Hello, Orlady! I believe you have an interest in the article 1804 Haiti Massacre. This has been vandalised two times recently by the same IP, and I wonder if you can tell me where this should be reported? Best wishes--Aciram (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK Submission
Hey Orlady. I was wondering if you would be able to take another look at this submission which you declined two days ago. I have been absolutely slammed with classes this semester, so I oftentimes forget to check the pages. I have addressed the issues presented to me there, and could expand on it a bit if need be. I understand if you won't accept it, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Thank you, and have a great day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added on a tad more, so you're welcome to give another go around at it. Unfortunately, it is very recent in terms of museums, and this has shown in at least one of them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're invited: Ada Lovelace, STEM women edit-a-thon at Harvard
U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!
Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields. Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either. 00:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Proposal to promote DYK every 12 hours
Orlady, there's a discussion on WT:DYK to go to promoting every twelve hours rather than every eight. Could you weigh in? Also, if we want to do this, someone who knows how will have to modify things, and I'm not that person. (I expect it requires an admin, and I'm not that, either.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, I'm not convinced that this is an appropriate article, but I don't know enough to be sure it isn't just a neologism. The latest documentation doesn't seem to be any new usage, just a rehash of previous ones. I kept hoping Collins would settle it one way or another by accepting or rejecting the word, but it's still under consideration (it's been almost three months since they themselves submitted it, but nothing yet as of this evening).
Can you please take a look at it? I'm happy to accept whatever you decide. It's been sitting there long enough that something ought to be done. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just reviewed the nomination. Can you weigh in on whether the Romney material is sufficient to delay the hook promotion until after the election? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, I've noticed that I don't have a good sense of when exceptions are appropriate, whereas you do. There's been a parallel discussion of this particular nomination on the WT:DYK page (under the "Plots" header), which you may have seen. To me, it seems a pretty straightforward non-5x expansion (due to the pre-expansion version being almost all plot), and I've said so, but would IAR apply here or not? (My gut instinct is not, but we've already established that my gut isn't fully functional in this regard.) Thanks for any light you can shed on this. I'm happy to defer to your greater experience in this case. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination in prep: hook needs work (and maybe more than that)
Orlady, I just finished filling up Prep 2 (destined for (Queue 2. It had three hooks before I got there, and one of them has a grammatically problematic hook: Personal relationship skills. It's not the best article either, as far as I can tell from skimming it, but I need sleep and tomorrow's busy enough that I can't be sure to get back to it. It may be that someone else will notice it, but I expect that it'll have been promoted from prep to queue by the time morning rolls around, and I thought you'd be the best to deal with it whether it's in prep or queue by the time you see it.
We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.
However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.
I realise it's frustrating when someone inappropriately depopulates the category during its cfd discussion. But I'd like to ask you to consider striking or removing the last sentence for various presumably obvious reasons. - jc3701:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, this is an article that is unable to progress due to a failure to find a hook that is deemed interesting. My sole attempt has met that fate, after the author's first two were found lacking (one of them by me, actually).
I've noticed you have come up with good hooks in situations like this: is there any chance you might be able to do so here? The nomination is over a month old, so progress would be nice. I could wish Darkness Shines was more active on her article's behalf, but wishes aren't horses, and I like to give every nomination its best chance. Thanks for anything you can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Betty Bumpers
On 19 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Betty Bumpers, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, as Arkansas' first lady, Betty Bumpers started a program that took the state from one of the lowest to one of the highest in the U.S. in its rate of childhood immunization? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Betty Bumpers. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.
Orlady, can you please take a look at this again? I've just made a comment on a rejection of this one, and based it on your earlier comment. If you think I've taken the wrong interpretation, please be sure to say so. Many thanks.
On a separate topic, while nominations have begun to balloon again (Gobonobo just nominated a dozen from the Ada Lovelace Day creations), reviews have definitely slowed: we're at 198, of which only 19 are reviewed. With those 19 we need to fill 41 vacancies between queues and prep areas. I'll post another "here are some old ones to consider" list, but they seem to be having less effect lately. What did you folks do in the old days to get swathes of nominations reviewed? I seem to spend a fair amount of my time finding fault with reviews that have been approved when I go to promote them, which means my prep set assembly takes longer than it ought... BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geology of Russia
I am not a geologist, so I can understand you might not like my wording to describe cratons, etc. But simply reverting the text, rather than clarifying the material is going to leave it entirely incomprehensible to the layman and unsuited for the DYK nomination. From looking at the craton article, it says they are composed of crystalline basement rock. That implies to me they are igneous. Perhaps I am wrong. I suggest you find a clear and simple way to explain whatever the proper definition is to the layman. If they can't get past the lead they are not going to read the article. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would still suggest that brief in text explanations are much more helpful than dense, abstract language obscure to 99.99% of our readership. Readers cannot stop to read and interpret another article each time they come on a linked term they do not understand, many of which articles themselves are poorly written from a layman's standpoint. Perhaps you would add metamorphic to igneous? Something like that would be better than simply deleting igneous or any attempt at explanation whatsoever. In any case I won't be attempting to compose for the article at this point, just reviewing it for DYK, I will leave the writing to others. μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I lied. I added some more expanded clarifications and a lot of little tweaks to the first 3/4 of the article. If the clarifications are wrong, please fix, rather than deleting them. I ran into some rather bizarre wording which is obviously due to machine translation from the Russian at the West Kamchatkan Orogeny section and after. I started adding clarify tags, but it's obvious the whole section needs going over by someone who knows what's actually intended. I'd be guessing too often. Up to that point though I am very happy that (assuming my recent changes are okay) it is much more accessible to anyone who reads popular science writing. If you can fix the garbled russian I will attempt to check it tomorrow and be happy to remove the tag from the article and report it ready. Frankly, at this point most of the terms should be clear, so if you are satisfied after the bottom is fixed, feel free to untag and report it ready without me--I am in the direct predict path of the eye of Hurricane Sandy, so I expect to lose internet access for some time. Cheers. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've done it again. Two phrases I introduced in order to give the reader some idea what the terms orogen ( the belt of crumpled rock) and terrane (the crust fragment) you have simply removed without improving. I even requested in the edit summary that these be improved rather than removed if they were not accurate enough to your satisfaction. We can't just throw these technical terms like orogen and terrane at the reader or make him stop and read another article and interpret it before going back to read when a simple defining or clarifying statement will do. I am going to restore those two clarification in a slightly modified manner. I am sure you understand my goal at this point. Please do feel free to reword them if you feel you can make them more accurate but please do not simply delete them again. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Realizing that the original text is available in the russian article, I simply went and translated the sikhote-alin section myself. I'll get to the other two confusing sections, but maybe not tonight since it's late
I have restored "raised", "molten", and "volcanically produced" to clarify to the layman what a horst is, how granite is intruded, and what the traps are [1]. Please don't delete this material again. I realize you may think it redundant, but it may jog the memory about horsts and grabens or a memory of that gigantic vocanic eruption at the end of the cretaceous and help the lay reader tell what's going on, and it's certainly not inaccurate.
