User talk:Orlady/Archive 5

DYK for Patuxet

On 2 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Patuxet, which you recently nominated. 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) 01:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up...

This is my first time on a talk page - so you'll have to excuse any errors! But, I believe this is the part where I am supposed to write a thank you to Orlady for nominating the Patuxet article that I input this past week. So... thank you!!! Rawhyd (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Rawhyd[reply]

Well, thanks again for taking an interest in my interests! I do hope to provide some more DYK worthy stuff in the future (although that, of course, is not my main purpose)!  ;^) I appreciate your being there to give me a little push - and hope to pay it forward (or back to you) in the near future. Cheers! Rawhyd (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Rawhyd[reply]

Promoting DYK nom for Shigeko Higashikuni

Hi, thank you for all the work you've done at DYK lately, it's been really excellent and you've been a big help in keeping on top of all the noms. That being said, I just wanted to point out that in this edit you appear to have promoted an article that was never verified by another reviewer (I didn't notice it until now when it came to the front page; when I stopped noticing that nomination in the list I had just assumed it was deleted and I didn't check the history or the queues). In this case it's not a huge deal because the nominator did add another source and the information is controversial, but I am still dissatisfied with the use of a geocities source in the article and if I had seen the nominator's comment before the article was promoted I would have objected until the geocities source had been removed (I never noticed the nominator's comment, though, because the nomination was promoted just a few edits after the nominator commented saying that he had added sources). Again, this is not a really big deal since it's not a terrible article, and this edit was probably just an accident; it's just a minor quibble, but I just wanted to let you know for future reference.

Thanks again for all your help at DYK; keep up the good work. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think there will be any problems because, as you said, the hook fact is pretty clear-cut and easily verifiable in a number of sources. I was mainly just unhappy about the inclusion of a geocities source at all, but since the source is only cited twice in the article and it's not the only source then it isn't a major problem. With issues like that, even if the issue isn't serious enough to disqualify a hook I still like to insist on cleaning them up before I officially pass it (which is why I have been criticized by some DYK nominators for being a "perfectionist"), but in this case it wasn't a huge issue to begin with, so letting it through probably won't cause any problems. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

upright

I saw the upright parameter at Midnight Madness (basketball). What does it mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIU's controversy section

Could you take a look at CEC's proposal to replace the current controversy section in American InterContinental University? I guess I have a personal gut reaction against allowing a company to completely rewrite their own controversy section. The current version is better than the original proposal; I don't see anything blatantly NPOV, just general positive spin. I'm uncomfortable being the only person reviewing it though, and would really appreciate a second opinion if you have a chance to look it over. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DYK

Oh, I didn't know non-sysops could do that. Main Page/Tomorrow seems to be protected; is there a different place I should be going? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I had always noticed people being aware of how much space the hooks took up, but I never knew how they did it. Thanks for the pointers, and sorry about messing up the last Next. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Thanks for your comment on my DYK nomination on OSC. I have posted a response at the DYK template talk. --Soman (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I posted a response regarding on T:DYK talk, regarding Gangadhar Appa Burande. --Soman (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Irving P. Krick

On 4 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Irving P. Krick, 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) 20:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barony of Ladyland

Hi. On DYK, you picked up the Barony of Ladyland entry in the original version, even though this contained a slur: it was this edit of yours. If you scroll do the bottom of the text you removed in that edit, you will notice that me and another editor were discussing this aspect and had proposed an alternative hook. It was since modified to exclude the slur, after I posted the matter on WP:ERRORS. They told me that I should ask you how this came about. I presume your original edit was some sort of error, and that they, like me, want to avoid such errors in the future. Please pay more attention to the comments and what they say before selecting the hook updates. Thanks. Dahn (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Orlady, I was about to mention the same thing... also, a couple days ago it looks like you promoted another unverified hook (diff). (Perhaps to my discredit, I didn't say anything about that one when I first noticed it, since it was my own hook and I of course believed there was nothing wrong with it.) I'm not sure if you were really stuck looking for a hook of a certain length/topic and had no choice but to take unverified ones like this, or if it was just an accident in editing, but since this isn't this first time, and since at least one user seems to have been a bit offended by what happens (because he felt his comments were being ignored) I figured I should mention it again. I respect your judgment as a reviewer and I know you have a lot of experience, I'm just not sure what's been going on with these.

I have also left a message with Dahn about striking out bad hooks...I know it's not an official policy, but it's what I usually do because it helps me keep track of which ones have been rejected and stuff (since when I have the edit window open and am hurrying to populate Next before I get into an edit conflict, it's easy to miss stuff). Maybe it would be worthwhile to try to make it a standard for people to do that, or to mark bad hooks with or something.

Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was aiming for the alternate hook, but inadvertently copied the original hook, and did not notice my error. I have responded to this on the WP:ERRORS page, as follows:

