User talk:Orlady/Archive 3

LOTD

Congratulations. List of longest suspension bridge spans has been chosen as the list of the month. In addition, List of counties in Kentucky and List of polio survivors were among the leading votegetters and will be recognized as list of the day twice. Also, List of Archbishops of Canterbury was chosen as a list of the day. If you have any date preferences get back to me by the 26th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Ridge area photos

Orlady,

Thanks for the Dreamcatcher! It's a nice break from the Barnstars and the did-you-know things.

I'll be in the Anderson-Campbell-Scott-Morgan area this coming Saturday or next to collect photos for Wikimedia. If you know of any places in Oak Ridge that should be included in the Oak Ridge article's photos, let me know. Ditto with the surrounding towns. Bms4880 (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business Schools

Hi Orlandy. Please see the talk page of the article you are commenting on for justification. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Email4jonathan (talk • contribs) 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That "Missing Image" graphic

Discussion is follow-on to Orlady's edit summary removing image from Morris Brown College: "(removing tacky and obnoxious Missing image.png from the top of the article (that kind of thing demeans wikipedia); request for image has been added to talk page)"

"tacky and obnoxious"? "that kind of thing demeans wikipedia"? I disagree. The image is designed to request a free image be located and uploaded. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you said on my talk page, the image Image:Missing image.png was designed to request that an image be located and uploaded.
The fact that it was designed for that purpose does not mean that it is the best tool for its intended purpose. When that image is placed at the top of an article, it is the one element in the article that grabs the reader's attention. There is nothing wrong with an article that lacks an image; an image is an "it would be nice" item.
The current thinking around Wikipedia holds that prominent maintenance-related messages on article pages should be used only to deliver messages that identify serious issues with the article (such as a lack of references to allow verification of the content). Instead of broadcasting the lack of an image on the article page, image request templates have been developed for placement on article talk pages. See Category:Image request templates for the collection of templates designed for this purpose; I added one of those templates to the Morris Brown College talk page. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Expand and add for information about these and other templates designed for requesting help with adding content to an article.
Lest you think that I am making this up, you might note that the template I added, Template:Reqimageother appears on hundreds of talk pages. In contrast, although Image:Missing image.png was created in 2005, the only articles displaying Image:Missing image.png are articles where you added the image recently.

--Orlady (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acuallty Image:Missing image.png was used a lot more, but another editor went through and converted many of the pages that used the image to Image:No image.png, Image:Replace this image.svg, Image:Replace this image female.svg, and Image:Replace this image male.svg. Other images that were in use include Image:NO IMAGE YET.png and Image:NO IMAGE YET square.png. Not everyone agrees with the statement you made regarding prominent maintenance tags as there have been several lame edit wars and heated talkpage discussions on image usage on pages by editors and administrators. I'm not arguing the use of the image with you, I was simply concerned that you elevated the tone of the conversation by the terms you used in your edit. Remember:
"Keep in mind that raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony isn't always obvious - text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection or body language. Be careful of the words you choose – what you intended might not be what others perceive, and what you read might not be what the author intended." - Wikipedia:Etiquette
I'm simply letting you know that your tone didn't seem very "neutral" but could instead be seen as sarcastic. - Absolon S. Kent (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that you feel that my edit summary regarding the effect of that graphic on the appearance of the article could be interpreted as a personal attack. Be assured that this was not my intent; if you re-read my edit summary you will see that I commented only on the graphic, not on the editor who had used it.
Candidly, I did think that the appearance of that graphic in the Morris Brown article casts both the article and Wikipedia in a negative light. It seems to me that Morris Brown College (both the institution and the article) has more than enough problems without making the single most salient element of the Wikipedia article be a colorful announcement saying MISSING IMAGE. (It occurs to me that you may not have perceived it as the most salient element on that page. I realize that Image:Missing image.png is not particularly prominent on the page when an article is viewed on a large computer monitor with a smallish font size, but on a monitor using display settings such as 1024x768, or the 800x600 that is still commonly seen, that graphic practically jumps off the page.) I believe the reason why that graphic was systematically replaced by substitute graphics such as Image:Replace this image.svg, Image:Replace this image female.svg, and Image:Replace this image male.svg is that those newer substitute images do not assail the senses with red text in ALL CAPS and they provide more specific information about the need. I am well aware that there have been heated disputes about the use of even those three graphics; although they are relatively inoffensive, it is my personal view that it is best not to place them on article pages.
I have no personal connections with any of the institutions in whose articles you included that graphic, but if I did, I would be concerned that the graphic detracts from the institution's efforts to convey a positive image to the world. I realize that is part of the rationale for including "missing image" graphics (to goad the institution into supplying an image), but that works only if the institution officials are reading the article. If the readers are prospective students and potential donors, the results may be different.
--Orlady (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definately didn't try to imply that you were doing personal attacks. It's been my experience that tone is in the eye of the holder. The image issue is really less of a deal to me than it used to be. I just see the image place holder as a reminder to myself and others that the image needs to be found to accent the article. I am much more concerned about the information content I've been finding in many of the articles I've been working on. Also, I don't see Wikipedia as an "image making" tool for any institution, person, or group. It is instead an information tool (good or bad information) for me. But again, it's all relative and opinions only matter in talk radio. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-check request

Orlady:

I noticed you haven't made any edits in the past 10 minutes, so I'm assuming it's a slow day. Would you mind glancing over the Henry Timberlake article? It's in the final stages of GA review. Bms4880 (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!