Orlady, this nomination has been stalled for a couple of weeks by a disagreement in the template discussion over whether it should be a separate article or not. I don't have the experience to judge, so I was hoping you could take a look and weigh in to get this moving one way or the other. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - New article about a building in New Rochelle.
A user connected to the institution has changed the entire article! He has left nothing as it used to be before and guess what? It is making them look so good...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.232.57.158 (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.
In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it is "approved", not "accredited". BPPE "approves" schools. Its predecessor state agencies had a history of approving a lot of unaccredited schools to operate in the state of California, and it looks like BPPE is doing the same... --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You
Thank you for correcting my edits on the Tiger Haven page - the controversy section does look much better how you had it, I hadn't considered the chronological order issue. I only removed that introductory statement because I wasn't finding much controversy outside of the neighbor dispute (just to clarify), but I'm definitely not opposed to keeping it there. I wanted to show appreciation since every correction helps this newbie out tremendously. Have a good one! Wieldthespade (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edits
If you get a chance, you may want to look into the edits made by John Pack Lambert. My observation: he does not understand categories and the articles in them, but proceeds to make wholesale changes, regardless, to make things different than what they are now--with no good reason. Hmains (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Independent Native American people are not colonial
Independent Native American people can not be said to be "Colonial". This is an imperialistric insulting of their right to exist to class them as colonial. It is just plain inaccurate and wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-statehood people
We have in Category:Pre-statehood history of U.S. states sub-categories for each state covering any and all events prior to the area becoming a US state. This seems to work out well. What I am thinking of doing is to create an entire parallel structure for people: Category:People of pre-statehood U.S. states with 50 Category:People of pre-statehood foostate subcats. These would simimilarly encompass all people in the state area prior to statehood. This would include 13 colony people, other colonial people, American Revolution people, previous sovereign state people, US territory people, etc whether as subcats or articles. It now seems to me this would solve many of our current naming discussion problems. Your thoughts? Thanks Hmains (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I think that creation of those categories is overdue. I would, however, want to keep categories like Category:People of Tennessee in the colonial period for their parallelism with the other "colonial period" categories as well as with Colonial history of the United States. Kentucky and Tennessee were (together with areas like western New York and western Pennsylvania) the American frontier during the latter years of the colonial era, and it's helpful to connect the people with that same time period in other regions. --Orlady (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, Kaldari, hereby award Orlady the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for passing 75,000 edits. You make the rest of us look like slackers! Kaldari (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Next time you would need to post smth at User:Doncram talk page (like warning them on the ANI topic or smth), you may want to ask me to look at the issue, I have (I hope) pretty good relations with them and might be able to help. At the least, do not post at their talk page yourself, ask somebody to do it. Note that I am living on Central European time.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Jackson Biddulph's removal of "Stripping the Gurus" chapter on Trungpa Rinpoche's page
I noticed you questions Biddulph's method of removing what he considers to be unreliable sources. I asked him on his talk page if his intention is to censor negative press about Trungpa, because that is what he appears to be doing. Many people have tried unsuccessfully to remove controversial material about Trungpa, because they are not familiar with the long history of Wikipedia insisting that censorship has no place on these pages. I left him a message on his talk page, asking him to clarify this matter. That particular reference is
well-sourced, with countless quotes from third party published material. As a first hand observer of Trungpa's behavior, I can attest to the fact that the article in question is accurate. I would greatly appreciate a third opinion as to what qualifies the source to be unreliable, because that particular source has been on the page for many years. Thank you. WikiWhip (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)WikiWhip[reply]
Sorry, but I know nothing about Trungpa, and I know very little about the subject matter of those articles. My only concern was seeing that this new user was deleting reference citations, while leaving content intact. In some cases, he also removed content, as the content appeared inconsequential. Where there is content that appears to be worth keeping, I'd prefer to see a {{rs}} template used, in order to invite discussion with users who know more about the subject at hand than I do. When there are differing opinions, discussions of the reliability of sources can be taken to WP:RSN. --Orlady (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to review this article? Fram has been refusing every review offered thusfar, and you are one of the more thorough and non-biased reviewers I can think of. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sure has. There is an ulterior motive here: a very productive contributor has gone to ground and I'll do whatever it takes to at least get them talking again. Once they are talking, waters can be smoothed. I've also asked Dennis Brown to take a look. This is purely an editor retention thing: JD was miffed but the cause of her miffed-ness is a minor point in terms of what she was contributing elsewhere. It can be fixed.