My heartfelt apologies. My "choice" of the original hook was a dumb mistake.
I believe there have been multiple instances, including this one, in which the otherwise wonderful new hook-suggestion template (in which the original hook is beautifully highlighted on the edit page -- sending a subliminal "pick me" message to the picker who is aiming for a different hook, while alternative hooks are typically buried inside blocks of text) has contributed to the inadvertent selection of an original proposed hook that was rejected instead of an alternative hook. In other cases, the error was caught (either by the original "selector" or another contributor) before the hook made it to the main page, so this one is unfortunate. This suggests a subject for the DYK talk page: how to tweak the format of DYK suggestion and discussions to reduce the incidence of errors? --Orlady (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it must have been some technical flaw (I never really liked the new template thing we do, but that's another matter); the combination of that restrictive template and being tired (which has happened to all of us) was "deadly" in this case. Thank you for looking into it, and I do hope it will lead to some streamlining, template or no template. Best, Dahn (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That's a good point; I'm pretty sure I have actually done the same thing a couple times in cases where an ALT hook was verified and the original hook was rejected. It's true that the template makes the original hook very prominent, which is why I like to prominently reject it by striking it out. When the hook was still in development How do you turn this on and Suntag and I played with the idea of having five ALT hook parameters in the template so that when a user suggested an ALT he would add it to the template and all the hooks would be grouped at the top, above the discussion; we ultimately didn't do it because it seemed weird to have all the hooks at the top like that, separated from the discussion context in which they were originally raised. But given this problem, the idea may be worth revisiting at WT:DYK (we only discussed it at the {{DYKsuggestion}}, so there weren't as many people chiming in). And, of course, I still think getting people to be more consistent with striking out or ing bad original hooks will also help. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for bǎ construction, I reviewed that one before I picked it and made note of my conclusions in the edit summary on the next update page. --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a thought. What if I added a parameter |verified hook= to the template, and in cases where there are multiple hooks and only one is selected then the verifying reviewer could manually add that parameter and the one hook that should be taken? Of course, it would contribute to the growing "parameter creep" in that template that I've already been concerned about (I'm thinking of getting rid of |altusername= and |movedtomainspace=, for example), but it might make things clearer in these multi-hook cases. Of course, sometimes people verify saying something like "ALT2 and ALT3 are both fine with me," so this wouldn't help for cases like that, but oh well. The only other problem I can think of is that people might abuse it (ie, in a situation where there are 3 hooks, maybe most people in the discussion think 2 and 3 are fine, but the person doing the actual verifying specifies 2 as the only good one even though other reviewers thought 2 was also fine), but that's something that happens anyway, if it can even be called a "problem," so I don't think having it in the template would make things any worse.

Do you have any thoughts on this? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 10:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Fleet Foxes

Cheers for re-adding the DYK. You know I liked to so much I went and nommed it twice! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit links are misfiring"

In this edit summary... were you referring to when you click the edit link for one section and it ends up editing the section above or below? That happens to me pretty frequently and I assume it's just from someone adding or removing a section in between the time you load the page and the time you click "edit" (since section editing works by number, if you click a link that wants to edit "section=16" but someone has added a section above it then "section=16" will have changed)...but I remember being confused a few times when we first switched over to this system, and I thought about opening a discussion about that issue and ways to warn non-regulars so that they don't get frustrated ("Someone left me this message saying there was a problem with my hook, and I came back to explain, and it keeps making me edit the wrong section, wtf!"). I ended up never bringing it up because I wasn't sure if it was problematic for other people, but if you've been noticing it too then maybe it's something worth looking into.

(If you were referring to something totally different in your edit summary, my apologies.) —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you are referring to, this was similar, but things had gotten more messed up than that. The first, second, and third times I tried to clear that section, I got edit conflicts related to the edit where Sillyfolkboy accidentally deleted most of the page. After that, I kept getting a link to some other section, even though the page history indicated that no changes had been made to the page. I think this happens sometimes when there is a glitch in a section heading. (I've seen it on other talk pages.) --Orlady (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK'd: Jose C. Abriol

Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

flaminglawyer^cneverforget is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Reply

Thank you for the clarification. I sincerely hope you wouldn't take the criticism personally; I know you've been working hard and I truly appreciate it. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lawrence E. Glendenin

On 7 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lawrence E. Glendenin, 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.

DYKBot (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Charles D. Coryell

On 7 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles D. Coryell, 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.

DYKBot (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoia Horn

Thanks for your help in improving the Horn article. I take no offense at the back-and-forth of the DYK process and hope you don't either. Such back-and-forth is what leads to good quality. I choose articles for nomination that I think will appeal to readers and try to create hooks that will attract eyes to the article. The efforts of DYK reviewers in carefully reviewing the hooks is critical. There have been efforts in the past to place cleverly-written hoax articles on DYK, and so your attention to detail is needed and appreciated.Cbl62 (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 1933 Wisconsin milk strike

On 8 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1933 Wisconsin milk strike, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

DYKBot (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Proposed Deletion of Like..._The_Beatles

Hi,

Just to let you know i have removed the prod tag from the above article. I am pretty sure that i have at least one other verifiable source, but need advice on the correct way to cite it. Thanks for pointing out the problem rather than just queuing for deletion, though :)

Gkmotorsport (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cornish jack

On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cornish jack, which you recently nominated. 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) 14:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Cover William L Clayton.jpg IFD closed

I non-administratively closed Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_November_16#Image:Time_Cover_William_L_Clayton.jpg because the image is no longer in use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK reply

Hi Orlady. I posted a reply to your request at Charles Willing Byrd. -- Suntag ☼ 08:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for DYK Castle Crags Wilderness

Dear Orlady, Just a quick "Thank you" for the DYK- this is my very first, so I'm excited- I was assuming my pieces were too short to qualify so I gave up that hope, until now. Again, Thank you! Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK template and dates/times

Orlady, thanks for reporting that problem. If you have a chance, could you leave a message at Template talk:DYKsuggestion explaining which parameters you used and didn't use, and [if possible] the same information for other noms that you have noticed not having dates? If we know what particular ways calling the template has caused it to mess up, it should be easier to figure out what the problem is. Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Orlady. I have responded there. I think I figured out what's causing the problem (I sure hope I did, because if I was wrong then my entire ridiculously long rant there will be totally irrelevant)—it seems to not be a problem directly with the template, but with how some nominators have been calling it. The gist of my message over there is, while that's not directly a problem with the code in the template, it's still a problem with the template and not the nominators, because it means the template's usage is unintuitive. Most of my message over there is suggestions about how we might be able to make the usage clearer. Thanks for your help, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Correcting on Strawberry Plains, Tennessee

Thank you for correcting the reference I inserted into Strawberry Plains, Tennessee. I was about to contact you for assistance. I would appreciate any advice / information about referencing. If you can, post it on my talk page.