<font=3> Thanks for your support, edits and comments - List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania made featured list!
Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fluoride Controversy

Hi Orlady, I appreciate your comments on my talk page. As I'm sure you are aware, there is much debate about fluoride. I have found, however, that the water fluoridation controversy page is closely patrolled by editors who consistently make strong POV arguments and edits. I have added material there from wiki-approved sources, and these edits have been consistently reverted. Some editors have tried to discredit my sources, which are verifiable published third party references, simply because the material is not in line with their views. As the fluoride controversy page is not a POV fork, I am amenable to redirecting to the water fluoridation controversy page, provided some additional help is offered to get the article more in line with NPOV guidelines. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this from my talk page in response to your comment: :Hi Orlady, thanks for your comment. (PS There was no original research on the page, all research was done online and came from reputable and verifiable sources. Trust me, there are plenty of them out there.) One problem I found with the water fluoridation controversy page is that any material that is added, sourced or not, is immediately deleted by one particular editor who has very stong views about what should and should not appear in the article (see talkpage). He is also patrolling the Fluoride page and Water fluoridation page to ensure the same constraints are followed.

Currently, the Water fluoridation controversy page address two separate issues; One issue is the mass-medicating of the population by municipalities, which I think should be described on the Water fluoridation controversy page. The rest of the material (which is a significant amount) refers more directly with fluoride itself, and it's toxic effects. As these are not limited to water fluoridation, would it not then follow that there would be a page for each? There is certainly enough material to warrant both pages. If not, I would propose a main Fluoride Controversy page, with Water fluoridation controversy redirected there. Thanks, --AeronM (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:List of U.S. Presidents article

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at Diligent Terrier's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States

I have responded to your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States. Please close items that have been resolved. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have been addressed. Gary King (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responded. Gary King (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you please check the page and respond to any addressed concerns? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responded. I asked if you think that the article's focus should be changed back to simply 'recessions' rather than 'financial crises', a broader scope. Gary King (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond Gary King (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help to check the Serampore University Fraud

Kindly note that the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Serampore_College_%28University%29 is an attempt to create legitimacy to an instution that is not authorzied by the government to issue degrees. There is already another article on the very same institution where this truth is brought out and this second one has been written recently to suppress the information in the original article.

I have added fact tags to many questionable statements in this article, but it is the responsibility of cursaders like you to see that fact tags are not removed, but that supporters of this bogus institution furnish facts and do not use Wikipedia for propaganda.


Sam Houston Mural

I added the link to my photos of the sam houston mural because they are not yet published but one will be published in Cite magazine, in an upcoming issue.== Shannonstoney (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTD

Thanks for your involvement in the effort. Do you have any thoughts on a strategy for trying to get this to the main page.? I think the real opposition comes from a few regulars at WP:FLC, who change the flow of debate when it is raised.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aggie terms FA nomination

Bad news, the List of Texas Aggie terms failed FL nomination. Negatives, we did not make it, positives, this article greatly improved. I need a huge break from wikipedia, as shown on my profile, but maybe a GA push would be more appropriate. I think the article could pass now honestly, if someone wants to do that. I might push few months from now. Thank you much for the help! Oldag07 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Mountain

Orlady, Orlady. You don't know your own county's highpoint. How unfortunate. It's obvious you've become spiritually detached from your mountains, so tomorrow you shall hike up to Devil's Racetrack and observe Cross Mountain. It's a fine, proud ridge, dominating the view west, and will likely sport a glistening white cap this weekend.

Tsk. Bms4880 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Miss Cosmos"

Just FYI... two more "Miss Cosmos" type articles have also appeared, so I decided to tack them on to the existing AFD rather than create separate ones. I hope this was okay... I just wanted to alert you since you had already voted. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 05:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Need For Citation

I have already made clear the need for citation in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_accreditation_associations_of_higher_learning Kindly do not remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hermes (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protecting Josiah...

Some one just vandaled it. Did I do tht wrong by semi protecting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desiahjosiah (talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only an admin can semi-protect an article. All you did was put a meaningless tag on it. That article is not getting nearly enough vandalism to convince an admin to protect it. --Orlady (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my bad. i'll read more help articles. thx --Desiahjosiah (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize for being new... --Orlady (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

I appreciate the rewrite about which you said "revised intro to clarify scope and purpose of list and sources of information". It sounds much better now. I have added some citation-needed tag and also a sentence to address the international situation. The Hermes (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly keep an eye on Karnataka Theological College where some are repeatedly trying to project it as a legally accredited college. The Hermes (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the cluster of institutions that are together helping each other to promote a fake "university". I have made appropriate correction. The Hermes (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hermes (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Spencer Geddes Lloyd

Updated DYK query On 16 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alice Spencer Geddes Lloyd, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FL

Could you please reply here? Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replied. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I replied. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 13:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other issues to resolve in the list? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of recessions in the United States

Hi, I was wondering if your issues for the FLC for the list have been addressed. The nominator is pushing for me to close it, but I just wantes to make sure you were satisfied Thanks, Scorpion0422 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Josiah Leming

