User talk:Orlady/Archive 12

Southern States University

Thanks for your help on this article. While I agre that it still needs a lot of work, not sure about "Wikification" tag. Could you be more specific? Okay to reply on article discussion page. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Some context

The main reason that I'm trying to narrow the focus on the list of buildings article is in the hope that narrowing scope might improve our chances of finding an adequate definition for inclusion. Once there is something there in terms of a definition there may be some scope to push the edges of it around. Given that defining Freemasonry is a hideously complex topic if we leave the scope of the list so amorphous I doubt our ability to actually find an adequate definition.

To put my position in context.

Freemasonry, as in something that can define all freemasons, is a system of three degrees; Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft anf Master Mason. There are subtleties, some Grand Lodges will say that one is a Freemason with only the EA degree some say that one is not until the MM has been conferred. My own GL is in the former camp. That's essentially it. Individual Masons may choose to join other organisations, but they are separate and distinct, position and authority in one does not transfer to the other.

The on big area of difference within that is whether one is expected to believe in a Supreme Being or not, we've taken the position that the Atheist GLs can be considered as Freemasonry for the purposes of Wikipedia. The semantics of achieving that are challenging, but it's achievable.

My comment about Washington was pretty tongue in cheek. I'm aware that there would be a lot of resistance to geographically constraining the article, and in practice it wouldn't solve the problems anyway.

Essentially each of the appendant bodies is a choice that is open to the individual Mason, but they don't make him, or her, a better or worse Mason as a result of their choices. I'm a member of several, but at the end of the day what characterises me as a Mason is being a Master Mason. That's the philosophical basis; For a Master Mason, all the rest is just fluff.

ALR (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I noted your misunderstanding around what constitutes Freemasonry in the ongoing discussions. The feminine and androgynous orders that practice the three degrees of Freemasonry are masonic inasmuch as they practice Freemasonry. Personally I question how atheist Freemasonry can claim to be Freemsonry, but it's recognised as such. It's a bit like saying one can be RCC without any belief in God. You've been pointed at LDH but a number of other alternatives exist, I have a number of friends who are active in Feminine, but don't know anyone involved in androgynous Freemasonry. There are atheist forms of masculine and androgynous Freemsonry but I'm not aware of any atheist feminine forms of the craft.

Each of the Androgynous and Feminine bodies also have appendant bodies, like Royal Arch, ancient and Accepted Rite and the like.

There are a small number of androgynous bodies that aren't present in purely masculine or purely feminine forms, but to all intents and purposes they're appendant bodies anyway, rather than Freemasonry.

I appreciate that it's very complex and can be challenging to follow, and it's not helped by the industry around writing crap about Freemasonry that affects all three forms.

ALR (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm

The usual? Wknight94 ^talk 21:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying for a neutral addition

Dear Orlady, I have tried to add a small neutral sentence after seeing your last comment. Will you pls see if its ok? I hope you will not misunderstand my intent. Shoovrow (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

doncram reported again...

if you have diffs of import, please share here. MSJapan (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Another sock of the New Rochelle guy?

Take a look here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I've blocked a few of them recently. Maybe his kids are back in school so he has too much free time. Wknight94 ^talk 16:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's time for another visit to WP:SPI to get some checkuser results. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had much luck there lately. People don't want to do sleeper checks. Wknight94 ^talk 16:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your cynicism, but I figured it's worth a try, so I submitted a report. --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good. Maybe they just got tired of me and you'll have better luck. Let's hope. Wknight94 ^talk 17:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you got a positive response after all. The remaining account led me to make a bunch of edits this morning. Category:People from New Rochelle, New York is chock full of nonsense. I ran out of time but will look for more tonight. Wknight94 ^talk 18:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Journal Record Building

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

• I've thanked a lot of people generally now that I'm (drum roll) an administrator, but I particularly wanted to thank you for words of support. One of the nicest compliments that I received was that "At various times I've judged him to be an inclusionist, and at other times he seemed to be a deletionist, but that shows that he's neither, which is a good thing." I try me best to be an "ionist". Mandsford 00:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mandsford. I was telling the truth when I said those things, as I had misjudged you in different ways at different times (and some time ago had made a mental note of that fact). I hope you enjoy wielding the mop. :-) --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of unaccredited institutions at WP:COI/N