Thank you. TTS51207 (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK reply

Hi Orlady. I posted a reply to your request at Twist lifts. -- Suntag ☼ 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next update

Hey Orlady, it looks like you're putting together Next right now. I was wondering, if it's not too much trouble, could you fit the Rose Point, Pennsylvania hook into this one (or perhaps into Next Next)? I know there are a lot of older noms waiting to go up, but the nominator will be away for medical reasons soon and has asked if this one can go up before the 15th. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khedive Palace

Hi. I have added the references in Khedive Palace required for DYK nomination. Thanks so much for your attention. Cheers.CeeGee (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your cooperation. Cheers.CeeGee (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About blockquotes

I know some users can quote certain things, but most of the time quotes are good, especially when they are from famous individuals. For instance, on the Samson Agonistes page, it would be better to have Milton tell us what Greek theatre means and how he is adapting to it. It is Milton. He was a linguistic genius. There may be some great writers out there, but I think it would be unfair to try and add your own version in such a situation. I've never run into the blockquote problem until now, and most of my articles include heavy, classical quoting. I work as a literary critic and scholar. I write in that style. I know when my language cannot compete to a famously phrased piece. It is also nice to put quotes from books online so that students can see the exact wording when they might not have access to it. Yeah, its a complicated issue, but that is why I feel strongly about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ken Mink

On 16 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ken Mink, 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) 16:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated DYK template

Hi, I'd just like to let you know that the template {{DYKsug}} was just updated with a new feature: now, for all DYK nominations that include only one article, it auto-generates the credit templates ({{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}}), which the person moving the hook to Next may simply cut and past from T:TDYK directly into next. This only happens with single-article nominations; if the nomination has more than one article, there will be a message in the template saying "Credits must be done manually by the person moving this nomination to Next" or something like that. It will probably be a few days before you start seeing the auto-generated credit templates, since the template was only just updated and only the new nominations will reflect it; the first several times you see auto-generated credit templates, you may want to double-check the nom as you are promoting it, just to make sure the credits are correct.

There have been some other minor changes—mainly, now if a DYK nominator lists himself as both "creator/expander" and "nominator," the "nominator" field ends up blank (so that what gets displayed is "Created by User, self nom" rather than "Created by User, nominated by User." Also, the fields, |collaborator=, |collaborator2=, and |collaborator3= have been replaced with the more intuitive |creator2=, |creator3=, and |creator4=.

Please let me know if you experience any problems with the new template. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Francis Frangipane

A tag has been placed on Francis Frangipane requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. PamD (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get the page updated with information without success about Francis Frangipane. I will work on changing it to a better format. This is my first time updating the information anywhere on here. Thanks! Ffministryoffice (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White wash

I just wanted to point out that the day after you reverted a white wash, the same editor removed the material again at Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. I restored it and merged the two sections together. Tgreach (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It happened again. You might consider putting in on your watch page. Tgreach (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Any advice on what to do? Tgreach (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your work on the Errors page, Coal slurry impoundment, and the Current events main page. Thanks, rkmlai (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Hardy

Hello Orlady, Thank you for writing to me. I am sorry that I re-entered an edit on your post about George Hardy's life. I did this before seeing your letter to me. So when you see that again, I just want to let you know that it is perfectly fine with me if you will delete my entry. BTW George Hardy was a great labor leader, and I am so glad to have been able to read your wonderful post about him. I didn't really know George Hardy very well personally, but I did have the opportunity to meet him.

-- Walter Ballin 04:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dos Pilas - query

Hi Orlady

A day or two ago you moved the hook for my 5x expansion of the Dos Pilas article to the next update, and from what I can see on the article talk page, Dos Pilas appeared on the Main Page on 28th December. I'm not sure who did the actual update but no acknowledgement appeared on my own talk page. Any idea how I can get this?

Thank you & best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting that out - much appreciated, sorry I haven't responded before now, I've had no internet access for a week or so... Simon Burchell (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I'm the DSM guy, apparently my 30 days were up. I've got an account, I just didn't realize I wasn't logged in.

Thanks for keeping the vandals at bay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NFLDolphinsGuy (talk • contribs) 06:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kevin Laue

On 31 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kevin Laue, 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.

Cirt (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look familiar?

[1] —Wknight94 (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible" based on behavior, particularly the user page. I'd want to run it through RFCU before taking action. --Orlady (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving

Thanks for moving the Kingston.... article. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand your position at MMS

So... the organization should be mentioned in the article... but we should not tell people what it IS? I think it is clear that either we should tell them, or not tell them. What am I missing? Is the site somehow inappropriate? If so, then surely the association of the school to the organization should be out?sinneed (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks.sinneed (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added note: I hesitated to attach it to the sentence because it would seem to be claiming to cite the fact of the association, and I did not see that information there. I'll look for it again.sinneed (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and there it is. Thanks again.sinneed (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Therapeutic boarding school

I have asked a question on the discussing page regarding definition of the term in relationship with two other kinds of housing for teens Covergaard (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Article

Hi Orlady, just a quick question. I just noticed that for some reason the article Jacob Apelbaum that I wrote (I think you re-directed it to the proper name) has disappeared from Google. Is it possible that I unknowingly inserted some kind of a "don't show" tag into it?--CG 04:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlGuass (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the help! I just wanted to make sure it’s not something I've inserted by mistake--CG 04:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlGuass (talk • contribs)

Thomas J. Walker House

Actually, since it was demolished, it actually is not in TN or any other place. But more importantly, it is not on the NRHP anymore, thus cannot be in that category. And since it is already in another TN category, complete removal of the category without adding another is appropriate. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doakes Creek Dam

Orlady:

The TVA template lists the Doakes Creek Dam as a hydroelectric generating station. Is this correct? TVA's Norris report (published 1940) says this dam is 30 feet (9.1 m) high (which seems puny by hydro plant standards) and built as a side project to impound a fish hatchery. Bms4880 (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a power plant, just a dam. I have a vague recollection of having heard of it, but until you asked the question I knew nothing about it. I found a fact-filled TVA fact sheet that says: "TVA maintains the structural, seismic, and hydrologic integrity of 19 hydroelectric dams, 13 non-power dams, two small overflow detention dams at John Sevier Fossil Plant on the Holston River and Doakes Creek on Norris Reservoir, and one pumped-storage plant near Chattanooga." It does not belong in the template, IMO. --Orlady (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Doakes and JS. There are probably a few non-hydro dams remaining in the template, since it lists 47 hydroelectric stations. I haven't seen the Doakes Dam in many years. I remember that it looked like a rock quarry. Bms4880 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the numbers. That fact sheet is only about TVA facilities in Tennessee. However, I do know that there are several very large non-power dams in the TVA system, including dams like Nolichucky that formerly had electric generation but are no longer used for that purpose. It probably would be better if the template had different terminology. --Orlady (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That'll work. I re-added John Sevier (I've never seen it, but it's on the main Holston channel, so I'm guessing it's substantial). Bms4880 (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After perusing the TVA website, I don't think that either of these overflow detention dams is worth mentioning on the template. If the dam at John Sevier Fossil Plant is for "overflow detention," you can be sure that it's not a dam on the main channel of the Holston River. --Orlady (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I don't know, Orlady. I think I'm going to stick with main channel. Observe: N36.38136 W82.96603. Adding JS or not isn't a big deal, but we should probably have a standard to decide which non-generating dams are worthy of mention, or someone will eventually try to add the Dandridge dike and whatnot. Bms4880 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. That topo shows just an 8-ft difference in water elevation above and below that structure -- some of which may be just be attributable to the slope of the river. It's kind of like a slightly higher part of Cherokee Lake. Is that any more significant than the small dam-like structure downriver from Norris Dam? (See http://wikimapia.org/#lat=36.2097104&lon=-84.0753329&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2&search=norris%2C%20tn and http://www.topoquest.com/map.php?lat=36.21026&lon=-84.07373&datum=nad83&zoom=4&map=auto&coord=d&mode=pan&size=l -- hmm, that thing isn't Doakes Creek Dam, is it?) Minor dam-like structures like these aren't all that uncommon, and it's difficult to imagine them becoming subjects for separate encyclopedia articles. I think the one at John Sevier Fossil Plant would be covered as part of the power plant article, and the one below Norris Dam (which exists mostly to aerate the water) would be covered (if it is covered at all) as part of the dam article.--Orlady (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Doakes Creek Dam is way out past LaFollette, and its creek feeds into Norris Lake. I'm not sure if the Hibbs Island structure has a name, but I'm glad you pointed it out, since it means an edit I recently made to Norris Dam is incorrect.

I guess the main difference between JS and Doakes Creek and the little Hibbs Island structure is that the former two are built to retain a reservoir. For Doakes Creek it was (originally) to form a fish hatchery. I'm not sure of the purpose of the JS dam's pool— it might be used to skim out cold water (the Kingston plant's report said they were going to build a dam to trap cold water, but concocted some sort of "skimmer wall" apparatus instead). Nevertheless, I agree that dams such as these are best omitted from the template and covered as part of their parent projects' articles. Bms4880 (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

living word fellowship

hi again, could you let me know what other published sources the "anothor gospel" book cites? i'm having trouble finding them. thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey, thanks, i will check it out. Jessi1989 (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Paine Cottage

Hi, I've seen the thread re the cottage and said enough. I substantially rewrote the article by going back to the sources and finding some new ones. Please feel free to take a look and improve the article. Doncram seems to want to go down the FA path, which I've never done before. Your thoughts would be appreciated. dm (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your helpful edits, much appreciated. dm (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Lady and St Margaret's

Hi, the author forgot to add reflist so the reference was easily missed. However, it does cite a Glasgow City Council source. Perhaps you would be good enough to revisit your delete recommendation? TerriersFan (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shannon Rose

The editor Shannon Rose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has returned, and is using questionable edit summaries again. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kent Williams (politician)

On January 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kent Williams (politician), 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.

Dravecky (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White suburbs

Are suburbs not generally populated by caucasian residents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.41.39 (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Fist images

Orlady, I corrected the author and public domain tag {{PD-US}} for all the images I uploaded. Thanks for clarifying this for me. Winged Fist (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, As far as I know, the LIC coat of arms is a faithful reproduction of the original 1873 version. The Greater Astoria Historical Society is happy to release this image (which may be available elsewhere) for use on wikipedia, but would not be very happy to see it appear on the streets of Queens as a t-shirt, for instance. This is why the image is a relatively low resolution. What would be the proper tag for this? ThanksWinged Fist (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ocoee No. 3 mess

Orlady:

If you get a chance, check the Ocoee Dam No. 3 article's section on the 2009 contaminant release. I wasn't sure what to call the material— Knoxnews uses "sludge", but they use that term for everything. Bms4880 (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cemeteries on the National Register

Wow, that's one category I never would have thought of. But tonight I noticed you put King's Chapel (Boston), Old Ship Church (Hingham), and Sleepy Hollow Cemetery (Concord) into that cat. You've got a great eye for detail. Thanks for placing these three entries into that category. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A random walk sometimes works great. There are lots of these places on the National Register out there, for sure. I grew up in a house on the Register, and have restored one as well. They are the great legacy of this nation. I would love to be part of the effort. Count me in. And I still say you have a good eye for detail. :-) Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Park Cemetery, Memphis

Hello Orlady, how are things in east Tennessee? I noticed that you have added the article above to the category "Cemeteries on the National Register of Historic Places". I don't want to be over-exact, counting ants, peas, beans or other small objects. But as a matter of fact, it is not the cemetery that is in the NRHP, it is the "Sculptures of Dionicio Rodriguez at Memorial Park Cemetery" that are in the NRHP. Pretty amazing they are, there are structures like bridges and also small items like trash recepticles there, constructed of grey old boring concrete, but they mimick the looks of objects that were constructed of natural logs. Just with a plain and grey surface of concrete. The sculptures can be found all over the cemetery. I know little about the NRHP listings and Wikipedia categories related to that topic. I just thought I'd let you know, in case it makes a difference category-wise.

