deleted in its entirety was done without any discussion whatsoever, I have initiated a review of this dispute to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, asking for independent reviews. Frankly, given all the data that was posted regarding the effectively permanent impacts on Denver -- again, Denver...with Rocky Flats being the source of the unquestioned plutonium problems -- I'm appalled at your actions given your administrator status. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This is just one of many data sources quoted in what you deleted in its entirety. Clearly, given that we are dealing with a radionuclide -- plutonium-239 -- with a 24,000 year half-life, comments on the impact on Denver are both encyclopedic and a public service. This is a very straightforward situation, and yet you have acted both wrongly and with a very clear POV yourself. I am very honestly shocked. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WE have in turn been referred to the article's talk page to resolve the situation. In the spirit of good intentions, I ask that you undelete the article pending a public airing out of this issue.
Needless to say, given the wide body of evidence regarding the impact of plutonium on Denver, your unilateral actions to delete the article outright were heavy-handed, and not what I'm used to seeing from a Wikipedia administrator. I think it only appropriate that you rescind your actions given the substantial impacts on the Denver area quoted in this sub-article.
As you have neither continued the discussion nor restored the section you deleted, I must assume we are deadlocked. This serves as notice that I have once again flagged this issue to the dispute resolution board.
I look forward to resolving this impasse and creating a Denver article that provides appropriate information on the plutonium contamination there -- how it happened, what its impacts are, what the best sources of information may be. It's a difficult issue to confront in an honest and high-integrity fashion...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the attempt. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a different note, I question whether you should have edited the article and then semi-protected it. One or the other, but not both, in my opinion. I also weakly disagree with the editorial choice you made, but that can be resolved in article talk. Best wishes, --John (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw and replied to your comment at my talk. On sober reflection, yes, I might have done the same myself. No worries. --John (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at John's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I enjoyed learning about the coalfield and the massive Gevra Mine. Thank you for contributing the article and doing such a nice job with it! --Orlady (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Orlady, as a person whom I believe to be very fair in reqard to opinions. I would like for you to take a look and possibly comment on a suggested move of an article which I made here: Talk:School of Tropical Medicine. You see, I believe that the title of the current article is not proper and should be moved (renamed), therefore making room for an disambiguation page for other articles of places which share the same name. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with your position. In view of the reversion of your renaming attempt, I thought it best to create a formal "requested move". That's done... --Orlady (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I knew that I was right when I stated that you were a fair person and that you would make the right suggestion, be it either in agreement or disagreement with me. The situation seems to have been taken care of and I have re-created the disambiuation page once more. Thank you once more. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the photos were ok... If you think better ones could be put in place I have no problem. As an fyi, I am trying to clean out Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New York by figuring out which have photos and pigeon holing the rest by county. The state category was much too big and unwieldy to be of real use, IMHO (2600 entries). So far there have been only a hand full that had photos and REALLY needed new photos. I will edit the reqphotos you restored to put them in the county. If I eliminate any more reqphotos that you think should be kept, would you please put them in the county category, rather than the state category? I think this would greatly help the possibility of getting a contribution.