If you haven't already seen it, you may be interested in the discussion at WP:COI/N#User: Finitude2222 and unaccredited institutions, and the articles edited by that user. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Masonic Temple (Lahore)

You edited out my comment that the article is about two buildings, with the comment that the first building was "merely a footnote". The problem with that is that this first building was the one described by Kipling. If the first building is merely a foot note, then Kipling's comments about it should be a foot note as well. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This short article covers the masonic temple building (the one that still stands) and the lodge that built it. About the only thing we know about the lodge's first building is the year it was built. My reading of the sources indicates that it was probably not at the same location as the current building, so the lead sentence absolutely should not say both buildings were at the same location. It's entirely reasonable for one article to deal with both a building and the organization that built and owned that building. The fact that (1) the current title of the article is the name of the building and (2) the lodge had another building earlier does not make it necessary to pretend that the earlier building (about which almost nothing is known) is one of the two main subjects of the article. --Orlady (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I just found the level 1 vandalism warning from Ucucha and your subsequent reversions to what I had written. I edit slowly and constantly, I do not make lots of changes all at once in an effort to retain what I read as the original goals of the articles author and perhaps that was a flag to some robot. Oh well, everybody believes they rule the world and will impose their will if possible. Again, thank you for intervening and fixing the situation.

BAlvarius (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Little Red Schoolhouse

Nice find on that "50 Favorite Places" book. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. After finding that book and adding some info to the article, I was ready to abandon the half-finished job. However, your nice compliment induced me to finish using info from that source (and a couple of other source) to expand the article. Now I've nominated it at DYK. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. :-) When I created the Morris article, I had no idea what the "Little Red Schoolhouse" was. Now I do. Gotta love Wikipedia.... Here, have an Eastern Barnstar. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

John Grieve (police officer)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of John Grieve (police officer), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/depts/dass/staff/johngrieve.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the issue in the article. --Orlady (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Legal consideration

Dear Orlady, I want make a separate paragraph on legal consideration or legal status of Bircham international university, following the article style of Diploma Mill or Diploma mills in the US. I seek your kind co-operation in it. Shoovrow (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

New user on the site--still figuring out the ropes. Will try to use your advice while preserving neutrality. GinnieDC (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Old Main, Knox College

I just did some research on this, and can't see what the Masonic connection is. You added it here: what was the rationale? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The building and the sources were discussed on the article talk page about 2-1/2 weeks ago. The talk-page section has already been archived. I'll add the sources to the article. --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Eureka Masonic College

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Featured List Criteria section 3b

Hello. There is currently an RfC in progress at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#RfC - 3.b review in progress regarding Criteria 3b of the featured list criteria and whether it should be modified or eliminated. As you participated in a previous discussion regarding Criteria 3b when it was first introduced, this discussion may be of interest to you. –Grondemar 16:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rigel0 talk redirect

Well caught! Thanks for that -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

New Article

Dear Orlady, will you pls pen through the following new article, grossly for the quality equivalent to wiki, that I have made! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_Death_Anxiety Shoovrow (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Another new article

JoAnne H. Favors was created tonight, and AFDed within 30 minutes! It's not really my type of article, so I thought I'd see if you could help out, if you're available. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I just found the pre-existing article, and I not you've also suggested merge. Thanks. QUite a sloppy job by the AFD nom, especially since the article was only 25 minutes old when they nommed it. An AFD is supposed to be the last step, not the first! SHeesh! :) - BilCat (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Bing (search engine)

Thanks for your thanks! It was useful on another level as I was able to prod the last article, a vanity piece from some guy at Microsoft. Bigger digger (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice serendipity! That's worthy of a barnstar, so I gave you one. --Orlady (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible harassment

Hi Orlady,

I recently nominated this article [1] for deletion. I have seen you have had dealings with the editor calamitybrook before. Despite my polite answers she seems to be determined to disrupt the discussion with her left-handed accusations directed at me. Any advice would be helpful, but I suppose the trouble will all go away eventually on its own. Wlmg (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A humble notion