Oranges, you don't like me and you have been swayed recently by someone with a very rocky record here at Wikipedia. It might be best if you back off unless you've had any substantive dealings with either JD or Orlady in the past. I've had such with both of them. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any ego clash/personal problems between Orlady and JanetteDoe. Their conversation seems to have been reasonably civil (I could be wrong though). It do not think it was appropriate for you to blame anyone for JanetteDoe's absence from WP. Even if you think their interactions are a relevant issue, if you are criticizing someone, you should let the object of your criticism know so that they may be able to defend themselves if they want to. You appear to criticize someone or other in all your comments and never inform anyone.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, but I've modified your block of 8.22.56.48 (talk·contribs) to be much longer for sockpuppetry. If you do mind, let me know and I'll change back to your block.
That is a static IP registered to someone who is likely an academic since it is private fiber service on the grounds of Stanford University (not the Stanford University Network) and the IP has repeatedly attacked Caroline Hoxby - an article which has had a ton of drama amongst academic Wikipedians of late. Yours was the second block in a few days for the same issue.
It's fairly obvious that this is a sock or meatpuppet and I've extended the block without the ability for logged in users to edit from that connection.
Good call on the protection. Let's see how long it takes before it has to go to full. There's a really pissed off academic lurking in Palo Alto right now. Toddst1 (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, can i ask you to take a look at this DYK nomination? I'm not sure how to untangle this one: on the one hand, the sourcing seems to be good, but on the other, the account in these sources seems to be based on Davis's version from her published bio. The nomination has been going nowhere, and it would be nice to get an experienced set of eyes involved. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I liked your new hook, and you made excellent points that I would never have thought to make.
Sorry about that. I keep meaning to ask if you would take a look at West Coast University – Panama. And I've been removing "California University Foreign Credential Evaluator" from a few articles, I wonder if we can find out enough about it to write an article on it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
To Orlady, who always tackles the hard jobs at DYK when I ask her to help, and is willing to give guidance and assistance to someone who still feels new sometimes. Thank you very much for all you do. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MKafafy2012
You reverted him with the edit summary about removing 'also'[6] - but what he actually did was change "also unaccredited" to "accredited". Thanks for your help by the way. Dougweller (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, there's nothing in the queue to promote, and the bot is waiting for something to show up. Any chance you could take some time to promote from prep to queue? Thank you so very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be useful! Now we wait for the complaints to roll in regarding the credits I just did (after manually updating the main page). I didn't/can't do as good a job as the bot, so users will have to fill in some of the niceties.... --Orlady (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For being the one person to take the time to show me some of the Wikipedia Esoterica that nobody ever took the trouble to show me, even when I asked them. That is Diligence. I've been editing Wikipedia for years, and there are still a good many things that I do not know. thank you for taking a moment to really teach. You are a GEM. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉22:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, I don't have a wide experience of Wikipedia articles except what comes through DYK and what I happen to look up in the normal course of things, but I've never seen an article that looked like this one. Can you please take a look at this one? It was passed by Mifter, who's been around for a while and has 400+ edits on Prep 1 (though not active at DYK lately, and who did many reviews in what appears to be a very short time yesterday), but it's bothering me and I need someone I know has a good eye and feel for these things to vet it. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several improvements have been made to the article. Can I get a "tic" now on this nomination? BlueMoonset said I should ask you, since you are doing the Review now.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Robots and signatures
In response to something on my "talk" page about signatures, you wrote (on my "talk" page):
Curious. You have a very unusual sig, with no links to your user page or talk page. I suspect this makes it hard for SineBot to recognise the sig. Your note on SineBot's talk page, will, however, be read. Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC).
Robots aren't the only users who will be confused by a signature that contains no hyperlinks. Human users are in the habit of using the links in signatures to reach a commentor's talk page, user contributions list, etc., and will be thwarted by your link-less signature. Apparently your Preferences include custom formatting for your signature that creates a boldface signature without any links; for the benefit of others, it would be nice if you could either use the default signature or add links to your custom signature. --Orlady (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
To which I replied:
I do not type-out my signature. We are prompted, throughout Wikipedia -- including, in bold, at the very bottom of the text box in which I'm now typing -- to sign with the four tildes, and that's what I do. Said four tildes produce exactly the same, hyperlinkless signature, regardless whether said tildes are bolded. My signature, immediately below, for example, was produced by my simply typing the four tildes, just as was every one of my tildes throughout Wikipedia. Bolding changes, not, the contents; and the robots usually have no confusion about it. I've been in IT for almost 40 years. I recognize a system error when I see one, hence the reason I called it that. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 07:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deselms (talk • contribs)
To which you replied:
The behavior of your signature is not the default behavior. You have changed the preferences for your signature, whether you know it or now. Go to the "Preferences" link the displays at the top (or possibly a sidebar) of a Wikipedia page when you are logged in. On that page, select "Signature". To generate the default signature (like mine), the box that says "Treat the above as wiki markup" should be unchecked. If you want to do something fancy with your signature, you need to code the signature correctly. See Wikipedia:Signatures for advice. --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To which I now reply:
Okay, I'll check that out. Thank you. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 07:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE: My signature hasn't changed in years, and so it looks like all that's happened is that the the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box somehow got checked. If you only knew how little I've even been in that "Preferences" area, you'd realize that it's more likely that a Google systemwide update of the Wiki software somehow resulted in it becoming checked than that I did it intentionally. I could be wrong, of course, but, seriously, I cannot think of any reason that I would ever check that box; and, in fact, as testament to how long it's been since I've been on that page and changed anything, when I went there just now, I didn't recognize a bit of it. I'll bet the last time I was in that area was godonlyknows how many Wiki system version updates ago. So, again, I don't know how it got checked, but since I didn't really know very much about any of it, I doubt that I did it. But, who knows, I could have. All I've done, in any case, is uncheck it and save. I didn't change anything else, though, so now it's as you see as I've signed this update. From my reading of the signature guidelines, it's fine. No? Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2012 (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 a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbie, a good friend, someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS
Orlady, is this one ready yet? I see that you did some editing to the article after Muboshgu's latest additions, which are discussed on the nomination template, but haven't responded there. Whether it's ready for approval or needs new work, it would be nice to know where it stands. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs
Hi Orlady, If you have the time, could you look at the recent edits on ACBSP to see if they are neutral and the sources valid/suitable? Many thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orlady, Saw the review/edits you made which have a better and accurate reflection of the situation pertaining to the sources cited. Many thanks. Here's wishing you a very Happy New Year! Audit Guy (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have your interest in the bow-tie list! Recently, my main focus has been on making sure that the people who get listed truly belong on the list.