I explained myself on your talk page. You are doing good work -- those are the only three images that I had a concern about, and my concern has nothing whatsoever to do with your work. All three buildings are in Westchester. Thanks for the advice on adding county tags to other requested images in New York state. --Orlady (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your concern. It is certainly valid. I'm going to continue in my vein of cleaning up. Please do continue your work of watching for questionalble photos! Thanks! --Arg342 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The species is called Leptidea sinapis. The article is currently called Leptidea sinapsis because I mistyped when I tried moving it from one of its common names, Wood White, too, well, Leptidea sinapis. I made a similar typo involving another species earlier today and got it corrected with no problem. I do acknowledge it's my fault but I don't understand the curt rejection. Noym (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was most definitely not a deliberate edit! I don't remember making the edit -- I don't even remember looking at the Requested moves page in that time frame. The most logical explanation is a household pet walking (or possibly rolling over) on the keyboard.... I'll go see about resolving it. --Orlady (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, pets and keyboards... the dog in residence here at Noym HQ can make you hit Enter at really inopportune moments just by gently tapping your hand. He understands tapping your hand will usually get him scratched behind the ears. He does not appear to understand mail clients. Thank you for fixing my mistake for me! Noym (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interview with Wikimedia Foundation
Hello Orlady,
I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser for the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign, we're interviewing as many of the very active and productive Wikipedians as we can to broaden the range of appeals we run come November. I wonder if you would want to tell me more about your experiences editing and writing here? If so, I'll ask you your personal story and I'll ask you some general questions about Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're interesting by emailing amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Thanks! user:Aaron (WMF)
Bill Huffman
Although Huffman has stated repeatedly that he has retired the account to protect his privacy, he continues to use it. I understand that you have some awareness of his history of socking because he socked when you and him were editing diploma mill articles together. I request that you, as an admin, indef block the Huffman account which should take care of the current problem. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you among the top contributors to 1982 World's Fair and just now I happened across a great resource for some properly referenced info.[4] Scroll around for more about the U.S. exhibit and a sketch of other countries' exhibits on page 7B. At any rate, I thought it worth pointing out because I have worked another article using Google News extensively and found some of the links to old papers to be ephemeral. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject National Register of Historic Places for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Orlady. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
It's been a rough week for ODB++, but I think the article is in fairly good shape now. Can you take one more look before the nom falls off the end of the earth? nomination Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Guidance Barnstar
Thanks for your guidance on the ODB++ DYK nomination. Whatever the outcome, the discussion and references were very helpful in improving the article. Woz2 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional references. (BTW, you're good at finding the high quality ones. What's the technique? DMOZ?). I added the links and drafted ALT4 and ALT5. Please take a look if you have a moment. Tx. Woz2 (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While you are right that Orlady could have handled themselves better on your page and was fairly aggressive you have upped the ante here. Your edits at the New Yorker were also done in a fairly aggressive fashion - probably the final version is the one you should have gone for originally. The points made about the New Yorker in its lead aren't that controversial. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to discuss anything with you, at any time. In future, when you feel obliged to move into talkpage threads in which I have particpated, please do not expect me to engage with you. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢20:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, Treasury Tag showed up at The New Yorker, a long and well-cited article with an extensive history of editing by numerous contributors and where TT had no previous edit history, and summarily deleted half of the lead section as WP:Peacock wording. When I reverted him, and after that in a message on his talk page, I pointed out that the content was well-supported by citations in the article body, consistent with WP:Lead section. TT also deleted my message on his talk page, where I suggested that his edits were POV-motivated vandalism (rather than defense of article quality, as he claims), then came here to tell me that I was out of line for reverting his edits twice. All this looks to me like deliberately disruptive behavior on TT's part. --Orlady (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Whereas accusing an established editor with, as you say, no prior history of editing in the area, of "POV-motivated vandalism," is greatly encouraged I guess? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢20:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nectar/honey
Nectar is a plant product, produced for the sole purpose of attracting pollinators. Honey is a food produced from nectar by some colony forming insects, for the sole purpose of feeding their larvae. They are no more the same thing than wheat and pasta. The bird in question is not called a nectareater: there is no more irony or hookiness in saying that it does not eat nectar than in saying that it does not eat seed or fish. Kevin McE (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Honeyeater eats honey from bees. The honey in the name refers to nectar and plant sugars. Insects are its primary food source and its bill is adapted to an insect diet. Alternative food sources have been removed from the lead section. Marj (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the article states, "the Striped Honeyeater relies on insects, seeds and fruits as major food sources, as well as nectar", so nectar is a considerable part of its diet. We can't say that its main food source is not nectar, when nectar is listed as one of the four main food groups for this bird. Kevin McE (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you work on yet another a new template?
I would like to see a new and widely applied template.
Gist would be This Administrator is an Obvious Jerk
I think you would get much recognition for work on this project, which is much in keeping with Wikipedia ethos.
Even "jimbo" would maybe love your for this, and invite you for dinner or something.
Frankly is brilliant idea. I offer this freely for your own benefit.
