User talk:Orlady/Archive 4

Bryan College

Hi Orlady, do you have any interest in keeping an eye on the Bryan College page? I noticed that you're involved in pages in Tennessee, Chattanooga, and Dayton. I'm a student at Bryan and I'm trying to make the page for my school more accurate and up to date, but I want to be careful to maintain neutrality. I'm new to wikipedia and would love some help from someone who seems to be not only an old pro, but someone who is interested in the surrounding area. Any comments on neutrality issues or general content would be greatly appreciated! David Beisner (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dates were taken from the thumbnails shown in the New Yankee Stadium article, posted by Stadium08 (not me). Most likely the camera's internal clock was improperly set; groundwork of the stadium had only begun in August 2006, so the January 2006 date couldn't possibly be right. Just64helpin (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTM reminder

Your vote would be welcome at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200807. Voting runs through June 20.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blountville, TN

I have edited these pages for 2 years now. My info is accurate and I don't need references from some local newspaper to put it on here. No one has ever had a problem with it before, so don't start one now. Blountville is the county seat the mayor's office is on Main St. the goverment for the county is also considered for the town too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setnick (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK i'm sorry for this mess, im just getting alittle agrivated that your coming in and removing stuff that i put of along time ago. So i'd like if we could work together and stop fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setnick (talk • contribs) 17:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging Michael Shernoff for further review

Hello, Orlady … I recently encountered the article about Michael Shernoff and in my opinion, it either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for Biographies, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it violates a copyright.

I am considering tagging Michael Shernoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion according to the Deletion policy … I do not have time to examine the article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

I have created this initial entry on your Talk page because you are either the original author of the article, or else a recent contributor to it; I will leave more detailed information regarding my specific concerns about the article on its Discussion page … please respond either there or on this Talk page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

Be sure to read Ownership of articles, and remember that Some Other Editors (including at least one administrator) may not share your opinion about the notability of the article's subject.

I do not mean to imply that your contribution is unappreciated … perhaps you should read Your first article … and remember, there was a time when I knew less about how Wikipedia works than you know right now, and I am always available to help you become a more proactive contributor.

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 19:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian Mountains

Ironically, "The Appalachians is..." would be the normal way of saying it in those parts. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What parts would those be? --Orlady (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Them there parts of the Appalachians where them folks ain't too eddycated. :) I lived in that area for awhile, so I say that with affection. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not from Appalachia originally and I was pretty highly educated before moving to the region, but I live here now. It is my perception that uneducated people in this region understand subject-verb agreement and use it in their speech, notwithstanding dialect words and speech patterns (such as "you-all" and "you-uns") that aren't part of received standard English. --Orlady (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being silly, of course. And words like the noun form y'all and the possessive y'all's came into my speech during that time. I also learned that it's pronounced app-a-LATCH-a. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Kathryn Faughey

Thank you for all you've done trying to enhance the article, I really feel it shouldn't be deleted and hers is a very note-worthy story. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. I suggest that you add your comments to the AfD. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CE

Hi, I've approached Malachirality for a copy edit. He'll get back to me soon. (SUDUSER)85 15:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTM

Do you want to help me choose 30 or 40 new nominees for the month? I am traveling and short on time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"McVegas", TN

Hey, so I noticed you like to edit some of my work; mostly the McMinnville Opera House. I know that you're a Tennesseean yourself, and so I respect you. Ha ha, but there are somethings on there that you have added, and it's stuff I didn't even know, and I want to thank you for your hard work and/or research. I do wish, sometimes, that you didn't take off somethings of mine, but I guess as an editor, that's kind of your job/hobby.

But anyways, I just want to thank you for all your hard work and/or research, and I hope that you don't completely, in my way of thinking, "ruining" my pages. Ha ha. Thanks for editing on the following pages: Warren County, TN, McMinnville Opera House, and McMinnville, TN.

Thanks! - McVegas Guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by McVegas Guy (talk • contribs) 05:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Twin Peaks episodes

Hai Orlady, hope you're well. Can you let me know if you're happy with the above FLC now (I saw you'd made an edit or two)? It now has a couple of supports and your comments are now preventing me promoting it. I'd appreciate it if you could either fix or identify the specifics and then, if sorted, support or oppose. Thanks for your time and effort. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated Orlady. I'll hold off and unless I see some considerable work in improving the prose etc in the next couple of days I'll have to axe the nom. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you once again but it appears that your comments have been resolved. Could you pop over there and have a quick look? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Orlady, your expedient commenting is brilliant. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knock knock... your final comment seems to have been resolved! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happened in the middle of the night here! Anyway, I'm awake now, and I commented. --Orlady (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a suggestion but, would you consider capping your comments, I'm just saying 'cause otherwise the page looks a little messy, that's all. Once again, I'm just saying :-) (SUDUSER)85 15:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review Orlady. Suduser85, don't worry, the list has been promoted and the FLC will be archived. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significant information

I provided the necessary sources for the information on Echo Bay included in the New Rochelle article which is an important phase in the citys redevelopment and significant information to include in the section.--75.125.163.139 (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for your participation in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Twin Peaks episodes. The article was promoted to a featured list. Since you helped out with the copyediting, this is for you Orlady:

This user helped promote List of Twin Peaks episodes to featured list status.