The main criterion is that there needs to be a reliable source indicating the person's association with bow ties. A photo, or a mention of one time they wore a bow tie, doesn't suffice. Fleming is a good find, as there's a reliable source commenting on his habitual wearing of a bow tie. However, I removed Schweitzer from the list because the source mentions only one time that he was photographed in a bow tie. For the others, it would depend on whether reliable sources describe them as "bow tie wearers", or mention their preference for bow ties, or something of that sort. (I haven't looked for sources...)
I see that you added life dates for several of the people. I'm not sure why the dates are in this list. A long time ago, one journalist (Robin Day) was added with dates. Then, in November 2008, Alansohn added dates for several more journalists. I don't think the dates are a problem, but I'm not sure why people thought they were needed. You may have some thoughts, but I suppose that's a topic for the article talk page. --Orlady (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! On Schweitzer. I found some sources about it but I found the most reliable the Barazon biography. I viewed it just on Google Books, so maybe there are more sources in it. (I found also e. g. a site about an exhibition on him in NC but I am not sure how appropriate a source that is). In the case of the life dates I just wanted to make look the list more unified. I am open to change it but maybe it can be of use to see tha bow tie wearers are to be found all over the 20th and 21st century. Cassandro (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I ran some searches on Schweitzer, and it's clear that the black bow tie was part of his image, as known to the world. For example, this is a newspaper story that mentions his "usual black bow tie". And this memoir mentions his attire as always including the bow tie. I think we can add him. However, it can't be based on just one source describing him as wearing a bow tie on one occasion. --Orlady (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC) This is also good. (You may not be able to see all the items I'm mentioning -- Google Books dishes up different results in different countries.) --Orlady (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please put it into the article? :-) There are also some suggestions on the talk page (I am trying to find a reliable source for Herter). Cassandro (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, but I'm not particularly interested in the topic. I saw the page on the Tennessee delsort list and looked into his notability... --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment at DRV didn't address my proposal; would you mind remarking on it? I'm not complaining, just trying to get additional input. There are more bits that I didn't mention because they're irrelevant to the copyright issue: as you may have seen, there was a footnote of "Note, however this would seem not to be covered in Ohio Historic Places Dictionary online book; there's nothing about all of Morrow County", which is quite incorrect because the building does appear there, starting on this page and continuing to the next. What's more, the quotation is the final sentence of the statement on the previous entry, Old Bartlett and Goble Store; the authors of the book only observe that the old school has a Greek Revival appearance. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. Hoping to get onto a random historic site for a little while, I looked at your "collection" link and was interested in your comment on BOC Site. All I can discover is that it's a Woodland period site, since it came from an MPS of Woodland-period sites; most of my hits for <"boc site" woodland> refer to a wooded British Oxygen Company site in County Durham. NPS is unhelpfully down; the MPS link gives me a 408 error, and even the link for the nomination form gives me a 408 instead of the "Not yet digitized" that it should give. Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I looked at that same BOC page a few weeks back. I found some other documents that provide a teeny amount of insight into "BOC Site", but no clue on its name. My guess is that it is named for the property owner, which very likely that same BOC (BOC Gases). Regardless, given that the site is "address restricted" -- and not in a region known for mound-building (or similar activities that can make archeological sites visible), it would be best to merge it into a yet-to-be-written article about the Woodland culture in the lower Connecticut Valley (or a similar geographic area). (I've found a few documents on that general subject.) I also have a vague intention of doing an article about Selden Neck (which is actually an island -- and that gives its name to another of these sites), which is associated with Selden Creek, which in turn turns out to be the namesake of one of the cultural periods in that area. --Orlady (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I had no clue that BOC Gases would be in that area. I've only ever seen their trucks in western Ohio, so I figured that they were a small local supplier of natural gas and propane. Unhelpfully, NRIS gives an alternate name of "61-57", which is either a typo or a thoroughly different naming convention from the one used by archaeologists in much of the country, including Tennessee, which uses statenumber-countynameabbreviation-sitenumber. I've found information on sites by searching for names when NRIS provides the number or vice versa. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, that's just one of several National Register-listed archaeological sites in that same area. He started stubs about only a few of them, possibly because of a disambiguation project. IMO, rather than having people beat themselves silly trying to document an individual site whose discoverers don't want it to be found, it would make more sense to write an article about the area's Woodland Period archaeology (I have found some general content about lifeways and artifacts), including a list of the Woodland sites that are on the Register. --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Lifeways" — either you've been reading a bunch of anthropological material, or you've been talking with anthropologists. I don't remember ever hearing that term (or "foodways", or other "___ways") except in a thoroughly anthropological context, such as an anthro Ph.D longtime roommate. Regarding your beating-silly counterproposal, that's part of the reason I was looking for the MPS. I think we've conclusively demonstrated that we can't support a decent article with freely-available online sources, but I'll look through JSTOR. Assume that I find nothing unless I tell you otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do interact with anthropologists and their work from time to time. FWIW, two other sources I found are used and cited in Roaring Brook sites. One of those refs is a report that has some information on where in the landscape archaeological sites are typically located, and a wee bit of speculation on what this indicated about how the people lived. I don't think the report referred to "lifeways". I think I found something else, but I can't put my finger on it now. --Orlady (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input on Orators. While some sites are well known, I have the advantage of studying at a major research university whose library has extensively collected in archaeology. For example, citation #5 on Orators is to a thoroughly obscure book that spends most of its text discussing minutia of Hopewell society (using theoretical approaches that I'll never be able to understand); I can't imagine finding it outside an academic library. Only near the end does it have sections useful for me for Wikipedia: understandable language being used to discuss individual sites. Perhaps even more important for me is my library's journal subscriptions; obscure sites like Spanish Fort Site (Holly Bluff, Mississippi) wouldn't have been possible for me to write without journals. Besides the fact that I've visited lots of Ohio and Indiana sites (now almost 50% of Ohio and almost 90% of Indiana!), I concentrate on them because I have tons of sources available; if I were in Connecticut, perhaps I'd know where to look to learn more about the BOC Site. Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As perhaps you've seen, Rich has withdrawn it, so in the absence of anything except "Keep" votes, I expect it to be speedy kept. Meanwhile, the MPS form for the BOC site is supposedly not digitised (even though we found it with WP:MPS a long time ago), so I doubt that we can do anything more with it. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, can you take a quick look at this one? Espresso Addict thinks the topic coverage is inadequate, and thus not appropriate for DYK. Whether you agree or disagree, I'd like to get closure on it, and don't have enough of a feel to do it myself. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, we have no queues loaded and one prep set available, and the bot will be looking to promote a queue in 35 minutes. I'm starting to work up new prep sets, but what we really need now is that one prep set to be promoted. I'm hoping you can do it; you're the first DYK admin I've found who's on line. (I'm pretty sure I just missed Crisco 1492.) Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I like reading DYK, so when another admin edit conflicts with my owner in preparing a set I'm so happy I could cry (for milk)", quoth Mittens, pet of Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Always good to know that there were two of us trying to pitch in. I hope your owner has recovered from the shock of the edit conflict. --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:Doncram and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Hi! I found an article about Christian Herter and his devotion to bow ties. I have a question about that, is The Alacia Patterson Foundation a reliable source for that. See following link with quote: “Herter's tweeds, bow ties, and towering height give him the air of an aloof patrician, but he was attuned to political realities, having served as a Massachusetts state legislator, congressman and governor.” Is this okay so? Cassandro (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Guerillero for the advice, which I've followed. Thanks to Farmbrough for the interesting insight. This is my first substantial involvement at Arbcom, so I'm a "babe in the woods". --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ran int Talk:High school diploma which made we think we need a list as above. Belford is interesting and in a roundabout way I found a lawsuit[7] about it and a number of universities. Western Advanced, just added and then removed from List of unaccredited institutions of higher education is one of them. Another list is here[8] - probably the same but I haven't looked in detail. Western Advanced says its degrees are globally accredited[9] and if you dig further[10] claims accreditation from the "Accreditation Council for Online Higher Education" http://www.acohe.org/ - oh, fun, [11] a search for that leads to other high schools and universities they accredit. I see we don't use geteducated.com anymore, and am guessing people might complain about [12]. These scams ruin people's lives but it's hard to find sources that meet our standards.
One challenge with high schools is that there is no universal expectation that they will be "accredited". (Ironic, since accreditation started in the 19th century with a focus on high schools, so universities could determine whether their graduates were prepared for further study.) FWIW, other users decided that information about that level of accreditation needed to be walled off in an article with the neologistic title Pre-tertiary-education accreditation.
Belford High School is covered in the article Belford University. Rather than create a list of "unaccredited" high schools -- and then deal with the fact that there are many legitimate schools that aren't "accredited", I suggest an article about the phenomenon of scam high schools. I don't know what the title should be. --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orlady. Your claim on the Euclid University page about the article mentioning that accreditation in the US is not mandatory because it "makes it appear that accreditation is irrelevant" is totally unfounded. It is a FACT!