A while ago, I asked you to look over the Randolph, Tennessee article, thanks for your fixes. Since then the article has grown and reached a stage where the information available to me is exhausted and it has reached a good degree of comprehensiveness. Today I have self-nominated the article for a GA review (Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Geography). If you like to read over it and let me know what you think, your efforts are appreciated. If you see minor mistakes, please fix them. If you see major issues, please let me know. Thank you!

Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 06:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi there, I just noticed that you're a dmoz editor. I recently (couple months ago) became an editor there, but have yet to sit down and absorb it all and get to work. Just thought I'd say hello -- and if you have any insights into that project from a Wikipedian's perspective, I'd love to hear 'em! -Pete (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category Burials in Tennessee

Hi again, I saw that you included some articles in the new category burials in Tennessee. I was wondering what the scope of that category is. It looks like there is exclusively people in the category so far.

Here is my question: The article Shelby Farms mentions the burial of the Mann family on the grounds of what in present day is a municipal park. It is not a cemetery, the land formerly was private property and they buried their family members on their own land. There are five graves and one marker, indicating two death dates in 1891. Does that qualify for the category, if the article describes a burial or is it famous burials only?

Looking forward to some enlightenment. Thank you, doxTxob \ ^talk 18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New DYK template for nominations

Hi,

I've been working, somewhat at Gatoclass's behest, to develop a new version of {{DYKsug}} that doesn't leave so much junk on the nominations page (partly just to be tidier, partly to reduce the page's byte count and, hopefully, its load time). The new template is complete and located at {{NewDYKnomination}} ({{NewDYKnom}} also works). It is used in almost the exact same way as the current template (the only difference being that |creator= and |expander= have been merged into a single |writer= parameter, since there seems to have been confusion in the past about the difference between these two); there is more discussion of the new template at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 39#New template for nominations--please provide feedback if you have a moment and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 39#Working on a better nomination template.

Since you do a lot of work vetting nominations, you are one of the people who will be most affected by the template change (although the effect shouldn't be very big...the main difference is just that this template is less complicated and the format will look a bit different), so I am hoping to hear your thoughts before I go ahead with making the switch from the current system to this one. The links I provided above have permalinks to examples of what the template will look like when used; you are also free to experiment with it in a sandbox.

Thank you, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry...the old examples are bad, since I have made a change since then. Here is a new, better example (and here is what it looks like in the edit window). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Orlady; this is all very helpful! I have left my responses (which might be a bit long-winded) at my talk page. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas...er...Kentucky

When I reworked the Kentucky NRHP list, I modeled it after the Kansas list...apparently too closely. Thanks for catching the error :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting the Ohio county-level lists; I saw Hamilton County earlier and was going to rename it, but didn't have time — not to mention not having time to move all the others. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title typos

Hi. The NRHP listings for Missouri and St. Louis that you recently moved all have a small typo in their titles now -- "Natilonal" instead of "National." I'd fix them myself, but I'm new around here and am afraid I'd louse them up badly. Thanks for any help you can provide. --Mechla (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, people who never make mistakes aren't contributing. :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone and other issues between Orlady and Doncram

Hi Orlady -- The recent discussions at wt:NRHP are disturbing to me, in the tone and spirit of what is going on. I like to think i am working on developing articles and list-articles and disambiguation pages and so on relating to NRHPs in the U.S., and that i am doing that cooperatively with others having similar interests. I am not understanding the tone of your interactions with me, which I experience as unnecessarily negative. One way in which i have been trying to respond is by trying to give you feedback on how I experience your communication style. However, maybe there are more differences than can be appropriately addressed in the middle of regular discussions about content for NRHP stuff, at wt:nrhp. I wonder if there is some alternative to address whatever is going on here. I am not personally experienced in wikipedia's versions of mediation and other semi-cooperative dispute resolution processes, but wonder if you and me engaging in one of those could somehow be helpful in clearing the air or something. Would you be willing to engage in a mediation process and/or do you have another suggestion? doncram (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your response at User talk:Doncram#Reply to your comment on my talk page, and would be fine about continuing there instead. Thanks. doncram (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WVOX

Hi, Orlady. I understand your position that WVOX belongs in the Community Radio category is rendered in good faith, as is my view that it does not. To clarify, WVOX, while obviously a great community asset, is a commercial entity with paid professional announcers, whereas WP's Community Radio article defines community stations as nonprofits with volunteer staffs. The article also makes clear the distinction between community and public radio, though all public stations are nonprofits and a handful also allow volunteers to host programs.

From the article's lead: "In America, community radio is more commonly non-profit and non-commercial, often using licensed class D FM band transmitters..."

From the section on the U.S.: "...community radio stations are usually staffed by volunteers and air a wide variety of programming...Community radio stations are distinct from NPR stations in that most community radio programming is locally produced by non-professional disc jockeys and producers, where NPR tends to rely more on syndicated programming."

I realize both statements include "usually" and "commonly" as qualifiers, but only to take into account the precious few exceptions where onair personnel are paid. However, there is not one station among the 100+ listed under the CR category that is not a nonprofit. I'd also venture that there are less paid onair personnel among all of these stations than on the staff at WVOX. In what way, then, does WVOX conform with how the term is used in the broadcast industry? Allreet (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. Community radio as the term is used in the WP article and listing has a very specific meaning. With WVOX, the term applies only generically. The difference between the two usages is found in their separate histories. Commercial stations from the 30s through the 70s were usually very community-minded, partly because the FCC required it and partly because station ownership was still largely local. Thanks to deregulation in the 1980's, that all but ended, WVOX being a prominent exception. Googling Clear Channel and deregulation will tell you plenty about those developments.