Cheers! (SUDUSER)85 04:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wallis

I'm easy to please here - show me a single source of non-trivial coverage of the subject in a reliable secondary publication and I'll undelete right away. Otherwise, there was no assertion of notability in that article, and I stand by my deletion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a mention by the state of Oregon is really a substantial mention. I mean, I sympathize - I hate degree mills, and would love to see them out of business. But Wikipedia isn't for advocacy, and unless this scam has attracted some attention, the mere fact that there's a scam isn't notable. What makes this degree mill notable? Not every degree mill is. Most, in fact, probably aren't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your revert

Hi Orlady, please see the discussion here [1] about one of your reverts. If possible, please comment to clarify. Thanks! Totallyconfused (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, you reverted one of my edits without discussion on the talk page here [2]. If you have time, please comment. (By the way, the article is improving, good work). Totallyconfused (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jvolkblum

I'm looking into your post on Commons, see my question there there and have asked Lar to look into the matter as he is checkuser both here and on Commons. By the way, I wanted to renew the offer I made back in March - I still think you'd make a very good administrator on this project and would nominate you should you have changed your mind about standing. WjBscribe 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coeducational boarding schools

You wrote: "I see that you have created Category:Co-educational Boarding schools. The name is not compliant with WP style ("boarding" should not start with an upper-case letter), but more significantly I wonder about the purpose of this category (and whether there is a useful purpose to this category). Was this based on a discussion somewhere? 20:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry not to have been compliant. The new category may help to provide a basis for an article on early co-educational boarding schools and another on the history of changed attitudes to them. If you wish to change the title of this category, please can we preserve the hyphen in "Co-educational", please? Vernon White . . . Talk 20:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You replied:::Although I commented on the need for an administrator to be involved, the change in case for the first letter of the word should qualify to be a speedy renaming. --Orlady (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded:Perhaps it should be Category:Early co-educational boarding schools and cut off at 1900. I think that many UK boarding schools in the UK have introduced a second gender since 1980, or gone bust. Do you think an admin would be available to delete my ill-thought out category, or can I do it myself, one-by one. The category Category:Co-educational boarding schools (Correct capitalisation) could then be used for sub-categories as you suggest. However, we already have the article Mixed-sex education, which is a bit of a mess.Vernon White . . . Talk 23:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply on my Talk page I wish I had thought this through or consulted before I rushed ahead with this one. Thanks for your advice. Vernon White . . . Talk 15:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the siren song of the St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

is calling out to you, milady. Please put it back on your watchlist (and see my comments on its talk page). -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California Southern Law School and California Southern University

Thanks for drawing my attention to the distinction. I have made a mistake here. I was treating them as the same school. California Southern Law School is an unaccredited school in Riverside with classes in a physical space (I believe). California Southern University School of Law is a distance learning degree program. Both are registered with the California bar, which is where I was sourcing my information from http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?cid=10115&id=5128 . I really don't know more than this about either institution. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful and thanks for catching my mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitamarine (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid double directs

What is a double direct, and why should I avoid it? [3] Yours most fervently, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldrake Lake

If Sheldrake Lake is deleted, could you please create a new article to replace the old one, using whatever reliable information on the lake you can find? Please add {{gnis|965021}} and http://www.sheldrakecenter.org/ as references to the new article if you create one. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please consider taking the article to AfD. There have been a lot of edits to the article, so G5 may not apply (and there is currently no speedy tag on the article). --Eastmain (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blountville Middle

just to let you know, i mantain this page alot and everything on this page is notable. Go to the schools website and look. I worked and went to this school for 3 years and still keep close contact. So even though you removed the teachers, it is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setnick (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOTM

I think I am going to suspend the LOTM until further notice due to declining interest. Thanks for your participation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is merely a lack of interest in voting for the experiment that is not actually going to the main page. WP:LOTM is quite varied. I am sure the overall WP:LOTD variation and quality is as high as WP:TFA was four or five years ago when it first started.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet thanks

Hi Orlady, just wanted to pass you quick and quiet thanks for you recent contributions at WP:FLC. All help there is very much appreciated by, at the very least, me and the nominators of the lists. I look forward to more of your generous and useful additions to the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blountville Middle Deletion

I dont understand why this is up for deletion. I havent been given "ample opportunity to fix the problem. I'm sorry but this is the stupidest thing I've heard. I dont know what you want out of this article. This is no famous place that has tons of articles on it. So I dont really have any references. If you dont like it, then fix it, not delete it. Because I dont know how to fix it to your so called "Standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setnick (talk • contribs) 02:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just making a quick note. Usually, primary and middle schools are not considered notable enough by themselves to have an article. They need to have some notabiblity apart from the fact of existing. Universities and universities schols are considered notable enough by default, barring expcepcional circumstances. I am not sure about high schools, but I think that they are also considered notable enough on its own to have its own article.
As Orlady says, it's nothing personal. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey local government

Thanks for the caution; however, I don't think that it will be a problem, because New Jersey already has high-quality articles on each type and form of government. What I'm asking for is a summary of the articles that already exist. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blountville - Deery Inn

Orlady:

The Tennessee Historical Commission marker at the Deery Inn says it was built by William Deery "just after 1785." The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture article on Sullivan County says the inn served travelers between 1785 and the 1930s. Carolyn Sakowski in East Tennessee Backroads gives the date as "around 1785" (p. 80). Upon further investigation, it appears all of these sources were looking at Goodspeed's History of Sullivan County, which says Deery purchased the lot in 1785 and seems to imply that he moved right away. The Old Deery Inn's entry at nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com lists 1794 as a significant year.