Dear Orlady, I have added the new section of legal consideration in BIU article. Pls do not misunderstand my intent. No matter what I know or believe about BIU, I tried to respect the neutrality of the article as well as the reliable information I have had with me regarding those issues. Thanking you - Shoovrow (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mam, both of us are editing here and pls discuss first and then make change. It hurts one about his/her intellectual capacity.Shoovrow (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing new. Your change to Bircham International University was the same change (with only small variations) that you have made -- or proposed on talk pages -- numerous times over the past months. Several other contributors, including me, have reverted these changes. At Talk:Bircham International University we have repeatedly explained why this material does not belong in the article. --Orlady (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your long explanation in the talk page explains how involved you are with the impression of the institution, rather than the article or wikipedia itself. Consumer protection in case of education as legal issue is nothing very odd or unusual or new. But you are worried about the impression of the institute that the article creates! The para is named as If there are facts, facts like those that FTC utters, why are you so conservative to utter it in wiki. Can we have one discussion in search for consensus, as I believe I never worked with the shadow of diploma mill or FTC, both of which are importantly discussed everywhere? This is a newer thought for me and I can't rely on your rationality here!Shoovrow (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I provided a long explanation this time because you have not been satisfied with shorter responses in the past. You are trying to find great significance in the fact that this school's website displays an image of a Spanish-language letter from a consumer affairs agency promising mediation of grievances filed by dissatisfied customers. This has no significant value -- and the information does not belong in the encyclopedia article about this school. --Orlady (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you are right this time! Just see what others say about it, why don't you!Shoovrow (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Thompson

Hi I hope you are well. I just started an article on Barbara Thompson (Wisconsin politician). Thompson was Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction 1973-1981; her obituary just came up in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Blue Books are very useful in that I got Barbara Thompson's date of birth, education from the Wisconsin 1975 Blue Book, pg. 6. Many thanks-for yourmyself you have been very encouraging and it is appreciated.RFD (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

more Masonic stuff

Could you possibly watchlist Canton Viaduct and consider participating in discussion there? It's an article where i long ago tried to be helpful in accommodating a newish, specialized contributor, User:Canton Viaduct, and which now has become a focus of User:Blueboar. I tried to moderate B's participation there but have failed completely now (other discussion at User talk:Blueboar and at a current ANI discussion linked from the article's Talk page), and i prefer not to participate much further. If you could intervene, if/when it seems helpful, i'd appreciate it. I do sincerely appreciate your constructive involvement at Talk:List of Masonic buildings which, knock on wood, has largely settled that down. No reply really needed. Thanks for considering, either way. --doncram (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Windsor Mountain School

Hello! Your submission of Windsor Mountain School at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Appalachia

can you please fix this last thing. Talk:Appalachia_(region) i did a speady delte but i don't think i used the right tag cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 20:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Shubinator (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, Orlady, thanks so much for helping out with that little kerfluffle that was about to get out of hand. I'm usually not a fan of banishment but your block of Troodon58 was spot on. The guy really does seem to have a lot of knowledge about--and interest in--dinosaurs. I do hope he will learn to play well with others.

Thanks again! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, Orlady. Thanks for your vigilance and quick action. Bms4880 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Benson

Ok, changed hook at Nicholas Benson DYK entry Please take a look when you have a moment. dm (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, added 3rd generation to lede. Thanks for your perseverance dm (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Windsor Mountain School

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR

I am sure you are aware of the rule, but you have technically violated WP:3RR on Regional accreditation. Since you were primarily adding sources and refining things, I won't report it. But let's keep it civil. I think we are working toward the same goal. That and the other articles seeing a spurt of activity were move, merged, etc., about a month ago, so please be careful to ascertain consensus before making any other big departures. Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it. --Orlady (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