An editor has nominated Josiah Leming, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josiah Leming and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of public universities in North Carolina

Thank you for commenting on List of public universities in North Carolina. I agree and changed the sentence that concerned you in your assessment. If you have time, could you please assess the rest of the article? Thanks, PGPirate 13:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I change the scope of the list to all four year accredited colleges and universities in NC? My original thought was the list would be too long. PGPirate 17:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I want to change the articles purpose to all four year accredited colleges/universities in NC. What is the best way to stop the FLC? I do not want people to waste their time reviewing this list, when I will produce a new list for FLC. I do not know the proper way to achieve this. Thanks for everything, PGPirate 12:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Natural Health

Can we give it some time and observe if anyone will complain or challenge the validity of the entry? If no one comes up then we can let it stay. If someone comes up then we can easily reason with the person in the discussion area. The school is, as you have stated, obviously unaccredited. I have seen the discussion and I'm sure that the people who are questioning the entries have COIs. Thank you! - Shannon Rose (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

Hi Orlady, I was wondering if I could tempt to be an administrator on Wikipedia? You've been around long enough to have gained experience of the project's policies and processes and I think you'd do a great a job. I would be very willing to write an RfA nomination for you if you wanted. Best wishes, WjBscribe 02:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'll update DYK for you when you have at all ready to go. WjBscribe 02:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like Espresso Addict is doing that... WjBscribe 02:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect your RfA would pass fairly uneventfully but one can never be 100% sure. As for adminship being a time sink, that's rather up to how you decide to use the extra tools - blocking vandals doesn't take more time than reporting them and some of the time spent commenting on deletion discussions tends can be transfered to sometimes closing them. There's no required number of admin actions per month :-). Anyway, I don't want to pressure you - should you decide you do want to give it a go at any point, feel free to drop me a note on my talkpage if you would like a nomination. WjBscribe 03:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

Note that you violated the 3RR rule between 23:54 19 March 2008 (UTC) and 22:17 20 March 2008 (UTC) at List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Shannon Rose has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation on that page (I think her block just expired, actually). I guess you probably won't be blocked because your violation was about 24 hours ago. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Vandalism says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Those edits certainly don't seem to me to fit that definition. I'd be interested to know why you think they were vandalism. I've been wrong on a similar point before. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. This may be a valid application of WP:IAR, and may be the reason that GreenJoe didn't report you and Nat didn't block you.  :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been tendentious editing. However, I don't see anything in WP:3RR about exceptions being made for tendentious editing. The 3RR rule is very simple. If you're right about an edit, probably other editors will do some of the reverts (as GreenJoe did in this case) so that you don't need to exceed 3 reverts to establish the version you believe is better. I didn't mean you were ignoring all rules; only that you were ignoring 3RR. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Thank you for following a vandalism edit to the user, and then to Macalester College, reverting an edit that I had already reverted but had been un-reverted. I think whoever it was didn't get accepted to those schools and was, shall I say, scorned. =) Jacotto (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Removal?

In List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning you have again selectively removed some institutions. This will unnecessarily create a cycle of reverts between us, though both of us are committed to the same goal. Therefore let me propose that we remove ALL links that lack independent verification and then build the list up. Let us not be partial to some. What do you say about this. The Hermes (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Ridge structures

1. Is this the "Luther Brannon House"?

2. Is this the Bethel Valley Checking Station?

These are the only two I had trouble finding. Bms4880 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw-- how do you get to the George Jones Church? The road is off-limits, and the view from 58 is sub-par. Bms4880 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Oak Ridge

  • I added to photographs to the Manhattan Project section, but it would really benefit from some 1940s-era photographs of the city. I'm sure there are some in the public domain. In the City Behind a Fence book, there was a nifty shot of a hillside strewn with "Victory" cottages.
  • I cropped the Luther Brannon House image and cloned out one of the trucks (I can't clone out the other truck without presenting a false view of the structure).

Feel free to rearrange or replace these as you see fit. I'll get the Jones Church and I'll try to find a lead image next time I'm in the area. Bms4880 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Harrogate-Shawanee

You state that the same data are reported for Harrogate and Harrogate-Shawanee. That's true, but look at it again: this, the page that you get when you type simply "Harrogate", is entitled "Harrogate-Shawanee CDP, Tennessee". Or are you basing this off some estimate page that I don't know how to find? I have had a notoriously bad time with getting more obscure Factfinder pages to display, so that's quite possible. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got one big problem with your argument: the Census Bureau links don't get me anything. However, I remember that you can get pages that my computer won't. Your argument I understand, and the problem is that I wasn't aware of the situation. Thanks for proving this! One request: could you go back to the Census sources and make sure that the links on my page are the correct ones? Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I give up: as soon as I select which county I want (2002) or select that I want to search by municipality name (1997), it gives me an HTTP500 Internal Server Error. Thanks for doing your best to help me. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got 2002, but 1997 is still not working. Thanks again! Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me the link where the "all variables" option is located? The link I have has boxes for "continue", "reset", and "main menu"; one dropdown menu only lets me select by state; and the other dropdown menu has the options of "county governments", "municipalities", "townships", "special district govts", and "independent school district govts". Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"it will produce a nice sortable table" Not on my computer: it produces "The website cannot display the page". Thanks for all your help; I don't think I have a chance of getting any farther with 1997. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for copying the information! This computer is rather failing in several ways, and I recently bought a new one, although I've not gotten it running yet. Perhaps it will work better... Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unaccredited institutions