Sakowski mentions something I didn't notice when I was there. She says, "the building actually has three sections: a two-story hewn-log house, a two-story frame store building, and a three-story stone house." So, it's possible that the "hewn-log house"— which is much more indicative of an Appalachian frontier structure— was built by someone other than Deery around 1785, and used as a residence or tavern, and the framed part was built by Deery in 1800 or so. I could find no record of this, however, so I just changed the caption to read "circa 1785-1801." Bms4880 (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your comment

Please point out the specific passage where you see an attack. Bill 12:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

From your response, and since you were unable to point to anything specific, perhaps more caution is warranted before reaching a conclusion and posting that conclusion publically. If you need to correspond on this further, please do so off line. Bill 14:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Willis (talk • contribs)

You made an accusation which you could not substantiate. If you wish to discuss it further, discuss it off line, or do not respond. Bill 02:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Willis (talk • contribs)

checking on one user

Please see User:EXP11-09. His second edit was creating this sandbox with a list of stuff, which I think that is all stuff related to New Rochelle like the history of New Rochelle Rowing Club.

Could this user be Jvolkblum? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming proposals

Thanks for participating in the NRHP renaming proposal discussion. As you know, I thus far only requested renaming of the one category about which everyone seems to agree. For the others, I still have a real problem with any proposal that adds "entries", "listings", or "properties" immediately after the word "Places". I think they sound terribly awkward, and I'm hoping that someone will come up with an alternative. But I don't see any reason to delay the bridges and tunnels proposal while we debate the others.

Since Canada has a comparable list (Canadian Register of Historic Places), following WP guidelines to avoid a U.S-centric POV, I think adding the United States makes sense.--Appraiser (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning in California

Thanks for the heads-up. In some cases I've left institutions in both the California and global categories. If Wikipedia can live with the ambiguity inherent in "People from X" then I suspect it can live with the ambiguity of where a distance learning outfit is located. If not, then I'm sure someone will CfD it. Stepheng3 (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Mountain School

After months of work user Wildrock aka the manager is about the vandalising the article again Covergaard (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWASP

About removal of the statement of unsourced website: Look at their video. What is the first it starts with? Covergaard (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!!

Thanks so much for the barnstar! What a nice surprise, particularly since I am trying my best to cut back a bit on my WP time... I am trying to build up the article Women's colleges in the United States and Barber-Scotia College became part of the collection. It has been interesting to learn its important and prestigious history. I'm glad that the WP could contribute to it. I have appreciated your feedback and am always open to suggestions and advice. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tweak - a good point I didn't catch. Any other suggestions you might have to improve the article would be appreciated. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York Yankees seasons FLC

Thanks for the review! I responded back at the FLC, after making the first change you suggested. I'm a little unsure about the others and left comments to that effect. One would go against similar featured lists, and the other has me confused because I've received contrasting recommendations from other reviewers. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I took the hint and farmed the all-time franchise records to a new table. Hopefully, you will approve of it, but keep in mind that I'm no expert at table creation. I think it looks good, but please check it and let me know what you think. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the reference to the note. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 14:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TN 1st congressional district

Could you please take a look at Tennessee's 1st congressional district and Talk:Tennessee's 1st congressional district? I feel out of my league in political topics and am not sure how to proceed -- Foetusized (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


James Kirk Diploma Mills

Hi Orlady. Thanks for the comments regarding my edits of this article. One of the difficulties associated with this topic is that most proof sources are not existant, posted as personal opinions or blogs, or possibly less "academic" than you or I would like. One brick court (http://www.onebrickcourt.com/about.asp) is certainly as reputable and respected as an information sources as is Diplomas.com. I was hoping to include the court reference as it helps to substantiate 3 important points that may bring fair balance to this article.

(1) Legality: LaSalle was legally registered as a 501(c) not-for-profit corporation licensed through the State of Louisiana under the title "World Christian Church". (John Bear also alludes to this in his summary)

(2) Quality of coursework: According to the central findings of the court case (and the reason damages were granted to the plaintiff), LaSalle did not grant degrees for a cash payment (the truest definition of a "diploma mill") and although LaSalle apparently granted credits for "life-learning", the institution required students to purchase textbooks and submit essays for grading. According to the findings of the court, LaSalle's "Masters" and "Doctorate" programs required the writing of a Thesis or Dissertation (although it is arguable how "good" many of these were). Also according to the findings of the court, many of the students at LaSalle University were required (or chose to use) local Adjunct Faculty (Ph.D.'s from accredited institutions) to serve as their professor for coursework as well as advisor for Dissertations, Doctoral Projects or Thesis.