If you wish to mention that Euclid does not have CHEA accreditation, then the reader should also be informed that Euclid does not have a mandatory requirement to have it. Please revert that edit.RocketBelt (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CHEA isn't even an accreditor. Nobody has CHEA accreditation. I stand by my position that your edits were misleading, at best, because your content made it appear that accreditation is irrelevant in the U.S. --Orlady (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replying here to your comments on the WikiProject Insects talk page. I had a look at the article you mentioned and other recent contributions made by Mishae and I believe they are useful to Wikipedia. Looking at his user page is illuminating and on his talk page I see he has, at least sometimes, taken advice from other editors. The database looks a reliable source to me. The stubs created are sourced there, the distribution is given in the database and when an image is included in the database, it is presumably representational. The use of the word "endemic" would be my chief objection, and that point could be raised on Mishae's talk page if you so wished. He seems to be a prolific contributor to Wikipedia and I would not want to deter him in his activities. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orlady! Hope all is well. I wanted to let you know that the WikiWomen's Collaborative has recently underwent renovations to make it visually more attractive and easier to find resources. I'd love for you to be involved - since you are a founding member, of course. You'll find resources about getting involved in blogging, Facebook, and more. I also encourage you make an introduction, which is easy to do with a click of a button. I'm moving back to volunteering at the end of the month, and I really hope the project can continue to thrive and grow with volunteer support. See you there, i hope! SarahStierch (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dextromethorphan
This is in reply to your message about my edit of the Recreational use of dextromethorphan page. I understand that the Lead Section is meant to serve as a summary of the following article; in my reason for the edit, I wrote that the information I removed was included in the following article because I wanted it to be known that I wasn't lowering the total information on the page, but I understand that the information is useful as part of the summary.The MAIN reason I changed the article was because I objected to the phrase "nearly always combined with acetaminophen", because this makes it sound like dextromethorphan is difficult to find not in combination, which is untrue. I've gone back and changed "nearly always" to "often". I appreciate your thoroughness! Sermadison (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, it's looking as if this DYK nomination may be approaching the end of its natural lifespan. I've done my best to summarize where I think the articles are based on your past comments, but in case I've misunderstood what you wrote (or its context), I wanted to check in with you so you could stop by there. Also, if you were about to finish your work on the two remaining articles, we certainly wouldn't want to close the nomination before you did, since you've spent so much time already. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions posed on Doncram workshop
Hi. I've asked you a question in the "Arbitrators' questions to the parties" section of the Doncram workshop, and await your response. Thanks, AGK[•]15:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grootegeluk Coal Mine, Waterberg Coalfield
I hate to bug you on this subject. I really appreciate the effort you have put into such a thankless task on such a dull and dusty subject. I just went through the two articles once again using the Duplication Detector, and really could not see anything that looked like close paraphrasing of creative content - just the facts. Probably this is due to the many improvements you have made. The debate has dragged out for far too long. I know you are very busy, and wonder if you would care to hand it over to some other reviewer. Just stick in a symbol, and ask someone else to take a look. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your Arbitration evidence is too long
Hello, Orlady. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Doncram Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1190 words and 85 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT(talk)22:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the email I just sent you, your request for an extension of 200 words has been granted. As a result, this warning is not longer valid. However, we do ask that you please make a genuine effort to reduce the length of your evidence as much as possible, in part by ensuring that you are not duplicating any submissions provided by other participants. If you have any other questions, please let me know. (Please also note that the bot may continue to reflect the standard limits for at least the next run in about an hour and a half; I'd add your override now, but the configuration page is full protected and I'm logged into the wrong account.) Hersfoldnon-admin(t/a/c)22:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the greeting. I don't do much editing now but I do check in every couple of weeks. I noticed the ArbCom case a few days ago and have been watching its development. The case made me look to see what shape the various Connecticut historic district articles are in now and I see that nobody has really touched them substantially since Doncram created them, is it 3 years ago now? I might try and do minor cleanup here and there over the next few days. I probably will not directly participate in the ArbCom case as it looks like all of the major concerns are being addressed but I will keep watching. --Polaron | Talk20:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry you're having to go through this awful process. Having gone through it myself, I know how draining and time-consuming it is. If you need someone to vent to, feel free to email me. Hope you're doing well otherwise! Kaldari (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, I know you're quite busy right now, but I was wondering whether you could take a look at this article to see whether the close paraphrasing issues have been settled (and whether the new "Risk Factors" section is okay; I did do a quick Duplication Detector check of source 14 but didn't see anything to be concerned about). If not, I can ask Nikkimaria whether she can finish it off. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the comments. I agree with you that saying this is a list on a list page, is at best redundant. I did however take a peek at all of the FL for the counties, many do have the same sentence....SO, I could say below is the listing? ANY feedback is appreciated, belive it or notCoal town guy (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MUCH appreciate the look see at headings and title. Good catch..I hope I get to see some support votes soon on the FLC page, fingers are crossed....Coal town guy (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy enough to support? I stopped my Phd in Applachian studies and this FLC has allowed me to get back to my library at home....At least I get to look at some cool texts ;-) Coal town guy (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, I pinged User:Francium12's talk page about this nomination, and got a reply on my own page (not the nomination template, alas) saying, "Feel free not to pass this DYK. I'm busy in real life and if 1500 characters isn't enough on the discretion of the reviewer then so be it!" Since you pulled this from the prep areas and then added some material, I'm letting you decide what happens next. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I'm sorry but I'm a little but confused. You said that you updated the url for that NationsUniversity reference but the link still doesn't work. Moreover, it's the second reference cited for that sentence so it seems to be extraneous anyway. So what am I missing...? ElKevbo (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NationsU is messing with its website in order to manipulate us! At the time that I replaced the URL, the URL I added worked just fine. It was still in my browser cache as of a couple of minutes ago. When I reloaded the page just now, I got a 404 error. The newsletter had a nice little article about how Nations had applied to DETC for accreditation. I thought it was useful to have, since it provides verification that the "Nations University" in West Monroe, Louisiana, that had applied to DETC is the same NationsUniversity in Brentwood, Tennessee, that is covered in the article. --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as "messing with its website to manipulate us." It sounds like their accreditor-to-be doesn't want them to advertise that they've applied for accreditation (which sounds a bit weird to me but I can understand that they wouldn't want colleges and universities implying that they're accredited when they've only applied for accreditation) and the university took down its newsletter. Since we already have another citation in the article, I don't see much reason for us to fuss about this one. We certainly don't have to alter our article because the accreditor thinks that the university controls it but we should certainly play nice with them as much as reasonable. The university's application for accreditation is documented in the article with a sufficient reference so I don't really care if the university has taken down their document. ElKevbo (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to assume that the issue between NU and DETC is more complex than has been indicated on the talk page. Since DETC has repeatedly published the fact that NU applied for accreditation, that's not a secret. However, it's easy to imagine that something that NU said in the past and/or that the article said regarding the accreditation process or NU's prospects/expectations for accreditation has been a source of concern for DETC. I think the unsourced assertion that NU had passed the readiness assessment easily might fall in that category. Earlier today I asked Afterwriting about that statement and since then I've removed it.