You will have noticed some problems I have just had trying to clean up close paraphrasing. In particular, I didn't understand the circumstances where Duplication Detector doesn't work. Google Books returned this return, and I mistakenly assumed the text was clean instead of realising that that Duplication Detector doesn't do Google Books. The second problem was when DirectScience returned this result (that one got me into trouble with you). Duplication Detector doesn't do DirectScience either. So may I ask, is there an essay somewhere on effective ways to reliably clean up close paraphrasing, and are you aware of other pitfalls using Duplication Detector? Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I want to say that I am impressed by your noble efforts to nominate all of these new aquaculture articles for main-page attention. (Were they created as an educational class project somewhere?) I know that you've done an enormous amount of good work improving them so that they will meet DYK quality criteria. I am sure that it's frustrating when reviewers find issues with your "adoptees" like the one that I found in Octopus aquaculture. I recently unceremoniously withdrew a DYK nomination of someone else's article when it was found to have copyvio content, but I didn't much care about that particular article (unlike your situation with the aquaculture articles). I use Duplication Detector, but I don't rely on it. Many of the instances of close paraphrasing that I find are detected the old-fashioned way: by looking at the cited sources. In a long and complex article, that's pretty haphazard, of course, but when I find one exceptionally close matching string like the one I reported in the octopus article, I pretty much expect to find others. One thing I have seen with Duplication Detector is that it returns a lot of irrelevant "matches," such as the page title that appears in the Wikipedia article reference citations, strings of words that are totally acceptable (like "common octopus Octopus vulgaris"), and boilerplate from the bottom of a webpage (such as "see terms of use"). If you don't get any matches at all with Duplication Detector, you can be pretty sure that it didn't work. --Orlady (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to reply when things ran their course. I hope things are well with you. No, I don't find it frustrating when you raise legitimate content issues. I think you can be a hard task master, but I don't have a problem with that. The articles seem worth rewriting and expanding, and I can get lazy when there is no constructive input; you sitting on the sideline picking at this and that is good. But cleaning up close paraphrasing is different – a real pain. When it runs through everything, as it did with most of the articles I nominated, it simply becomes a nightmare. Anyway, I did learn some pitfalls, and I think I'm getting better at it. Some university instructor told their master students to each write a Wikipedia article on aquaculture. They prepared their work in advance, and most of them downloaded their completed efforts on the same day. There was no warning or consultation with Wikipedia. It took me several days to realize something was going on, and that there were these raw articles all over the place. There was no time left to work with the students so they could nominate their own articles, so I just nominated seven of them myself. Another group of editors nominated an eighth, and there were about another six that could have been nominated had there been time. Then, of course, I had to deal with the mess... much more than I'd expected! Anyway, thank you very much for giving me space to shepherd this stuff through. Much appreciated. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's very confusing. Anyway, thanks for the help; the entry looks OK for now; I'll wait and see what hoops they have to jump through! Cheers. Chzz ► 13:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, to the best of my knowledge, all of the issues raised in this nomination have been resolved. If you agree, please finish the review; if not, let me know specifically what remains. Thanks for your assistance. Mgrē@sŏn20:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I am currently overwhelmed with life issues and unable to do much of anything that requires me to have an attention span. On the DYK discussion page, I've asked for other people to pick up the various DYK nom reviews that are waiting for my input. I hope someone will follow through. Be aware that there are no deadlines for DYK reviews -- your nom will not get discarded solely due to elapsed time... --Orlady (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your concern; could I ask that you inform me via my talk page next time an issue is brought up? I missed this one for that reason. Thank you for your input, and best, — Joseph Fox03:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my omission. With the new templates for nominations, nominators typically have their nominations watchlisted, so it seemed redundant to send notifications. I guess I need to rethink that theory! --Orlady (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The article Francis Alfred Broad, which is currently at Did you know nominations/Francis Alfred Broad, was posted on the 10 October 2011. Have I done something wrong with the nomination as no one seems to have reviewed it since then. I recently returned to Wikipedia following a break and am now unsure of the new procedures. I chose your name from those posting at DYK. I hope you don't mind this query --Senra (Talk) 16:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope someone else can pick it up, as I'm not able to do so at the moment. Fortunately, there's no deadline for DYK reviews... --Orlady (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Orlady! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Justin Wilson
Can you move this page to a more sensible title? "Motor racing" is never hyphenated, and the correct disambiguator for racing drivers is "racing driver". Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Orlady, Sorry you bailed. I would think that the current iteration of the article would be noncontroversial, but what do I know. I'm just an anonymous contributor to articles that aren't valued here, no matter the effort that went into them. Pity. Best of luck to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎)18:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your assistance in the editing. Please take a look at Talk:Bill Smith (fell runner). I also was having recurrent problems getting the footnote numbering (in the body of the article) to line up numerically. Don't know why, and I guess if I did I would have fixed it. 7&6=thirteen (☎)13:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