(3) LaSalle University decided to create the "Council on Postsecondary Christian Education," (COPCE) to illegally serve as its own accreditation body. LaSalle deceived students as well as employers (who required proof of accreditation as a prerequisite to subsidizing education of employees). It was this fact that brought the institution down and resulted in the prosecution of Kirk, not because he was running a "diploma mill". This is also substantiated by the court case. LaSalle certainly was not accredited, but as Judge Eady noted in his legal findings "it was not a prerequisite for granting degrees in the US that a university should be accredited". (http://www.onebrickcourt.com/cases_files/68EWHC1996.pdf)

The way the article reads presently, it paints the students with the same broad brush that paints Kirk. I believe that the Paul McKenna case must be included to show that the students of LaSalle were largely victims of this deception, not participants in it. Presenting 2 negative findings and ignoring one positive finding certainly is not fair balance. I encourage you to let some of these edits stand. Apparent Logic (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent revert, Orlady. I was beginning to feel uncomfortable that maybe Apparent Logic might start feeling that it was just me that had a problem with his edit attempts. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCPAC

Just noticed our NCPAC article; it's much better than mine of course, so would you care to merge in your content anytime soon? Yellow Rain (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWASPS spam

I wonder if there is another way to identify the WWASPS institutions without resorting to the SPAM? clearly people like Mpoult are eager to place the el links everywhere throughout wikipedia, so it suggests that it might be serving as actual advertising for these places. I'll think about it for a bit, and try and suggest some alternatives.--Vannin (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

murals

I am basing my information on the terminology used by multiple sources when describing works of this nature and from this period. I cant say that my interpretation of the term mural is necessarily 'correct'. I just based it on the terms common application and usage. I dont quite understand the in-depth analysis? but to each their own i suppose--Geezalou (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are from Tennessee

So I suspect that you are sort of "lead editor" on many articles related to Tennessee such as the Cohen article. You certainly know more about the topic than I do but I must ask, why do you think CNN "smells like" attacking Cohen? Or what was exactly the problem, would citing the exact words of Cohen word for word solve the issue? I'm sure every word that is uttered on the House floor is recorded and televised many times over so an exact citation (possibly as video too) could surely be found. I might be mistaken but this instance seems to me the only case where Cohen made the international news, though I'm sure he is an interesting figure in local Tennessee politics. Hobartimus (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise on unaccredited schools needed

Your expertise on unaccredited colleges and universities would be greatly appreciated here: Talk:Canterbury University of the Seychelles#Questionable reference. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 22:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of contribution

Concerning your deletion of my Hamilton University entry, Isn't a mayor an elected 'public figure' that should be held to a higher standard? Riverdale Georgia is larger than the city that Sarah Palin was a mayor of; and she has been responsible to the public ever since. Must the public wait until a former mayor is chosen for a higher position in order to question their resume?BOFSIGHS (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

I think I understand it now but can you tell me if I'm right? if I wanted to connect the two articles I should have added mention of William Van Der Lawrence to the actual Bronxville article and then linked it from within (using "... "). thank you --Willacoochie (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

( Oops, sorry for the duplicate reply earlier ) I think I will work on a 'History' section and include him in it. Thanks for your help. --Willacoochie (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection of numerous disambiguation pages

It looks like you've been busy reorganizing disambiguation pages for buildings (mostly historic buildings) with ambiguous names. This has been noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#ALERT: More disambiguation problems. I appreciate your efforts to simplify, but I think in the long run you are creating a lot of unnecessary work for other contributors. The fact that there is only one blue link on some of those pages does not mean that the building with an article is the single best-known building by that name; it may merely mean that contributors have not yet found time to create articles for the other buildings by that name. It seems to me that this may not be the most productive use of your time, since many or all of the moves you have done will have to be undone, sooner or later. --Orlady (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages with all red links but one. It seems odd to me that less important articles would be created before more important articles, but I'm interested in seeing what others think. It's not something I want to fight over. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that all contributors base their decisions regarding article creation on the global importance of the topics. In fact, decisions are based on personal interest, information access, and other factors unrelated to global importance. In the case of the historic buildings, there's at least one user committed to creating articles about Omaha, Nebraska. That does not mean that Building X in Omaha is more important than other buildings called "Building X," nor the primary use of "Building X." --Orlady (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Hill, Tennessee

I did not research the originator of the article. Had I checked the history, I would not have touched the topic. I have restored the version before my edits. doxTxob \ talk 04:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of List of NHLs in NY

You're invited to consider commenting at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of National Historic Landmarks in New York/archive2. By the way, I reviewed your comments in the failed Featured List nomination and have addressed some of them by edits in the article. In particular, i used a phrase from your comments in revising the first sentence. I also noticed you alluded to copyedit or other problems in the article, which at the time you did not detail. I would appreciate very much if you could find the time to give constructive comments. Thanks! doncram (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got your note. There's not a rush, the peer review can run for two weeks at least, i am not sure when it would get closed and archived. However, I do hope you can raise any specific concerns if you have them in this process, so that they can be addressed under less pressure than during FL re-nomination. If your concerns expressed during the original FL nomination have been addressed adequately, it would be helpful if you could state that. Or perhaps some of your past concern may have evaporated, given the experience we have all had in naming lists of National Register places. About one specific concern that you identified, you mentioned a "which" vs. "that" issue. I don't know if the article was edited to change one of those, but i just reviewed it and see no problem. If you could search through and identify a specific instance where which-that should be switched, that would be a start and something for me to work on. Thanks! doncram (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I placed a comment on the 'Larchmont, New York' discussion page regarding the removal of an unreliable link (see [4]). Several re-posts have been made by user 'Pollykreis' and user ip address '69.119.153.123', not to mention other vandalous type edits such as removing the links of other news sources and inappropriately posting other text to the main article page. I see that you reverted one of the 're-posts' and was wondering what your thoughts are. Thanks --Paso 02:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasoradobles99 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Chicago Bulls seasons