Hello Orlady, reports in the Dutch press inspired me to write something on Rutherford University. Although a life-long learner and teacher, it is a little outside my usual interests at Wikipedia. Searches on the Sicily organization led me to your user pages and, along with the Bear Guide, to the affiliated university on which you wrote. I hope you find an opportunity and interest to contribute to the Rutherford article. Best regards, gidonb (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Innaccurate vandalism claims

Please do not misuse whatever 'authority' you posess to mislabel the actions of others and/or falsely accuse others of vandalism. Wikipedia policy clearly defines what is and what is not considered as vandalism. Disagreements over content/structure doesnt constitute vandalism. Your judgment is questionable after your recent edit >>> 11:08, 12 April 2008 (hist) (diff) City School District of New Rochelle‎ (revert last two edits; main purposes were (1) dewikification and (2) addition of content previously removed as copyvio or other reasons)<<< Your claim of addressing previously removed content is baseless and untrue. No info was added or removed in either my inital contributions or your reverts of my contributions. The claim was inserted by you, apparently as an attempt to both create the appearance of wrong-doing on my part, and to justify your following actions against me.

Wiki states " If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors."--69.86.92.251 (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I responded to the above accusations at User talk:69.86.92.251. --Orlady (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, the accusations made against me were indeed false and questionable >> While you made sure to document your recognition that a 'mistake' was made on your part, your justification appears to be further innaccurate claims against me ((ie: that I 'systematically dewikified', 'vandalising' the article THUS making it difficult to read))>> By including the statement regarding your removal of plagiarized information etc., it seems you are again attempting to create the appearance of wrong-doing on my part >> the statement does not relate to any of my contributions. --69.86.92.251 (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Fuzzy math

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fuzzy math, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuzzy math. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

American Museum of Magic

With the exception of actually reading the book that I cite or going to the museum, I think that I've pretty much exhausted the material that was available on this Museum. I think I've got most (if not all) of the sources. You were kind enough to do some editing. A good editor is hard to find. If you care to come back, please feel free. Thanks for your help, past and future. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]

Thanks for the assistance. Is there a category, Museums? If so then this article should have it. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

?

I really do not know why you seem so intent on targeting me/ my edits, or these particular articles for that matter. It is my belief that while mistakes and errors have been made, my contributions reflect a genuine attempt to contribute. Disagreements in style preferences etc. are legitimate and reasonable. I do not believe that many of the 'challenged' contributions from other users warrant the amount of negative attantion that they have recieved. I frankly think your time would be much better served if you applied the same criticisms to other articles that require attention. My recent edits to the New rochelle school disrtict page are in keeping with the streamlining of the article that has occurred. Information on most of the schools was removed, and likewise, i removed info following the 'New Rochelle High School' b/c it was repetetive and b/c there is a individual page dedicated to the school. Removing the unnecessary sub-headings for each school and placing them in a bulletpointed list is an improvement to the article. It also reflects the same formatting that is used on other town/city articles when listing the schools in their communities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15ParkRow (talk • contribs)

sockpuppet

While there continues to be sockpuppet investigations and further accusations of multiple accounts, I would like to reiterate that different individuals have been editing and contributing to the articles. I do not have multiple accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15ParkRow (talk • contribs)

Prehistoric Scotland

I have attended to the issues you raised as best I could and would appreciate further comment or suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of prehistoric Scotland. With respect to the issue of completeness of lists there is a new discussion opening at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria/Comprehensive long lists you may be interested in. (Note that new comments are on hold until the protagonists sort out a description of the presenting issues.) Regards, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References / Citations

Understood. I will work on getting the appropriate sourcing re: notable residents. Thank You. --15ParkRow (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BJU

Thanks for moving the graphic into the box. Your esthetic sense is obviously better than mine.--John Foxe (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby BamBam

This month she happened to vote for a list I authored. In previous months she has not. She is allowed to vote for things I author and free to not vote for them as well. She has done both.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. We need voters. Who can I call and get to vote? Mom is a sure bet. I did not influence her votes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I originally tried to get this on the main page at the end of last year there were alternate proposals to run it like WP:TFA where one person chooses the lists of the day and like WP:POTD where the lists are the order in which they were promoted. There were numerous discussions of each alternative with everyone trying to keep everyone else's idea from being the one. One idea was being placed at WP:FL and I was attempting to place mine at WP:FC then people thought that placing one and not all alternatives at any location was not equitable. I anticipate that if this keeps up I will make a broad notice at the time of the LOTY voting and possibly see if we can get more unified support. However, I have been discouraged from posting at public places for now. This relegates me to notifying new FLC nominators of their eligibiilty each month and notifying the winners. That is about all that I think I can get under the radar. Do you think we should attempt to post at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates and Wikipedia talk:Featured lists now that we have some modest results.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