Community radio, as a separate form of radio, traces its roots to the founding of Pacifica Radio in the 40s, followed by the work of Lorenzo Milam in organizing community stations in the 60s, developments tied to the concept of providing community access to broadcast media. All of the stations in the WP listing, except WVOX, sprang from that tradition. Googling Pacifica Radio and Lorenzo Milam separately then together will pretty much get you the full story.

To tell the truth, I'm not really sure where to go from here. I believe the inclusion of WVOX muddies the meaning of the term, which is a disservice to readers. On the other hand, I see your efforts in rescuing WVOX as admirably Wikipedian. In light of that, I think that yanking the reference again would be inappropriate, especially now that we've "talked." Any suggestions on how to proceed in trying to resolve this? Allreet (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WORT, it turns out, was one of the stations Milam helped start (you can identify many of them by their colorful call signs - KBOO, KTAO, KCHU, etc., and all except WORT and KDNA were in the West), and most community stations (75%+) followed his model by virtue of the fact that they joined the NFCB before startup and Milam was the guru of that culture from 1975 into the 90s. You're right to some degree about commercial stations in the sense that television eclipsed radio in popularity and Top 40 evolved as the dominant format. But from the 50s through 70s, local stations remained involved in their communities with fundraisers, call-in shows, remote broadcasts from local events, public service announcements, etc. Today, many of the deejays you hear aren't within 500 miles of the stations you hear them on, and most of what they play is determined by some marketing firm in L.A. As for progressive radio, I think we both witnessed the same trends, so there's no quibble there.

This debate, however interesting, isn't likely to go anywhere. I was hoping you'd respond to my last question, so for now, I'll offer this: I don't want to get into a revert war and won't remove WVOX from the listing. At some point, I will call for arbitration (after letting you know in advance), because as much as I share your sympathies toward stations like VOX, our larger obligation is to provide WP's readers with the most accurate information possible, as opposed to our opinions or desires. In the meantime, please check out the searches I suggested. For some specific starting points, search for "Community Radio at the Crossroads" by Bekken and "Community Radio at the Beginning of the 21st Century" by Dunaway. And no hard feelings, truly. Allreet (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again! Granted, WVOX is a different cat, and with that comes my view that it belongs in a select category of stations, just not this one. But let's just drop the issue. I realize I'm being a strict constructionist on the definition/language issue, and based on your advocacy and relatively speaking, the facts, let's let the listing stand until the next "strict constructionist" comes along. Cheers. Allreet (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, regarding the honor for WVOX's owner. To let you know, I became involved in community radio as a volunteer at a local college station 24 years ago. That led to the founding of our own station 10 years later, and since then, I've become an avid student of community radio and its history. For a while I've been considering adding to WP's Community Radio article, which is woefully inadequate regarding the U.S. form. I think part of reason is that the article was probably written in the U.K., so it takes a more world/U.K.-centric view. For example, I just updated the definition in the article's lead, which previously discussed U.S. community radio in the context of pirate radio, a hot issue in England but only marginally so in the U.S. Anyway, I'm mentioning this because our discussion on WVOX got me re-interested in the idea. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Automotive Intelligence companies

If you think it needs a full CfD, you should take it there yourself. Or else the rename is likely to get dropped on the floor. Best wishes,--Stepheng3 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

I asked for you to be blocked for a short time, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war at Rochelle Heights. You may wish to respond there. doncram (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be banned from editing. You edit stuff that is trivial and unfounded. 161.45.203.38 (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture on the NRHP?

Looking at the discussion for the NRHP categories on Commons, I was surprised to see you say that pieces of furniture are listed! Can you give me an example? I'm well aware of aircraft, ships, etc., and I know that less difficult-to-move objects, such as a lot of Kentucky tombstones, are included, but I just have visions of a Tiffany lamp with one of those "This Property Has Been Listed" plaques on it :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, um, er (red face)... The official NPS information (also see Property type (National Register of Historic Places)) lists furniture as an example of an "object" that could be listed, but I can't find any actual examples of listings. Objects in museum exhibits aren't eligible. http://ourhouse.biz/stories/home-garden/gardens/the-art-of-faux-bois-furniture-boughs-of-wood-from-iron-and-stone.html does describe what sounds like furniture-like outdoor sculptures at Brackenridge Park in San Antonio, but Dionicio Rodríguez's work probably isn't portable. Nevertheless, outdoor sculptures are among the listed objects. I assume that it would be possible to list architect-designed furniture pieces inside a structure that is otherwise not listable... --Orlady (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I found some furniture, and it's closer to the Tiffany than I expected: Cincinnati Street Gas Lamps. Granted, they're in the ground, so they're much harder to move than a Tiffany, but still they're officially "furniture". I don't know about you, but I'd not call these things "furniture"; I guess this is an example of what is classified as "furniture". Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerleader image

I am not familiar with Wikipedia policy concerning posting images of people on the Internet. If you like, I can delete the image of the cheerleader.

Anthony22 (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeast Primary Elementary School

Hi, I have created a page Rutland City School District into which I am merging the content. You may wish to reconsider your merge target recommendation? TerriersFan (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FFS Testimonies

I've noticed that you have attempted to make the record on FFS more neutral and I appreciate that. However, the language you added that states "letters from parents, staff, and students in support of the school were added" also omits the fact that the same link we have been arguing over: http://cafety.youthrights.org/wiki/index.php?title=Submit_Your_Testimony is also included in that official record, although with a typo, using dashes instead of underscores. As the House has accepted this website in lieu of separate testimony, and as the compilation, that should be enough for WP. As such, should this be included with a statement saying that the above link is also included in testimony? At present, the statement constitutes undue weight, as it makes it appear that the one statement against the school is the only one, while others are claiming positive things. On the contrary, there are at least 17 other testimonies about abuse that have thus far been excluded because they were on a wiki....which is now cited in that very same report the others noted are in.