Could you look at this again as it seems all your concerns has been addressed?—Chris! ct 23:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Jail etc

Thanks for chiming in helpfully in the NRHP disambig discussion. In general i want to get consensus that allows us to do as little as possible, but the recent Lewis House with state order is the best model obtainable i think. I edited Old Jail to be closer to what i think will fly. Not sure, myself, whether NRHPs with "Jail" but not "Old" should be included at all for disambig purposes, so i won't be surprised if someone else deletes those. Of course they could all be included in a list or category of jails and prisons on the NRHP. Anyhow, thanks. doncram (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my brain is surely seeping in, or out, in the running dab discussion, to which i just added more stuff to discuss, potentially in more excruciating detail.  :) I do think that raising the issue at wp:Wikiproject Disambiguation, and sticking with it as long as it takes, is likely to pay off in the long run. It must appear crazy to pursue this discussion, but at least it is centralized, and hopefully it can be referenced, authoritatively, in future disputes.... doncram (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nutbush

Thanks for the note: as you guessed, my reason for removing it from the template was that the article seemed to say that it was split between those two municipalities, and I didn't have any real incentive to look it up. Since you said otherwise, I checked with the GNIS, which backs up your statement that it's not in a municipality, and I've provided the sources that you wanted. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSP

See posts I made today about commons and en wiki RFCU reports. Cases like Jvolkblum are better filed at RFCU so the CUs can get to the IPs and find unknown socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're close to merging SSP and RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons one is done: commons:Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama — Rlevse • Talk • 00:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belford University

Hi. I saw that you were going to revert my edit, when I removed something about a doctor getting a degree, because it was without explanation. In fact, I explained the edit on the talk page. Anyway, the one you added was more informative. I looked briefly, but couldn't find a source for the one that I deleted. It should be restored if it can be verified, maybe. Llamabr (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for the note. I didn't know about Template:Uw-deadlink, but I'll definately use it from now on. Thanks again, Llamabr (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I'm on User:Pollykreis. Since he is clearly abusing accounts, i'll open a sockpuppetry case. :) --creaɯy!Talk 01:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Info: Pollykreis

Hello Orlady! I was recently on Intervention against vandalism, and checked on the user Pollykreis. I reported Pollykreis on Suspected Sockpuppeteers, because of what you said, the user had multiple accounts. I listed them and a notice was posted on the users page. But my main reason to come to you is thatshe has not made an edit since October 3rd. October 3rd was wwhen the user received it's first warning. So if you could please remove the notice, that would be great. Please contact me at anytime you are free. Thank You and happy editing! entertainU (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davids' Island (New York)

Hi there, I removed the Category:American Civil War prison camps from the Davids' Island (New York) article as the site of the actual prison camp appears to have only been at Fort Slocum (New York) (which is already included in the category) and not the entirety of David's Island.

I had been category sorting various old prison and American Civil War prison camp articles into various Defunct prisons categories by state. It seemed odd to me that not only Fort Slocum, but also Davids Island were BOTH included in the American Civil War Prison Camps category, when of course they both refer to the same camp. I'm sorry if ive got it wrong and I agree I should have written in the edit summary, any ideas? Bleaney (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey, truce please

Hey, what's going on? It looks like you are visiting all of my recent edits, second-guessing me with reverts and moves. It's perfectly fine for you to browse my contribution history, and to make edits, but it seems you are going out of your way to make reverts and moves that directly undo my work, when you could choose other ways to get your points across.

By the way, it's often helpful to use the wp:Requested move service. This is useful whenever there is likely to be controversy about a move you are interested in making, or if you don't like a move that someone else just made. I did not expect any controversy to my renaming The Hermitage (Tennessee), so did not list it there or discuss at the talk page, but your revert with emphatic edit label indicates there is some controversy, apparently, so I will put it up at Requested moves now (with notification to wt:NRHP and the Tennessee wikiproject).