WP:LOTM

Congratulations on your second WP:LOTM. Keep up the good work. Feel free to contribute to the administration of this experiement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You may want to add the {{ListoftheDayheader}} or {{ListoftheDaylayout}} templates somewhere in your userspace. Other template options are at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/templates. Your list will appear as WP:LOTD twice. If you have any date preferences in May let me know by April 25th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised you are not going to attempt to defend your LOTM crown.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether you find time to sift through articles looking for good nominees, we need your vote. I am now targeting December as the time to propose this method of getting lists on the main page again. That will be the time of the year of the List of the Year ballot for the 12 LOTMs and it will be the high point of the year for the project if we can keep it going until then. I hope you will continue to help us select the best list during the voting period.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastchester, New York

Please make sure you have a proper understanding of wikipolicy / procedure before editing the contributions of other users. You may want to consider doing some of the research on info. sourcing, much of which can be easily located, thereby addressing your concerns AND improving the article. ((The information throughout the 'Eastchester, New York' article was copied directly from the town website http://www.eastchester.org and should be REMOVED.)) --165.123.243.45 (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The copied-and-pasted content that I hid in this article had been in the article for the last 2-1/2 years. I felt it would be more courteous to contributors from Eastchester to leave it in that format so they could rewrite it. I guess that my action deeply offended the sensibilities of two anonymous IP users with no previous edits. Go figure! --Orlady (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am a new user, with no edits, who joined the site on the reccommendation of others. There is no question that the site is an interesting venue to share ideas and i plan to do so. However, I was most intrigued when hearing stories of unproductive disputes encompassing unfair treatment of users by other users. I have looked at alot of the background info/edits/histories/errors/claims/warnings/'blocks' etc. and there are indeed questionable aspects to the actions of everyone involved. For the most part, the intention of those contributors to the article does not appear to be of 'ill-will'. The insertion of copyrighted material appears to be the substantial issue and is certainly not appropriate. Much of the resulting edits/responses, however, stem from of a handful of administrator users and reflect a pattern of negativity and harshness (cross referencing the issues addressed in spec. article with similar articles of like-subject matter highlights this pattern). Your contributions show a personal focus on these articles specifically, just like the personal focus you criticize others for having for the same articles. It appears that users cross-referenced your contribs just as you appear to cross-reference theirs. Applying the same criticisms and corrections material in your contrib. page is neither wrong nor illogical. Rules are rules and applying it to all material is only fair. In this latest edit - quarrel (eastchester) you are quite empathetic and understanding to blatant copyright infringement throughout the article, and your willingness to leave it blocked out for 'them' to rewrite it is completely inconsistant with your actions on other pages (ie:new rochelle,city,schools etc). While you know the specific users who contributed info. on those pages, you have never once volunteered such a 'pleasant' comprimise or made an attempt to work with those involved. Yet in this case, 'they' are unknown and hiding the information in the page for 'them' to find and work-on seems sneaky and unfair. The fact that (as you stated) the info re:(Eastchester) was in copyright violation for 2 1/2 years without an edit is quite disturbing given the scope of attention and paid to its next-door neighbor (New Rochelle). The dynamic that exists is simply not right no matter who was initially at fault for what issue etc. I PERSONALLY think a mature approach can be taken to avoid additional anger or resentment. MORESO, I HOPE that my input here is not going to be WRONGLY ASSESSED and brushed into these 'sockpuppetry' files / claims that have been compiled. Thank You.--87.9.84.155 (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King George's school, Sutton

Same kid who made changes earlier has done so again. No references, of course. What are you going to do? So little public info available. Hard to believe the number of students jumped to 72, a huge leap for this type of school. The headmistress might have changed. Sounds like a challenging job! Student7 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List comments request

Orlady:

Not to distract from the joy and pain of sockpuppeteers and agitated Eastchesterians, but I was wondering if you would care to glance over the List of archaeological sites in Tennessee and let me know any style suggestions (it's a long and incomplete list, so no need to read the whole thing). The other archaeological lists were too basic for what I'm doing, so I used the museum list as a guide of sorts. Any help will be most appreciated. Bms4880 (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berea College Peacocks?

Orlady, I appreciate your careful attention to topics pertaining to Appalachia, including your edits to Berea College. I see you added the "peacock" tag to the Berea College article back in July 2007. Although the article certainly presents the college in a generally favorable light, so do most college entries, and in this case more deserving than most, as your last edit provides evidence for. But I don't see the peacock terms presently, nor an excessive pro-college POV. Do you still argue for maintaining the tag? Dwalls (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And on a related matter, I've been thinking about trying to recruit some WP editors to tackle missing subjects dealing with Appalachia. For example, I can think of several notable literary and academic figures without WP articles. You appear to be one of the foremost editors sharing a concern for the region. I don't spot any of the academics associated with the Appalachian Studies Conference editing WP, although I wish I did. Any interest on your part, as a longer-range project? Dwalls (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity publishing

I appreciate your opinion, but I have to disagree. From what I understand this author JS Moore only self-publishes to retain the rights to his work. If you will check his reviews for his first book, they are outstanding and his book is ranked very well on Amazon. Lots of authors self-publish to avoid having to sign away the rights to their work. Look at Bridges of Madison County by Robert James Waller. He has a Wikipedia page of his own, yet he is a self published author as well. (HaroldKarey (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Magdalen College

I am wondering what your expertise is regarding Magdalen College. Are you directly involved? An alumnus? Married to someone who went there? I went there and tried to put factual information on the page (NOT OPINION, FACTS) and they were deleted as opinion and inaccurate. Unless you went there and/or have factual data refuting any statements someone makes, then you can hardly qualify something you are not an expert about as just an opinion, biased or otherwise.