If you need clarification of this, feel free to ask. The citation in question can be found after the statement by Rep. Jason Altmire.DJJONE5NY (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)djjone5ny[reply]

Rural Cemetery Act

Could you adjust the DYK hook for this article? =- Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Cemetery Act

Just wanted to mention that I appreciate what a wonderful job you've done expanding the Rural Cemetery Act article. - Nunh-huh 22:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

photo concerns

Regarding my comments at commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:NRTrainDepot.JPG, just to make sure, am I correct in that the photo resolutions and sizes look wrong? Or am I seeing problems where there aren't any?

I didn't evaluated the technical details of the tagging of the photo. I don't believe that people who upload their own digital photos to Wikipedia will upload small low-res images. I think the image was "borrowed" from somewhere, and given fake camera data. Also, I don't trust Jvolkblum's content, but Commons seldom deletes stuff solely on that basis. --Orlady (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you give them a list of sock used by him? You can go to commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard and dennounce the situation there. They might even run a checkuser. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have run some checkusers at Commons, and they've blocked a long list of Jvolkblum socks. They have also removed numerous images. In my experience, though, they are reluctant to remove images uploaded by those socks unless there is a strong specific reasons to question a particular image. --Orlady (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, I see. Well, let's see what they say at that deletion request. I might go myself to the admin board to ask for the deletion of all those photos (altought first I'll investigate a bit to see how those matters are handled at commons :) ). --Enric Naval (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've actually gotten good results over there, particularly from a couple of helpful administrators, but it takes a lot of time and attention. Commons checkuser has rounded up quite a few socks (see commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum) and and there have been cross-wiki CU requests (see commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama). However, there has not been of consistent support for mass-deleting the Jvolkblum material at Commons. (Note that he's not banned on Commons.) The reaction that we have seen at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:NRTrainDepot.JPG is, unfortunately, common -- it seems to be necessary to have specific reasons for challenging each individual image, and Jvolkblum often shows up to argue for retention. (BTW, another "current" pending request is commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Westchester ZipCodes.PNG.)
I've gotten plenty of Jvolkblum files deleted, such as commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by sockpuppets of Jvolkblum, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TrumpPlazaNR.JPG, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:RochelleHeights1.JPG, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:LispenardRodmanDavenportHousePainting.JPG, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Echo Bay regatta images, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:HuthParkwayLarchmont.JPG, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SarahAndWilliamLawrence.JPG.
Also see commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/Attention 5#"New" user uploading numerous images with implausible claims of origin/ownership, commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/Attention 5#Sockpuppeter, commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/Attention_6#VERY old deletion requests still unprocessed, and commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/Attention 5#New sockpuppet activity. I've successfully speedied some images.
Times that I failed to convince Commons of the need to delete include commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NRPublicLibraryOld.JPG (a Jvolkblum sock vouched for the image, so it stayed!) and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NRHSaug08.JPG (a Jvolkblum sock defended the image and another sock closed the debate!). I've gotten tired of challenging images there, except after the images get used here...
If you have the inclination to pursue him at Commons, perhaps my experience (in the above links) will be helpful to you.
PS - I think Commons user Sunstudios is Jvolkblum, but I have not pursued that sock -- the edits were inconsequential, and he's probably already forgotten the password. --Orlady (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_uploaded_by_sockpuppets_of_Jvolkblum, how about I just open a new page like that as soon as the checkuser here is closed? It worked the last time.... --Enric Naval (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to wait for the WP:SPI case to close; there probably will be a new SPI case tomorrow. (Wink) The main message I got at Commons regarding deletion of his material is that there must be specific reasons to question the images -- they would not delete everything he uploads. As a result, Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by sockpuppets of Jvolkblum was a pretty selective collection... --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm a bit busy, let's see if I can do this for the weekend. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dang it, at the end I didn't do it :( I'm not sure if I'll be able to do it... --Enric Naval (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

I have been asked by Wikipedia to notify you that you have been reported for edit warring. I am sorry that it has come to this. I see that you've been reported before, and I only wish that you hadn't continued to follow me from one page to another in an attempt at revenge for my disagreeing with you on your one pet project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreetucker (talk • contribs) 05:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is going on, but I have blocked Audreetucker and her IP for 48 hours for edit warring at Percival Davis that looks to have nothing to do with you. Kevin (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It seems like Oldlady like to critisize peoples edits without merit. 216.248.27.2 (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, it looks like I might need to create a special talk page section entitled "Reverted vandals' autograph book." --Orlady (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYKcheck bug

Thanks for catching the date bug with Tbuong Kmoum District. I think I've fixed the bug, and it should show February 10 now. (You may need to bypass your cache on pages you've visited before for the update to go through.) Again, thank you! Shubinator (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for the fact that you found that particular bug and fixed it. The tool is impressive, so it's not surprising if it isn't quite perfect yet.
While fooling around with the tool, I ran across another issue: it gets seriously confused if there are two separate nominations for the same article. There were two nominations for Beverly Eckert, which caused the script to recognize almost every string on the page as an ALT hook for that article. When duplicate noms are created, DYK participants will need to merge the two noms or otherwise "denature" one of them so that this script doesn't go into a near-infinite hook-checking process.... --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can change the nomination section-finding code so it doesn't get confused as easily. It's also going crazy on the Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games nom because of the ampersand in the title. Shubinator (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Austrått DYK

YOU WROTE (about [Austrått DYK nomination]): "Article length, dates, and hook length verified as OK. However, I can't figure out which reference is supposed to support the hook fact. Can an inline citation be placed in the article, next to the hook fact? --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

NOMINATOR'S RESPONSE: Yes, this is a bit of a lengthy article at 30,991 characters, and it is hard to find the specific fact. It is in the 5th paragraph of the subsection titled: Rømer/Bjelke families

I normally follow the convention that when there is an end-of-paragraph reference, it supports the full paragraph, unless something embedded in the paragraph is particularly controversial. In this case, as requested, an inline citation is now placed in the article, next to the hook fact – the citation is Gjerset’s “History of the Norwegian People”.