I'll also try using the Requested move service about the William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures rename, too. I am imagining you visited that article when noticing that I had created an Aiken House disambiguation page earlier. I don't know if you knew it, but the William Aiken House article is one that I created, too. Your rename here is consistent with the view you expressed at wt:NRHP about House at 3 Crown Street etc. I am sure there are a bunch more NHL names you could take exception to as well along the same lines, but I hope that we could discuss general principle first. doncram (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, two unexpected moves appeared on my watchlist in rather close succession, both with your name on them.
First was the move of List of National Register of Historic Places entries to United States National Register of Historic Places listings. I was surprised to see that, as I hadn't noticed your proposal on that talk page, and I posted messages on that article's talk page and on the NRHP wikiproject talk page.
The Hermitage (Tennessee) was on my watchlist after an edit I made there last month; I had also edited the disambiguation page Hermitage at that time. When I saw that change, my reaction was "WTF? What ambiguity led to that rename?" and I looked at your contribution history to try to figure out what had led you to decide the name was ambiguous. I couldn't see any justification for your move so I boldly moved it back. (Also, I restored some text that you had moved out of the article. I can see why you moved it out, and it belongs in the other article you moved it to. However, the fact that a lot of other stuff in the Nashville area is named for The Hermitage is important information to include in the article about The Hermitage, so I restored it there, with a new subheading.)
Yes, while looking at your contributions I did notice the Aiken House page and looked at it out of random curiosity. I noticed William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures and reacted that the name was a mistake by someone unfamiliar with WP:MOS, so I renamed it as a maintenance measure. I did not look at the article history and I am sorry to hear that my action offended you, but it truly looked to me like a clear violation of the style guidelines.
As for WP:Requested move, that noticeboard is for moves that require administrator intervention (not the case here); it is not the place to discuss proposed moves. Even when a request is posted on that noticeboard, discussion is supposed to occur on a talk page appropriate to the affected article or articles. --Orlady (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No offense taken about anything. Your adding a diferent subheader about the other usages of "Hermitage" helps a lot, reframing and providing justification to keep that text in, otherwise it looked unrelated and perhaps like advertising for the hotel. My move edit label could have been better, but the ambiguity I saw was that there are 3 Hermitages in Tennessee, and I also noticed that the parenthetical "(Tennessee)" is non-standard in NRHP site names, which instead usually have (City, State). I thought "(Andrew Jackson home)" would be clear, but it's fine to discuss alternatives. About using Requested moves, well i have now posted these two and given notice at wt:NRHP and the state pages. I think it is fine to ask for additional input. In my past experience, the extra input obtainable from posting at Requested moves is often helpful. My past experience with Requested moves is not that long. I was introduced to it by Travellingcari who diplomatically used it to get help on a content disagreement we were engaged in; it was very helpful that time, anyhow.
About your not noticing the rename proposal for the "List of Register Entries" page, that's not surprising as there have been lots of edits implementing just one state rename at a time, which was obscuring real discussion. Ironical that i tried to stop those multiple small edits by doing it all at once, only to be reverted.... Oh well.  :) doncram (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About "premature" and other judgments. I'm taking the time to try to express something here, because we have overlapping interests and considerable interaction, which is fine, but I am having trouble sometimes with how you say some things. In particular, I hope you won't mind me commenting here, by way of giving feedback, that i experienced as a bit judgmental your use of "premature" as an adjective describing an edit of mine at what is now United States National Register of Historic Places listings. You used that term in an edit label of your edit directly reverting mine, and you later wrote it into the Talk page discussion. About your reverting my particular edit, as i stated on the talk page i don't care, and I don't take offense that you prefer to implement the big sequence of name-change edits in a different sequence than i would have done. In general, I don't think anyone likes to be directly reverted, but i don't care in that case, especially as it will all be done with soon and pretty much the changes i put in will get put in by someone else. What I am trying to say here is that it was a personal opinion of yours that my edit was not appropriate ("premature"), but you stated it as if it is fact. Of course you knew that i knew that my edit put many state links into red-link status, but then it is a matter of personal opinion whether that is bad in some sense, presumably for serving current readers (which I don't perceive to be present in large numbers, so I don't weigh that factor so much, relative to efficiency in developing towards a better encyclopedia). I expect you didn't mean it to sound as if you are in charge and dispensing final judgments, but it could be interpreted that way. Or, perhaps it comes across to others as being deliberately a bit rude, for emphatic effect. I guess I would prefer if you would have self-identified your opinion as your opinion, and then perhaps explained why you thought it was so important that you felt it necessary to directly revert my edit. Just self-qualifying your statement as an opinion, e.g. "I think doncram's edit was premature" would be politer, i think. Again, I don't mind about the particular instance, and I think I am getting more used to how you talk so I will misinterpret what you say less often, anyhow. But in some other contexts, it will matter to me more, how you say what you mean, and I just want to ask you to give some attention to this. No apologies asked for or expected, no response necessary, thanks for listening. I will watch here if you do respond though. Thanks! :) doncram (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have felt better about my comments if I had said the change was "done too soon"? That's what "premature" meant.
Regarding why I thought that change was done too soon: I don't particularly like to play wikilawyer, but my approach was fully consistent with a WP style guideline, namely Wikipedia:Red link. (Read it, if you are not familiar with it already.) A red link in a live article tells the user (and yes, there are users out there) that no article exists about the linked topic. Blue links should not be deliberately converted to red links because that diminishes the quality and usefulness of the encyclopedia. 'Nuf said.
As of now, I have personally renamed 30 state- and territory-specific NRHP list articles (as well as a bunch of substate-level NRHP list articles) and I have created state index pages for several states where someone had reasoned that it would be a good idea to redirect the state list to one of the substate lists. There are still two more states needing index pages, so we are now very close to being able to implement your wholesale changes to the U.S. list page without creating any red links. --Orlady (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Stroke Belt

Updated DYK query On 8 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stroke Belt, 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.

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph, Tennessee

Hey, how is it going? I am kind of stuck with a question about the population of a small place, and as I know that you deal with unincorporated small places sometimes I thought to drop you a line. I started that article about Randolph, Tennessee recently and I am so far pretty amazed that there is a lot of documented historical information to find about that place. Funny, if enough time passes, even about the smallest places there is something to say. Well, what I could not find out about is any recent population. As a matter of fact, I have a referenced population for 1820 (54), shortly before foundation of the town. And I have one good enough estimate for 1834 (1,000). In 1861 they had 5,000 soldiers there, but that does not really count as population, does it? Today it might be in the few hundreds, not much more. It looks like any population more recent than 1834 would be of great help here already.