As for the link to the student newsletter, I'd like to keep it as a reference, even though it's not currently on the web. It was a published source (I even read it earlier today) used in the article, and before I read that newsletter today, I was wondering if we had a solid basis for identifying NationsUniversity as the same Nations University that had applied to DETC. --Orlady (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, though Cwmhiraeth has given this the go-ahead, I'm reluctant to promote it without your concurrence. If you're okay with it, please let me know here or there; otherwise, given what you said at the time, I don't think I can be the one to use it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had mixed feelings about that latest review by Cwmhiraeth. Thanks for letting me know that you were also not sure. Most of the context questions are answered, at least in part, but there's one still hanging. It would be nice to have a coherent statement about Reprieve's role in the case. --Orlady (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Crisco 1492 has promoted it. I have to say I didn't look at it closely myself: my lack of surety was because of what you had said, and what seemed to be insufficient changes to the article to address the issues as you'd detailed them. At this point, I think it's up to you whether you're willing to let it proceed. Since it's in the next prep set to be promoted to a queue, and would end up on the main page in about nine hours, you'll need to act fast: the sooner the better. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry -- I made one edit after Crisco promoted it, and I'm OK with it now. It's still not a clear exegesis of the legal issues, but it now tells a fairly coherent story. Sorry I didn't tell you about that -- and thanks for caring about quality. --Orlady (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, I have informed the FLC folks about the support for my FLC list WV counties. One of them requested that the bolded word Support be placed to start your comment. Could you do that??? I could, but, thats not my place, MUCH appreciate the supportCoal town guy (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, thank you for extending the opportunity to participate in WikiProject Appalachia. While I've resided nearby in D.C. for many years now, I still travel quite frequently and widely throughout Appalachia and my native state of West Virginia. It's a very misunderstood region, and it's been one of my goals since joining Wikipedia in 2005 to contribute as much information about the accomplishments, culture, and history of Appalachia and its people, especially West Virginia, as I can. Please keep me posted on any future initiatives or projects. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfD on Jackie Devereaux
Hello. Thanks for your quick response on Jackie. Please solve a puzzle for me. The AfD shows transclusion from Project Utah. I can't figure out how they would be interested. Along the same lines, is there a way to get a similar transclusion for Project California? This transclusion stuff is a mystery to me (except to say I was prohibited from ever dating one in high school!) Best regards. – S. Rich (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read this regarding the creek's name. I originally had that as the source of the town's name, when, embarrassingly, the WBIR article was published. Bms4880 (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that already. It's on the ridge that forms the watershed divide, basically on the other side of the ridgetop from Sweetwater (i.e., on the Madisonville side of the ridge). Without tracer studies, you can't be sure what the groundwater does up there, but based on topography it is more likely to be in the watershed of the stream on the other side of the divide. Also, the southeast side of the ridge is downdip geologically, which is the more likely direction of flow. Furthermore, it's not mentioned in the USGS groundwater study for Sweetwater Valley. All things considered, I don't think there's any basis for mentioning it in the article. --Orlady (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC) And after writing that, I took another look at the geologic cross-section in that geologic report. It strengthens my impression that the Lost Sea is in the other watershed. That's because there's shale between the caverns and the Sweetwater Valley. --Orlady (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar
There was no teaching Barnstar, per se, but I wanted to say thanks. WV counties is a FL now, and that could NOT have happened without your help, and yes, your teaching me the ropes, MANY thanks! Coal town guy (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orlady. I noticed you were around, so I hope you don't mind me asking about this. Can you take a look at Jesus Chameleon, User:Jesus Chameleon/sandbox, and the contribs of this IP? I'm too tired to figure this out at the moment, but I just reverted a vandal edit by the IP here having to do with this Jesus Chameleon user/? This looks like it may be a good-sized hoax to me. I'd look at this myself but I was just about to go to bed when I noticed the weird edit to wp:poetry and saw the rest. Thanks for your time. INeverCry06:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I was completely bleary-eyed last night when I first saw this. Here's some more weirdness that this person has created. Here's another IP he's used to edit the same few pages and leave a weird message on the main account's talkpage. The main account's last edit is in keeping with the crazy bit. I wonder if the sandbox and the AFC shouldn't be deleted as self-promotion? INeverCry15:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was also rather bleary-eyed when I saw your message, so I didn't do much. I think (and you apparently agree) that this is a self-promotion article by someone with an unusual self-concept. The Jesus Chameleon article saw some edit warring during our night and ended being speedy-deleted. One IP was blocked for 12 hours, but the user is likely to return soon. I haven't yet delved into the other edits that occurred during our night. --Orlady (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update... I deleted the AFC that had the same content as the others, but a title that appears to be a real human name. This page is still here, but I completely blanked its talk page. More drastic action may be in order, but I guess I'm still a little bit curious to see if this person reappears and has something coherent to say. I believe it's nighttime where the IP is located, so it probably will be a while before that happens. --Orlady (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much it would help, but that IP could be re-blocked for a bit longer if necessary as it's obviously a sock of User:Jesus Chameleon and has been used to edit war and vandalise the wp:poetry page. I've deleted the 2 personal artworks on Commons. This same IP edits the Jesus Chameleon page and his uploads on Commons, so I don't doubt there the same editor. INeverCry16:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. There is no prohibition on a registered user editing while logged out, but these IPs have pretended to be someone else, which is not permitted. Glad to know that you deleted those images at Commons. --Orlady (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Orlady, would you take a look at this edit? A SPA editor keeps flipping it. I was hoping that you might have access to either the Melton or the Jones reference. When I wrote the article, those sources were available online but now they're not and I don't have access to them elsewhere to prove that they say — I don't recall which one, now — that it's the way I originally wrote it. I don't want to get into an EW with the SPA and I figure a direct quote will fix it, but I can't get one. Can you, perhaps? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing. I couldn't tell where that fact came from, and when I didn't find it in Melton (which I accessed via HighBeam Research), I began to wonder if there was a basis for it. I have snippet access to Jones on Google Books, and I managed to get a snippet view of some relevant text. It says Gray "frowned upon" the ordination of women. I guess I'll go correct the article and provide additional documentaion of the source for that fact. --Orlady (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. The EL you added was to the website of the church - the Church of God Sanctified, Incorporated - that the Original Church of God or Sanctified Church broke off from. If you look at their old newsletters on the site that you EL'ed, you'll find an address for them of 1230 W. Trinity Lane, Nashville, TN. That church is, I believe from web searches, now vacant and for sale and I don't think they have a single fixed headquarters any more (the most recent newsletters do not give any address at all and the website only gives a PO box). The Original Church of God or Sanctified Church, on the other hand, has for several years been headquartered at 1803 County Hospital Rd, Nashville, TN, as given on their website. There's a good deal of OR in that, but I'm sure it's right. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting my mistake! My apologies for confusing these two. (I knew I was confused, but I didn't know what was correct and what wasn't...) For what it's worth, Melton (2009 edition and 2003 edition) has an entry about the Church of God (Sanctified Church), (at PO Box 281615, Nashville, TN 37207 in the 2009 version and at 1037 Jefferson in Nashville in 2003), but I could not find an entry for The Original Church of God or Sanctified Church. Regarding membership of that other body, both editions say "In the early 1970s the church reported 60 congregations with approximately 5,000 members." Since that's the same membership information that the Wikipedia article gives for The Original Church of God or Sanctified Church, with a citation to Melton, I thought that perhaps I had misunderstood, and perhaps the Melton entry was about this church. I got the URL from the Melton entry; I wasn't sure if it was the same church or a different one. Now that it's clarified that these are two separate churches, should the membership numbers be removed from the article? --Orlady (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orlady, you had recently removed content from Rochville University, with the given explanation: "removed content that was misrepresented; the cited source was not focused on Rochville, but is about diploma mills in general." However, the source article was in fact specifically about Rochville University. You’re right in that Wilson, the author of the article, does talk about diploma mills in general, and lists “tell-tale warning signs” on how to avoid them. However, she uses Rochville University as a specific example in each of the instances that she discusses. Those instances, with the specific mention of Rochville University in each case, is what you removed from the article. Wilson’s evidence substantiates the claim that Rochville University is a diploma mill. Please justify removing the specific mentions of Rochville University. Thanks. --Agfys (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The deal is that we need to be careful with how we represent information. Articles about outfits like Rochville are often contentious (users pop up on a regular basis to defend them as marvelous institutions and attack anyone who says otherwise), so we need to be particular careful not to misrepresent information. Look again at that article. It does not provide authoritative information about Rochville; rather, it uses Rochville's website as an example of how to use some widely published advice in evaluating whether an online school is likely to be a diploma mill. The fact that Rochville's website was used as an example does not make the discussion a source of reliable information about Rochville.
Additionally, there were more issues with the Wilson content than I had time to deal with when I made the edits you wrote about here. Mostly, I'm not convinced this is a [{WP:RS|reliable source]]. Now that I've dug into the site, I think it may be a reliable source for topics related to MBAs (I'm not sure), but I don't see evidence that it's a reliable source on the subject of diploma mills. --Orlady (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've also stated that www.diplomamillscam.com is not a reliable source, and removed material cited from that source. However, this website is run by Coalition for Advocates of Online Education, 5301 Delorimier, suite 101, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2H 2C1. This is a consumer rights advocacy group. It's no different than the investigative news team referenced elsewhere in the article. I believe that it does comply with WP:IRS. --Agfys (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, never mind; I retract this paragraph. There is abundant information on the Kureshi case, and it can be easily obtained from more legitimate sources than a Canadian advocacy group. -- Agfys (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Also, please try to remember that articles like this one don't exist to expose scams, much as we might sometimes want to do that. We need to dispassionately present information from reliable sources. Absence of an abundance of reliable sources would not be justification for accepting unreliable sources. Particularly when dealing with sensitive topics like alleged "diploma mills" (a term which, by the way, has a history of leading to libel suits), if we aren't satisfied that a piece of information isn't reliably sourced, we can't include that information. Regardless of the article topic, be careful not to use legally and emotionally loaded terms like "fraudulent" to characterize an article's topic unless you can back up that word with a solid indication that it is a valid description from a reliable source (in the example of "fraudulent", that the subject of the article is reliably reported to have been convicted of fraud).
A couple more bits of advice... (1) I detect a journalistic style in your writing -- verbiage like "According to Nicole Wilson of Top MBA Connect, an organization which ranks MBA programs in the United States..." is more characteristic of newspaper or magazine writing than it is of encyclopedia writing. Many of us come to wikipedia with that writing style; don't be surprised when your words get edited by another user to make them more encyclopedic -- you'll get the hang of it sooner or later. (2) When citing a news item, try to include the publication date in your reference citation, not just your accessdate. (Actually, the publication date is more important than the accessdate.) (3) You can use the "ref name" format to combine multiple reference citations to the same item, so all will carry the same note. You'll find examples of that format in almost every article. --Orlady (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