You must have an enormouns amount of time on your hands and be an expert in an incredible amount of areas given your involvement with Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.82.136 (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Magdalen College (New Hampshire) for my reply. --Orlady (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jvolkblum socks

FYI, see [1]. This is one you drew attention to at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (2nd). EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An IP responded at length on my Talk to the Jvolkblum issues, mentioning your name, not happy with your work, and talking about whether the Execution Lighthouse was in the middle of the Sound. This information didn't change my opinion that the Jvolkblum SSP case was correctly closed. The IP who came to my talk seems to be commenting on the Jvolblum checkuser case which I notice has been reopened in the last day or two. Since that is the case maybe you do want to look at what the IP said. The two IPs who commented were 203.162.2.137 (talk · contribs) and 203.162.2.134 (talk · contribs). The latter has just been blocked for editing through an open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the analysis of the case that you posted on my Talk. I notice that Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (5th) has just been closed by Gb with additional blocks based on the latest checkuser. I think there is now enough data that we don't need to worry that any good faith editing has been shut down due to a misunderstanding. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New England Page change

You have changed this article back to an origional version containing a incorrect statement. I posted the reason on the discussion page and will post it here too, for your information. I have removed the quote from the page again as its incorrect. "The earliest known written reference to the sport of baseball is a 1791 Pittsfield, Massachusetts by-law banning the playing of the game within 80 yards of the town's new meeting house" this line is incorrect as an earlier reference was found in the Sussex village of Rudgwick (England) on 9th July 2007. The written reference dated baseball back to 1755 being played by William Bray of Shere in Surrey (England).

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6280000/newsid_6286200/6286244.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&nol_storyid=6286244&bbcws=1 http://www.stoolball.co.uk/news/article.php?item=107 (scroll down to “An early mention of baseball in Surrey”) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwilliamson85 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your mistake

You should review your information more thoroughly before making faulty claims ((you stated: 'KatieGrinn removed apparently valid information from an article on a nearby suburb')) It is evident that in my edit I moved information from one section and placed it into its own, newly created sub-section towards the end of the page. Furthermore I added an info box to the start of the article to align it with Mamaroneck (town) + Larchmont. & I would like to note that according to your talk page , this is not the first time you have made faulty-claims against another member. --KatieGrinn (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding me that I have made mistakes, but in this instance I stand by my comment. It's not easy to see the deletion in your edit because several items were changed, but you deleted information about Winged Foot Golf Club. I would not consider that noteworthy if it were not for the contention that has existed over editing of Wykagyl Golf Club in New Rochelle. Shortly after your edit, Mwanner restored the deleted content in this set of diffs -- those diffs highlight what you deleted. --Orlady (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Timeline of prehistoric Scotland

File:Neanderthal 2D.jpg The WikiProject Scotland Award of Excellence
This award is given with many thanks to Orlady for assistance in helping Timeline of prehistoric Scotland to become a Featured List from Ben MacDui, 4 May 2008.

What do you think about the new Jvolkblum socks?

Hello Orlady. I notice that the checkuser confirms new Jvolkblum socks. If you want any admin action taken on the socks, I guess you need to file Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (5th). I've lost track of the reasons why Jvolkblum was originally blocked, and if you file a new SSP, I hope you will refresh our memory. The IP postings on my own Talk didn't inspire confidence, or any regret that we weren't still enjoying JV's contributions, but I didn't assemble the data carefully. The two things that stuck in my mind were: (1) the socks were de-wikifying the headings on existing articles, and (2) the IPs that posted on my own Talk had committed recent plain vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Rochville

I found the Defense of Rochville University episode very amusing. Have fun, TallMagic (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other people named "Micheal"

Cmdrbot is erroneously correcting the spelling of some other people who are named Micheal, not Michael, including Micheal Williams and Micheal R. Williams. Please don't do this as a universal correction. --Orlady (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also undone your bot's corrections in Micheal Nakamura‎ and Micheal Spurlock‎. I can't tell if Micheal Baldwin needs to be reverted, as the referencing is sparse, but the only cited sources also spell the name "Micheal." I expect that there are plenty more people who truly spell the name that way... --Orlady (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for that Orlady, and thankyou for reverting those mistaken edits. I've removed that rule from my bot (and added a unit test that will complain if I absentmindedly try to add it again in the future). CmdrObot (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Hi - that edit to Distance education of mine was an error- thanks for catching it. I must have had two tabs opened without realizing it - I put it in the right place now! Tvoz/talk 00:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that myself, and I have the red face to prove it. Glad to help correct honest errors. --Orlady (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTM

Thanks for voting last month. I could use your vote here this month. Voting ends on the 20th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Regarding your comment at Talk:Warnborough College, I'm not currently an admin. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new iser account