I tried to find out about the voting precincts, but Randolph is included in the same voting precinct (14 S.W. Tipton) with a few other, larger communities. So you can't really start from there. [Tipton Cty Voting Precincts]. Maybe you have more material available on the topic. Thanks in advance! doxTxob \ talk 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Chicago Bulls seasons

Could you review the above FLC? Look like your comments have been addressed. Thanks

Re: Technical question

Yep, all those IPs are blocked under 75.125.163.128/27 and 75.125.166.0/27. After seeing them in the Jvolkblum case, I did a whois search and found they were anonymizers from a company called My Privacy Tools. I'm not sure if the CUs were aware of that, but those IPs should've been blocked. That's one less resource for a banned user. Spellcast (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock?

Hey there. Could you take a look at this thread if you get the chance? I suspect it's a sock of the fellow you've been dealing with, but don't know enough of the MO to know if this is a regular part of his activities. Might be worth another checkuser, if that's the case... Tony Fox (arf!) 05:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the previous edit by a new user, who removed this entry verify Tony Fox suspicion :( Maniadis (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasel Safwan

FYI, a comment was added by a new editor to this year-old RfA. I don't know if there is enough new stuff to justify a new article or not. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

College Square Mall

I don't think that redirecting to the town would be a good idea since there's another mall with the same name in Iowa. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding images from view

Could you please justify your actions?

Jcwf (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really admire you for the care you take to prevent at all cost that visual and textual information might be combined. Obviously that must be a great concern of you. I take it you only have a radio and silent movies?

Jcwf (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overton's Rest and Randolph

Thanks for your input on the Overton article, on Travellers Rest and the naming controversy. Overton was a missing link in the Randolph article and his home was missing in the article about him, both articles with a good potential for expansion.

As you are involved in small town articles yourself, maybe you can read through and copy edit the Randolph article when time allows. What I have found about the place is accumulated in the article and the sources seem to be sufficient. Articles are never complete, of course, this one is in a pre-finished stable state, ready for another expert to look over.

Thanks a lot. doxTxob \ talk 00:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Administrative Detention DYK

I've found an updated ref - from the New York Times, from 2008, which gives the number as 31,000 on any given day. This reference is also used in the Illegal immigration to the United States article. I've updated both the hook and the article accordingly. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Census estimates

I have no problem with using good estimates for the population (see what I did in this edit to Hercules, California); it's just that most places that I've seen that rely on sourced Census Bureau estimates (including most places in Arizona, such as Thatcher) don't include the 2000 population in the intro. Overall, I don't see any significant problem with including or not including the 2000 population in the intro, although I think it does go better, both because it's an actual count and because it can provide a short-term view of growth or decline. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for cemesto

Updated DYK query On 2 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article cemesto, 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.

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Stack article

You participated in an AfD Discussion on the article Jack Stack that resulted in that article being deleted. I have done some more research and have found a professional career and other sources and believe that the subject now meets WP:ATHLETE. Because normally articles like this are almost always kept, I decided to be bold and just place the article back where it was with the updates. However, if you still believe that there is a reason to delete this article, we can take it to any discussion forum you prefer.

To be fair, I am notifying everyone who made a comment on the AfD. If you wish to make any comments, it might be best to put them on the article's talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mack Flenniken who had a professional career with the New York Giants and Chicago Cardinals.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WOOPS Typo--it is Jack Sack not Jack Stack. Apologies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DMOZ search template (Dmoz2) is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. I'm sending you this notice because of your previous participation in the TfD discussion for the DMOZ category template. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2. Thank you. Qazin (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notification

List of bow tie wearers has been brought back to AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Sorry. My bad. I had noticed that no one involved with editing the article or involved in previous AfD's had been notified, and thought to rectify that oversight. However, I also just realized that you had already commented, so a notice is unneccessary. WIth respects to the nom, but it feels somehow wrong to renominate so soon after a resounding keep, and to not inform interested editors that their earlier views are being disregarded. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory

Please note that I have asked User:Schuminweb why he deleted the Proffitt's list without notification or discussion. He did this to other lists of former stores I worked on for AM&A's and Franklin Simon & Co. Please join the discussion.--Pubdog (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in a blockquote

Thanks for your edit on List of bow tie wearers, with the edit window open I didn't even realize it was a quote! I don't know how fond I am of the amount of quoting in the list, though. Overall it has a very un-list-like quality; the volume of prose and quantity of quotes confuse the issue quixotically.--otherlleft (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
You grabbed the ball on List of city nicknames in the United States after I had made a start on sourcing while the article was at AfD. You have diligently added sources and kept this article -- a frequent target of vandalism -- in line, making constant additions and improvements. This is just one of many articles where I have seen your patience and persistence in improving articles by the addition of reliable and verifiable sources. This honor is richly deserved. Congratulations! Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome. I constantly see your name editing, sourcing, reverting and improving a number of articles we share in common, and I know there are many more that you focus your attention on. Having added a few hundred sources to List of city nicknames in the United States (and its state subarticles), I know how hard it is to keep in line and you've done a fantastic job in an article that has to be one of Wikipedia's greatest vandalism magnets. Keep it up! Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep me posted....