#1, #2, #3, #4. Novaseminary (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a mighty broad interpretation of the word "revert." Let's see: (1) I restored the article that you converted to a redirect last week, (2) I restored some content that you deleted immediately after I restored the article, (3) I overwrote your addition of some cleanup tags (and explained myself in the edit summary) because I had already tried twice to add those same wikilinks and had run into edit conflicts and had to start over, and (4) I restored an EL that you had deleted. Most of that looks to me like two people editing on top of each other. --Orlady (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Broad or not, it it is the actual definition of revert per WP:3RR ("any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part") and why I will only be adding new stuff never before added (or possibly reverting myself) on that article for the time being. Novaseminary (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that #3 would be considered a revert on the 3RR board. Bill Huffman (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Frustration with edit conflicts as the reason is sufficient to not count a revert as a revert? Had Orlady reinserted the tags I added, I would probably agree. Regardless, these subsequent two edits would seem to qualify, though. All I am suggesting is that Orlady leave the article for a while, or just add new (sourced) material. That's what I plan to do. Novaseminary (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have a chance to reinsert those tags, because you did so 3 minutes later. --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Educational vs. Education in Educational accreditation

Since by "educational accreditation" we really mean the accreditation of education rather than accreditation for educational purposes, wouldn't "Education accreditation" be what we mean? Education is not being used as an adjective (like "stringent accreditation"), but as part of the noun. That is, "education" is standing in for "school" or "college", not "scolastic" or "collegiate". this would be akin to "education reform" instead of "educational reform". Novaseminary (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was named Educational accreditation for several years without anyone objecting. Given that background (and the large number of backlinks to the article), a proposed new name should be discussed first -- and the default assumption at Wikipedia would be to leave it unchanged unless there is a consensus to change it. As for the right adjective, authorities on "accreditation" in the field of education seldom indicate what sort of thing they are accrediting, but when the US Department of Education does put a qualifier in front of "accreditation," they call it "educational accreditation" (or something like "institutional accreditation" or "specialized accreditation"). It's clear that "higher education accreditation" has no "al" in it, but that's a different term altogether. --Orlady (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves

You made a very fair point with this comment. In light of your comment, and thinking it through, it seems that most moves should go through WP:RM, other than maybe moves to correct short-lived spelling errors or the like. (Redirects worry me less because they are so easy to revert if consensus changes or a redirect was against consensus.) What do you think about proposing a narrowing of the guidance at WP:RM along those lines? Do you think would likely be met with resistance? I would think the only downside would be crowding WP:RM, but people can just skim and ignore those not of interest to them as they probably do now for a majority of listings anyway. If a move really is not controversial, at worst a couple of quick supports can establish it, or folks ignore it altogether, but a greater level of implied consensus could be assumed. One could even allow the proposer to close if there is no dissent after X number of days so as to not burden anyone else. Novaseminary (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Higher education accreditation

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Higher education accreditation, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Educational accreditation. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Educational accreditation

Did you think there was consensus for the moves you have made to the accreditation articles? Nobody had even responded after I proposed leaving the history as it was at ANI. I think this was a significant mistake. Novaseminary (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Another administrator provided advice there regarding how they would handle the situation. I tried to follow that advice (although I didn't do it quite right). The fact that no one responded after your comments is not material to finding an appropriate solution. --Orlady (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no problem. The admin who advised only had the slightly mistaken information you provided. Novaseminary (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The timing of your page move from Educational accreditation to Higher education accreditation was not the problem. The changes had the effect of being a cut-and-paste move, regardless of whether 7 minutes or 15 hours or 7 days or 7 weeks had elapsed. The goal is to repair the page histories, which might be important in the future for purposes such as resolving questions of copyright. --Orlady (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I wrote far more than a correction of the timing you miscited. The histories are now substantially more confusing. I had pointed back to the approprite source articles in the ESs. But I suspect any further "fixes" would only add another layer of confusion. Novaseminary (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning for Educational accreditation

Of course, as an admin you are awate of the rule (and since I already noted you violated it in the last 24 hours), but you have now reverted 3 times at Educational accreditation. Please do not break WP:3RR. 02:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novaseminary (talk • contribs)

Please self-revert your violation of 3RR. You can use the inuse template if you are making lengthy edits. Novaseminary (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I waited more than 30mins, but I don't think a self-revert is coming. So, I reported you at 3RR. For what it is worth, I think it might be best to let your merge proposal play out before making more substantial edits to any of the related articles. Novaseminary (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

From Novaseminary's comment at User talk:Srich32977#Educational accreditation articles, I gather that this beef is primarily about the fact that I endeavored to clean up the aftereffects of a WP:cut-and-paste move. I'm not going to apologize for that! --Orlady (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