The warning you issued againt me as a "sock" is ridiculous. I am an entirely separate user. I joined as a user because this is a free site open to anyone. I first heard of the site through word of mouth. I also read about article issues + wikipedia problems posted on a blog online. I familiarized myself with the sites policies and I have made a protection request for the page. I requested 'full protection' that way the page could have protection from beginner users, alleged "socks" and from more experienced users who might have some bias towards the article. That request aside, since I want to build a user history I have already made edits to some other articles. My edits do not have any connection to any other users or to history of other users. My edits so far have also been productive. --Relaxitaxi (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Rochelle, New York

Hello Orlady. I see that some IP editors seem to be struggling against other editors, including yourself, on the above article. My suspicion is that some of them might be Jvolkblum socks. Do you think there is enough trouble on that article to justify semi-protection? There doesn't seem to be much discussion on the Talk page, so I don't understand what's in dispute there. I didn't notice any obvious vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Homeschooling

I noticed you were interested in editing the Unschooling article, so I thought you might me interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Homeschooling. Feel free to sign up! Cheers! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 23:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Regarding your talk page"

are you saying that we are prohibited in deleting the content of OUR OWN talk pages? i deleted the page to make it easier to read and find new postings.Hueydoc (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of talk page

Thank you for your input, but please allow me the freedom to edit and maintain my pages as i see fit for my preferences. Hueydoc (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilance

No problem. I've got the relevant pages watchlisted, but if another sock pops up feel free to let me know. The public face of GBT/C 12:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my logs...GBT/C 18:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waunakee

I see Kyle Barman made another appearance, I've filed a report at WP:AIV as I said I would. Maybe a notice from an admin will have some effect. Mjroots (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say he wasn't warned, can he? If there is a new addition then it'll be a sockpuppet report filed Mjroots (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Jvolkblum

Would it be useful to add all the suspected open proxies to the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum? I believe that for such a senior puppetteer, CU will check IPs. CU often seems to come up with novel insights. I hope that some experienced people will add further comments at WP:OP. I know that Zzuuzz understands this stuff. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made this reversion on New_Roc_City because it looked like User:Jvolkblum again. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Ruckeyser

RE: edit - ((revert unsourced information about his high school (not mentioned in sources; professionals don't usually mention high school on CVs; and its undue emphasis in short article))

The edited information is of no real importance. Still, it is interesting that you state the information about his High School in unsourced because it appears you created this article, and right after you had been editing the article for that high school (new rochelle h.s.) specifically its notable alumni section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.2.128.106 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Port Chester, NY

Keep Edward Eways as a notable Resident in Port Chester. It's well deserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should keep Edward Eways as a notable person in Port Chester NY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.103.93.62 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Orlady, I have noticed the activity that has been going on about Ed Eways in the Port Chester page. I live in Westchester and I have to say that Ed Eways is a talent in his community that uses his artistic ability to inspire others. He is a trend setter and has done alot for all sorts of causes. I dissagree with you and the policies on here. Edward Eways should be regonized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.103.93.62 (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that Ed Eways is a big talent in Westchester. I have been following the debate if Eways should be a notable resident. Well let's see I have some info on Mr Eways chronicling his last 8 years. It states in these articles that I have that Ed Eways has created a put together 10 charity events as well as a cancer event that he did in 2006 in honor of his father. He also was a decade speaker for the entire school district. He has won the westchester youth award in 1994. He is the only man to receive the community service award twice in 1998 and 2007. I just saw Edward Eways empowerment DVD on cable. That has been on T.V here for like 3 months. It was a program to inspire the youth to make a difference in there communities. He relates to the youth because of the music and artistic things he puts in his programs. He also relates to the 30 and 40 year olds because he is always playing 80's music in his events. This is a rare talent that knows how to connect with people and create inspiring programs to make a difference in the community. I have not seen a guy like Eways before and he is notable.... Westchester Role Model Org....D.man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Olrady, I would like to know what is your thoughts on this Ed Eways debate. I wonder what he would think. Ed Eways got a lot from his father Edward Eways SR. He was as owner of a very popular night club in Port Chester and he was very active in the community. I know he was in the New Times and won a proclamation in the town for creating no-booze night to let kids into his club and get them off the streets. So his son Ed Eways is another very active figure in Port Chester second generation. The name Eways has been in the press for about 30 years in this town. Keep this converstion going. It's good stuff for our town and profiles some real positive figures as Edward Eways SR and his son Edward Eways JR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the father Edward Eways SR was more talented then the son Edward Eways JR. The father Edward Eways SR had a better connection to the community and had stronger networking skills. Diana Les...Village Press.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.103.93.62 (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Eways is one of the most regonized people in his community. Puts on big events for county wide causes-Red Cross,Stay in School, Drug Awareness, American Cancer Soceity. Accomplished public speaker and a strong role model. Wikipedia and there false policies have missed the boat on this person. Look at all the people adding there thoughts about this guy....Raz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we talking so much about Ed Eways. You people should get a life....Keely R..

Eways is a community icon..Town Reader...