When I went back to modify the article, I found that some of the links had been identified as dead – for a front-page linked DYK this is not acceptable – so they have been repaired as well.

I strongly appreciated your reviewing this DYK. I'm learning new wiki-things by trying new areas in Wikipedia - this excursion into DYK taught me how to use the citeweb template as well as a great deal about the DYK process - so I appreciate your tolerance for a bit of initial DYK confusion. Next time I'll (hopefully) get it right. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 04:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed! Makes sense that due to the high visibility of DYK hooks, articles are expected to have citations close to the hook fact. Appreciate that it takes a bit of work to make all these things happen. Looking forward to my first self-nominated DYK making it up on the front page. Thanks! Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis articles in need of attention

Hello Orlady! Nice to hear from you again. Yes, I have noticed the back and forth at Belle Meade, Memphis which is on my watchlist and I have noticed the removal of material at Harbor Town, Memphis and Cooper-Young, Memphis. I have also noticed comments pointed at you at User talk:MagdaOakewoman, which is linked from the history of the Belle Meade article. To be honest, if those comments were adddressed at me I would find them rather offensive, but I am a sensitive person. So, the issue did not at all escape my attention, I am just not sure how to contribute to the benefit of the articles. Unfortunately, I have no sources at hand that can be used as references for the facts disputed. As far as I remember, I only added a little structure to the articles (with too many headers, as usual) and refined the boundaries, where appropriate, without taking much of the text into account and without checking the validity or credibility of the article.

I am not sure here, as there are two sides to every story. The more exaggerated a claim sounds, the more proof it needs to establish the fact, so a statement claiming that it is one of the top neighborhoods in town, certified by the Forbes Magazin would need more proof (or references) than the list of restaurants in the district. Hey, this is my humble opinion. If you have an idea how I could be helpul in this issue I would be happy to support you. You have contributed many important additions to Wikipedia and I appreciate and respect your opinion, even if it is not the same as mine all the time. Greetings to you, doxTxob \ ^talk 05:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could only provide personal observations to the topic, no sources. Please keep in mind that the material was not added by me, I only tried to organize it a little. What would be the way to go in your opinion? doxTxob \ ^talk 05:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Two Sides of the Story barnstar

The Half Barnstar There are two sides to every story ...

The Half Barnstar ... always. doxTxob \ ^talk

Orlady, let me award you this barnstar to show my appreciation of your controversial opinions. I have combined the two halves to the Two Sides of the Story-Barnstar just for you. Please do not understand this as an insult, it is meant as a compliment and in appreciation of your efforts. Different opinions is what brings Wikipedia (and the rest of the world) forward if the controversy can be resolved in a civilized manner. The two halves combine to an entity and that is what is important. Left and right, up and down, north and south, east and west — what would one be without the other? Thank you, doxTxob \ ^talk 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you like the combined barnstar, award it to other editors but keep both halves in the two separate boxes and do not change the text, please. That is important as this barnstar serves as a symbol for different opinions that might combine, if we are lucky. But it also symbolizes that we are all in our own box of some sort but need to find a way to get along next to each other, somehow. And the statement in the two halves is correct: There are two sides to every story ... always.

There are so many unique points of view on Wikipedia, people from all over the world meet here to improve the quality of this exceptional base of knowledge that we contribute to. Look at the Wikiglobe logo up there, all the different pieces fit together perfectly, there are just a few missing, it looks like. That might be true to a certain level for the cultures that are covered in the encyclopedic content but communication among editors is often not as seamless as the puzzle pieces might make you think. The difference in cultural backgrounds of editors as well as differences in the education might lead to occasional misunderstandings, not to forget the different levels of familiarity with Wikipedia policies and regulations, and they all have their own reasons why they spend time on Wikipedia. What a great educational tool Wikipedia could be if it taught us not only the knowledge but also how people of completely different backgrounds could get along better. Assume good faith ... always.

Yes, I love the small unincorporated community, the smaller the better, articles. Some of these places are undiscovered treasures. There is so much to tell if you find material that goes far enough back in time. Unfortunately that is not often the case. I pick places nearby, where I can go and have a look, make photos and I like to write about it. That is part of the fun for me. Wikipedia should be a fun experience for readers and for editors ... always.

Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 06:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wear Valley

It looks like the Census and Google Maps both call it "Wear Valley" rather than "Wears Valley", of course I know for a fact the US Census Bureau is known to make mistakes. If you can dig up a good source for "Wears Valley" I'll be happy to move it. Kaldari (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps does, however, show a Wears Valley Road. Maybe the valley is named "Wears Valley" and the town is named "Wear Valley". I've heard of stranger things. Kaldari (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wears Valley - thanks

Just saying thanks for your efforts to defend the Wears Valley article from the misnaming confusion. The move attempts occurred when I wasn't online. Bms4880 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Rural Cemetery Act

On February 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rural Cemetery Act, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work with University of Atlanta

Thanks for doing more cleanup and a little expansion of University of Atlanta. I mostly whacked it back to a stub, being overgrown with promotional fluff, a product of its history as a probable COI creation. In my opinion, accreditation by a reputable accreditation association, as is Distance Education and Learning Council, is prima facie evidence of notability, it represents a rigorous independent review. (According to the DETC, only one out of four applications is approved, and applications probably aren't frivolous, my guess is that they are expensive.) As to EADL, it's worth a stub, in my opinion. Because EADL is independent from UofA, and seems reputable, the membership in EADL is a verifiable fact, and it means something, i.e., it means that UofA has agreed to the Code of Conduct and hasn't been whacked for violations, at least not yet. That's why I left it in. I was less impressed by the Advisory Board, which may be fine people, but not particularly notable on quick review. --Abd (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jvolkblum

 Clerk note: Where an SPI case is open, and more information about further socking comes to light, it greatly assists with clerking if the additional information can be added to the open case. Adding a new report creates a lot of extra work to merge the cases. Thanks very much. Mayalld (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]