My beef was that you reverted 5 times on Educational accreditation. I do think your "cleanup" was a mistake in theory and bigger mistake in practice. But you vioalte 3RR. Period. I apologize for getting in your way. But please don't act unilaterally when you know your actions are contested. Novaseminary (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal to merge Pre-tertiary education accreditation

Are you planning to start a discussion and point your proposed merger banners to it, or shall I? Novaseminary (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You posted that remark a mere 6 minutes after I put the mergeto template on the article. It took me 18 minutes to finish writing up my 5-paragraph statement (during which time I also confronted another message from you on this page). My sincere apologies for not being able to type as fast as you apparently can. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Normally I type the proposal first, then add the banners, but no big deal. That is why I asked and waited. I have repsonded with my opposition on the talk page. Novaseminary (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Attack!

I would hope that we could disagree, even stridently, within the policies and guidelines of WP and without the vituperation. You have been reverting with flippant ESs and no talk discussion, even when I have asked for just that. Who knows, we might even agree if you (briefly) lay out why you have done what you've done rather than treating me and others as less valid editors. We both know there are ways to bring in other ed's opinions on things, rather than edit war, or threaten to, why not do that? I do apoogize for causing you angst. I haven't done it for the sake of causing you angst. Anyway, this is Wikipedia, not really worth losing any sleep over. Novaseminary (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you view my edit summaries as "flippant." Note that there is a character limit on edit summaries and many of my summaries reach that limit, so I can't possibly say much more than I do. I happen to think that edit summaries are a very important means of communication in Wikipedia, as they provide a history that is easily retrievable and is linked to the specific edit. I think you agree, as you also use edit summaries. You accused me of being "flippant" and offering "no talk discussion," I will repeat here the text of the comment I spent a long time writing to you an hour before your comment above. You dismiss it as mere "vituperation," but I wonder if you read it:

If you were an unregistered user, I would interpret your removal of sourced content from the lead section of this article as vandalism. Indeed, it has all the attributes of vandalism. In this edit, which you repeated twice in less than half an hour's time, you removed 4-1/2 sentences and 3 WP:RS references -- a net reduction of ~1300 bytes of content (which would have been more, except that two of the deleted references were preserved in a later section of the article). You left the lead section with just 3 sentences and one source. Moreover, you replaced some of the material you removed with a "citation needed" template. That is decidedly not how we go about improving the encyclopedia.

Providing an informative lead section for a list is not content forking. Note that WP:Content forking states: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." List articles should include relevant contextual information sufficient to make them "work" as stand-alone articles -- particularly when the subject matter can be controversial or is highly nuanced, both of which situations apply to this article. Indeed, introducing a potentially controversial list with a couple of sentences that say little more than "this is a list" sometimes can be a form of WP:Tendentious editing, which I'm sure is not your intent.

Looking over the history of my interactions with you (notably, when you split List of Independent Fundamental Baptist educational institutions off from Independent Baptist, deleted most of the associated article text and removed all of the redlinks from the list), it strikes me that you have some misconceptions about what makes a good list in Wikipedia. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. It calls for "an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." (It does not say that the lead should be as short as possible and should be devoid of meaningful information that possibly could be included in some other linked article.) Pick a few Wikipedia:Featured lists at random and look at the leads -- I think you will find that they are all thorough, informative, and thoroughly sourced -- I daresay that some of them are longer than some of the entire articles that you have been anxious to split up. (While I'm citing WP pages, I also suggest that you take a look at WP:Splitting. Note that it does not suggest that it is acceptable to split off the entire content of the parent article and leave a minimal stub behind -- rather, it talks about WP:General overview articles that link to more detailed articles about subtopics.

You have commented elsewhere about your goal of creating featured articles. If you truly are interested in creating featured content, please peruse the pages I have referred to -- not to mention other WP policies, guidelines, and essays. And please refrain from deleting sourced content for the sole reason that it makes the article longer. As you are probably aware, Wikipedia's WP:Featured content does not have a category for featured stubs -- and turning articles into stubs is not a noble goal at Wikipedia (unless you are removing WP:copyvios, banned editors' contributions, or similarly unwelcome content).