My two cents, Edward Eways is not a icon in his community. Yes he stands out and os well respected but to say icon would be over the top. I have seen Eways on T.V, and at his events. Very talented has a sense of timing and how to create publicity for this village. There are others that do good as well that does not get the spotlight like Eways gets. So my thoughts are that we need to give Ed Eways his credit. Did a lot of things that others did not think about and became a trend setter. Some say ahead of his time but there are many that also deserve there 15 minutes of fame as well. Though Eways has done it for 10 years in all fairness. Mens community group. Zon Ury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Orlady there are over 10 different groups in Port Chester that will continue to put Edward Eways on the notable resident list. You don't know how much support this man has in his community. This is a very interesting debate and we respect your position. Edward Eways needs to be on the list....Mens Org of Westchester 56 members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.29.209 (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Alright!!! Yes Ed Eways changed the perception of Port Chester in the 90's and he did a lot of things that will be looked at for years to come in the schools. I feel that when Eways was doing all his events it was the right era for it. My question even though he has done some things over the last couple of years that are impressive. In today's time he might not be able to do what he did in the 90's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.103.93.62 (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Dear Orlady, Thank you for allowing us to have this talk about the interesting public figure Edward Eways. Sorry if it got a little intense. This young man has left a mark on his community and when we see a Port Chester product like him talked about it brings life to our town. We understand your position and are groups will continue to follow Eways and do some more research on his career... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.103.93.62 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Edward Eways is notable. Keep him on the list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.29.209 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Edward Eways is notable!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.103.93.62 (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) We hear that Edward Eways is putting together another event.. This one they are saying is going to be crazy!!! PC class —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The List of State-related topics are, by nature, considerably more voluminous than a Portal. They are frequently used with the Related Changes function to survey recent activity. --Buaidh (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FLRC listing

I've listed Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates#List_of_HIV-positive_people. TONY (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Mountain School

A certain user Wildrock are continuing vandalising the page of Mission Mountain School removing important contents about the GAO hearing leaving only the defence claimed by this particular behavior modification program back, so the article now is a advertice for the facility.

I will not start a revert war with the headmaster Mr. Mercer (It is the IP-number from the nearby town where he lives which operates the changes made by Wildrock.), so other users have to take action in this case.

Covergaard (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Directory Project

Someone noticed that most of the article lacks sources. IIRC, you've been in ODP for a while, so perhaps you can find sources, at the wayback machine, if not still online somewhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a note

It is pathetic the way you are out to get your notorious sockpuppet. It is very sad to see the large number of users that you have gone after merely because they have made edits somewhere in the realm you are 'policing'. Or to see how many contributions and positive edits you ignore and delete because of the alleged evil-doer that you are monitoring. And you can confer with others and add to lists + databases, but try to realize how misguided your energies are. Perhaps you lack the depth to see beyond yourself or whatever, but why dont you give it a try?? (PS: Im not/my'handle's not jvolkblum, nor has it ever been. But thanks for screwing them over too! tootles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.9.231.214 (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You call me pathetic. What's the best adjective to describe the anonymous user of an IP in Bulgaria who is committed to promoting the civic institutions of affluent New Rochelle, New York? --Orlady (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest the anonymous user to just post his suggerences for improvement on the talk page of the articles that he wants to improve, and let other editors make the final decision on inclusion, and not make any fuss if part of his improvements are rejected because of wikipedia policies. See User_talk:Enric_Naval#reverts_to_article for how this strategy works. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you are a user from where <?> committed to tracking articles in the metropolitan NYC area? At no point did I call you pathetic. . . my comment was a reference to (what I percieve as) your misguided energies. I feel badly for the number of users who have been and are being effected. Anyway, i apologize. I am confident that your intentions are admirable and believe this larger situation might well indeed be one enormous misunderstanding / miscommunication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.248.62 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Accessed" dates in web references?

I noticed that you deleted the "accessed date" from a web reference in the New Rochelle High School article. I don't know much about Wikipedia citations (I've probably created less than a dozen of them), but when I first learned how to create them (for a couple of references in the SLC article -- which, BTW, have long since disappeared [the dates, not the references... although those occasionally disappear as well... :)]), I'm pretty sure that I read some guideline, somewhere, that said that it was a good idea to include in your web reference the date you retrieved the information from the website. (Having said that, I've since noticed that it seems to rarely be done.) I've looked around to see if I could find the guideline that led me to include an "accessed date" in the first place, but to no avail. I did find the "date you reviewed the source" in a reference generator at http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php, leading me to suspect that perhaps the "accessed date" used to be a guideline but has since fallen out of favor. Is that correct?

Policy aside, I can see arguments on both sides of the issue. Since websites change over time, I can see that it would be helpful to specify when you retrieved the information from the site, as it may no longer support the reference. On the other hand, if the site no longer supports the reference, then I suppose it's no longer much of a reference.

Interested in your thoughts on this. HMishkoff (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got your response on my Talk page, thanks for the clarification -- now that you've explained it, it makes perfect sense. HMishkoff (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading your media there instead. That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!--OsamaK 06:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for removing the Swedish government article and reference. Did you read the entire GAO Report? Look forward to more of your comments. 71.128.52.181 (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.org

Hi Orlady, good job on the BPPVE and CMU articles! There was an investigative report done on PWU back in 2004 by KCBS-TV Los Angeles. Here's the 2004 discussion about it on DegreeInfo [2]. The link to the report is no longer an available web address, http://cbs2.com/specialassign/local_story_127143143.html. I tried to find the site on archive.org but came up empty. I thought that perhaps I wasn't searching properly? TallMagic (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into it. It is really too bad. That was a really good article. TallMagic (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]