Please let me know as soon as "List of bow tie wearers" goes to DRV, as it feels like the closing Admin completely ignored consensus. Kinda defeats the purpose of the AfD process. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I was aghast at the Admin for closing and deleting against consensus. Yikes! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable people who wore the bowler hat

I distinctly remember that I changed the references template to "improve" because I saw a single reference when I did so. However, the history does not bear me out. Perhaps I should take a page from J.delanoy (talk · contribs) and avoid trying to improve articles . . . at least after 10PM.--otherlleft (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi Orlady, Thanks for restoring the archived sites on the Barber-Scotia College page - I usually just remove bad links, but you were smart to investigate further. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on this. Your edits to the article are right on target. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hey, just so you know, you tagged US Post Office-Mount Vernon for speedy deletion under G5. However, as far as I can tell, User:Treyert hasn't been banned from editing. If I have made a mistake with my declining the speedy, please let me know. Thanks. Thingg⊕⊗ 03:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heh. wow do I feel dumb. I didn't even think of checking at checkuser.... I deleted the article, but I'm not too familiar with how checkuser cases work so I think I'll wait for someone else who knows the procedure to do that part. Thanks for the clarification and your hard work on teh wiki! Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 03:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Ridge Boys albums

Yes, it's required to use "The" in the category if the parent article uses "the". According to several sources, the group's official name is "The Oak Ridge Boys", and note that we have Category:The Oak Ridge Boys songs and Category:The Oak Ridge Boys members, so it would only make sense to have the albums category match too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfax University

Hello Orlady and thanks for contacting me,

I am in no way affiliated with Fairfax University. I was a student of that institution until 2004 and I have first-hand knowledge since I was at a graduation ceremony and met the people I refer to, etc. I have a brochure produced by the Univ which I can quote, although there is nothing on the web since their page is down and they tried their best to remove their tracks.

The entry as it stood was simply inaccurate (Fairfax University was a legally established institution for some time, and not a 'diploma mill' until it lost its licence) and I saw it as my duty to correct it. I am being as objective as I can, and I certainly have no wish to promote (or for that matter deride) that institution, but just to make a truthful entry.

Please do feel free to contact me and let me know if there is anything I can do to make myself more helpful. If you provide an email, I will be more than happy to forward you some University emails and documents to prove the above.

I have added some references as you requested. I hope this helps.

Best regards,

Oscar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar Dell (talk • contribs) 08:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference found

Dear Orlady,

I have further added an important reference source, the Fairfax University Prospectus of 1995, which confirms that Alan M Jones was the president (shows his picture on page 1), that the University office was in Baton Rouge Louisiana and that the institution was established in 1986. I have also found that in the 2000 Degree Ceremony PDF provided in their discontinued website Lord Perry of Walton is referred to as the University new chancellor just as I claimed (I was actually there). See http://web.archive.org/web/20060517093256/www.fairfaxu.edu/ffu/downloads/Winter2000.pdf

If you would be so kind as to correct the referencing in the edit that would be most helpful.

Best regards,

Oscar Dell (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2008, GMT

DYK for Nameless, Tennessee

Updated DYK query On 29 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nameless, Tennessee, 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) 00:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forage fish

You recently marked Forage fish, a DYK nomination, with a "No". Would you please re-examine this. This article has been a lot of work. Let me explain how this mess up occurred.

When I put the article up for DYK, I looked around for a hook, and decided, unwisely as it turned out, to use some "late breaking research" as the hook. This research is under the supervision of Daniel Pauly, who is the pre-eminent fisheries scientist of our times. Just prior to publication, a "Preview", which is like a press release, was sent to news organisations. News Previews like these are not made available online. This means you can only find out what is going on via secondary news sources. So I grabbed the first two that came up on google that had enough information, without worrying who they were, because they were only temporary. So it turned out that I had grabbed spacedaily.com and treehugger.com. So I got the gist of it, and then, calamity, forgot to copyedit it. I know that's inexcusable. My focus was on the rest of the article. I was regarding this stuff as temporary until the real paper was available, and because the real source was impeccable, I guess I got a bit lazy while waiting for the real thing. Then I stupidly choose this stuff for the hook! Anyway, the real article is now available—it cost $20 :(

I have copyedited the offending text, replaced the shonky sources with the real source, and included a couple of less objectionable secondary sources if you don't want to spend $20, and exhaustively checked the rest of the article in case there were any remaining copy violations. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have truncated the section on environmental concerns that you seem to object to, in the light of the the source document that is now available, and removed any possible sources of POV that I can conceive of. --Geronimo20 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I've found it very difficult trying to get the real juice on what is going down here. I am committed to writing fishery articles which get to what is really going on. But no one seems interested in Wikipedia, so even though we are at loggerheads here, I actually appreciate your involvement and keeping me to the straight and narrow. So why not bury the hatchet (it seems to me you do have a hatchet out) and let's just cooperate over the remaining time and get this out as a DYK. I'm willing to do whatever it takes. I still think the original hook is reasonable. If you can add a decent reference or two, let's make it a joint DYK. But I have only 24 hours, after which I will in the back blocks without any access to a computer for several days. --Geronimo20 (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]