As near as I can determine, your only objection to those edits of mine -- the ones that you deleted twice -- is that they interfered with your objective of keeping the article lead as short and content-free as possible. As I've explained above, that objective is not consistent with the objective of building a quality encyclopedia. Accordingly, I intend to restore the content that you deleted.

I have to tell you that I think it likely that you will soon be reporting me for edit warring (again), and I submit to you that if you do so, I will interpret your behavior as WP:Gaming the system, but I have no idea what your motivation might be for doing that. --Orlady (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

--Orlady (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:VAN, "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism" and "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". Of course, I don't think my edits were harmful, but even assuming you do (though, you even left some of the edits I made in the series of edits you now claim is vandalism which stood for two days before you came along), it wouldn't qualify as vandalism. Though accusing somebody of amking edits with "all the attributes of vandalism" when you merely have a content dispute comes pretty close to a personal attack, I would say. Novaseminary (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your deleting a large chunk of newly added sourced content, and then re-deleting the same content less than 30 minutes later, looked remarkably like vandalism. When you explained that you had deleted the content because you considered it vital to limit the text section of a list article to a dead-minimum length, I concluded that your reason for deletion was misguided. --Orlady (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But I explained it at the time. That is my point. You reverted first, looked for discussion to join later. Novaseminary (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As a quick follow-up, I would note that you wrote this lengthy response after the third time you reverted. That seems to me as if you were treating my edits as not worthy of explaining why you were rejecting them. Novaseminary (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The first edit that you count as a revert was the one where I was trying to clear up a bunch of big red marks on the article indicating errors related to orphaned references. My edit summary explained what I was doing (apologetically, I thought). Your complex edit, in which you deleted 3,000 bytes of content from several parts of the article, appeared to be the cause of the orphaned refs, but I couldn't see which piece or pieces of the edit was responsible, so I reverted the whole thing in order to be able to see the problem clearly enough to be able to fix it. It turned out that your edit was only responsible for one of the orphaned refs; the others were due to some vandalism that had occurred a few days before your edit. After I saw the text that had been restored, I didn't see that there had been any need to delete it, so I didn't restore it and I noted that in the edit summary. I didn't review the links that you had also deleted from at the end of the article until later, but I fully support their deletion.

The next two "reverts" were to restore the content that you had deleted twice in short succession. The last edit that you count as a "revert" was to move a "see also" link from a hatnote to the "See also" section -- I thought that was purely housekeeping. --Orlady (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You put revert in scare quotes. Does that mean you disagree they were reverts per WP:3RR? It appears you are trying to justify why you broke the rule again, rather than explain why you didn't. Novaseminary (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR at List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations

You might be unaware, but you have now reverted four times at within 24 hours at List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations (1, 2, 3, 4). And none of them are because of edit conflicts or any other unofficial or official reason it is acceptable to break 3RR. Just FYI. Novaseminary (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

When was it that I said the following? "I have to tell you that I think it likely that you will soon be reporting me for edit warring (again), and I submit to you that if you do so, I will interpret your behavior as WP:Gaming the system, but I have no idea what your motivation might be for doing that." --Orlady (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

So you were aware of what you were doing, threatened to break the rule, and then did so. Is that a fair statement? If you what you mean by "game the system" is that I made edits I felt were appropriate, I fastidiously avoided violating easy-to-understand, clear-cut rules like 3RR myself, and expected other eds to do so as well, then I am guilty. I would call it playing by the rules, though. How is it in bad faith to hope and expect that other eds would comply with one of the clearest of rules? You are the one who in an article talk post hinted that you are shooting first (and twice) and discussing later (so to speak) because of an interaction we had months ago on a totally unrelated article. Novaseminary (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Orlady, this dispute has landed on my plate again, in the form of a complaint from Novaseminary. Back at the edit warring noticeboard, I tried taking a reasonable path by asking both of you to seek consensus instead of edit warring. You both are edit warring. If you look through my history at the noticeboard, you will see that I am usually the last proponent of blocking someone, unless they are refusing to engage in discourse and just blindly reverting. I don't see that as being the case with either of you. You both are giving reasons for reverting, but that doesn't make it any less of a problem. I ask that you both voluntarily adopt 1RR on any pages related to accreditation, follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and follow the dispute resolution process if you can't work it out. Please. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok by me. Novaseminary (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. This is not a long-standing disagreement, but rather resembles a series of ricocheting collisions on the highway. I just hope that I will not be seeing any more major content-removals, renames, article splits, or similar major changes to long-existing article content without prior discussion that leads to real consensus. --Orlady (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gay Street (Knoxville)‎

-- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Featured List Criteria section 3b

Hello. You are receiving this message as you previously posted in the ongoing RfC on whether Featured List Criteria section 3b should be modified or eliminated. Based on feedback and commentary received during the section-by-section analysis of the current criteria, I have proposed a new version of the criteria here. I would like your input on ways to improve and refine this proposal, in hopes of reaching consensus to implement this change to the criteria. Thank you for your attention. –Grondemar 17:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

AN3 - thank you

Thank you for taking the time to investigate a malformed AN3 report. It is nice when things run smoothly and with minimal bureaucracy. Also - good block, keep it up. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Denver neighborhood populations

I've reverted most all of the recent statistical changes as erroneous; a brief look at the sources suggests many of the articles have been vandalized before, and still require correcting. That particular account appears to have a long term problem getting the data right. Thanks, JNW (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

question

Hi, i wonder if you would join in drafting an RFC/U regarding editor Blueboar, per a suggestion and statement of willingness by B, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram/Blueboar. I obviously know you have differences with me, but think that we might both mostly agree regarding B's behaviors and be able to compose some thoughtful, concrete and useful feedback to B, for consideration by the community. This would not preclude you from taking a different, supplemental stance regarding my own interactions with Blueboar, which would also naturally be discussed. Let me know if you would. Thanks for considering. --doncram (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for WKCS

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...

Thank you for providing the starting point in the mediation by touching on subjects on both sides in such an eloquent manner (without the lack of excessive verbosity that generally exemplifies many of my posts). Much appreciated. Best, -Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BPP University College of Professional Studies

Are you able to do the nom? Because I've got a busy week ahead of me. It would be very much appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of BPP University College of Professional Studies

Hello, your nomination of BPP University College of Professional Studies at DYK was reviewed and comments provided. --NortyNort (Holla) 10:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Joe C. Carr

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for BPP University College of Professional Studies

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Big thanks for getting the article ready and doing the nom, your DYK at least as much as mine. I wouldn't have known how to do the nom myself. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Polly Rosenbaum

Nice job. :-) Are you submitting it for WP:DYK? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I intend to, but there's a lot more to add to the article still... --Orlady (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's submitted now. I wrote a total of 4 possible hooks, and several more are possible. --Orlady (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree a nice job with the article. I added a notable people section to the Ollie, Iowa article and listed Polly Rosenbaum in it. I have a love/hate relationship wi the bots and wanted to prevent them from putting an orphan tag on it hence the section. There was 2-3 times I would start an article a stub on a Roman Catholic bishop and some bot comes along saying it is a copyright violation when inn actually it was not. Very frustrating. Also I started an aricle about Alexander Botkin-he served in the Wisconsin Legislature. I hope you are doing well-Many thanks-RFD (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I have strong reason to believe I have a conflict of interest in editing the Sociotherapy article. If you can please take a look at it. It appears all edits after[2] 9/8/2010 were done by an ip and a single purpose account in order to promote a single organization and non-notable individuals and their works.Wlmg (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Reviewed policy not my COI--Wlmg (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to know you don't truly have a COI there. I spent some time working in the article. I hope I made it better. I have limited knowledge of the subject. --Orlady (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes you fixed it. Imho It's another semi-pseudoscientific "field" descended from Gestalt that would never stand up under any form evidence based practices. Btw did you check the last post on The Stockbridge School talk page. I found another barn, the one on campus that burned, and still another barn being constructed by Maeder as a replacement.--Wlmg (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To some extent "sociotherapy" might be a fancy new name for a pretty mundane profession. When I googled sociotherapy and sociotherapist, I did find some job listings that appeared to involve nothing fancier than running recreational programs for the elderly.

As for the barn, I expect that one fine day, a WP:RS source will turn up documenting the barn and the fire. Until then... --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much Orlady

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for being so vigilant with fixing the unsubstantiated Denver related neighborhood changes. Doing a great job and just wanted to say it's appreciated! Vertigo700 (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Victor Jackovich

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Marion images

I uploaded the two images of the houses in the Marion section of Southington, CT USA

File:Southington 1134 Marion.jpg

File:Southington 1167 Marion.jpg

I don't see immediate ways to use them in the Marion article cleanly, but if you have thoughts?--SPhilbrickT 17:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Erm... I agree with your judgment. Two nice photos, but of nondescript houses. I guess I can imagine creating a montage of photos from the community, but I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for all of your good work! --Orlady (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we're in agreement. I'll let them sit a bit; if they get tagged for removal for being orphans, no biggie. But that's for thinkthanks for thinking of the other article, I sometimes get so focused on my narrow task, I forget to think about other possibilities. Next time I'm in the area, I'll see if I can get a good general shot or community are or nice view or something representative.--SPhilbrickT 21:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram 2

In case you wish to comment. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I watchlisted it a little while ago, as a reminder to comment... --Orlady (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions?

Thank you for your input on the Wediko page. I am still new to Wikipedia, so I am grateful for any input I can get. Do you have any specific instructions on how I can help this article be more neutral? I'm not sure what I should change. Swgradstudent (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Swgradstudent

Thank you for the suggestions you gave me for making the Wediko page more neutral. I'm trying to change the tone of the article and delete some sections that are blatantly of self interest for this organization. I would appreciate your contintued reviewing of the page so that it can progressively get better. Also I have some questions: Who is able to remove the maintanence tags? (Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to do it, but it would be nice if they could be removed as soon as the article no longer falls under that category.) While the maintanence tags are on the article does that draw more editors to the page to review and edit the article?(That would be a benefit to keeping them up for longer.)Thanks again. Swgradstudent (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice work at

Levi B. Frost House thanks.--SPhilbrickT 12:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination withdrawn

I have withdrawn the DYK nomination for the Venues of the 1960 Winter Olympics article. Chris (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Venues of the 1956 Summer Olympics DYK, I have checked the sourcing for both the Olympic reports and neither make mention of cricket events. The sourcing for the MCG has the history listing for the cricket events, but not for any regarding either the 1956 or 2000 Summer Olympics. I think it would be best to leave the cricket part out of the hook. This has been noted in the DYK reply. Chris (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Tabor (Black Panther)‎

Thanks for taking the time to look through the Michael Tabor (Black Panther)‎ and clean up after me. I swear I read the article at least a dozen times and I never spotted the errors you caught. Thanks for all your work as an admin and for all of your efforts on behalf of DYK. Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Arizona Mining and Mineral Museum

-- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Somewhat confused by your comment; I tried to drop the issue several days ago, and everything got going today because they told me I hadn't properly replied. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to try; perhaps my absence from Wikipedia for the day (due to making a trip out of state) will help. Nyttend (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

It might seem odd to thank someone for an edit summary, but thanks for this one. I happened to notice that as I like to follow the progress of hooks I review through the queues to see what others do with them. Seeing how other editors deal with the hooks during the process (trim them, change the wording or formatting, etc.) often gives me good ideas for how to approach future nominations, and your changes and comments have given me a few "ah ha! I should have thought of that" moments. Anyway, thanks and keep up the good work! --28bytes (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Polly Rosenbaum

-- Cirt (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK hook...

I saw that you added the Mount Lemmon Marathon queue to the prep area. Is there any chance you could swap its hook from the DYK queue 2 to a later one? That queue is scheduled to go on from 11pm to 5am local. It'd be nice if the yokels could see it on the main page, which is unlikely given its current slot. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) -Atmoz (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Capital punishment in Mississippi

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend

With respect to this edit it would appear that you added an extra ~ of when you signed and so didn't sign properly (just the date/time). Given that it's an RfC/U it would probably look better if you went and signed it properly rather than someone else adding an unsigned tag to it. Dpmuk (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK Prep 3

Hi Orlady. I was looking at the preps, and I thought the Glee hook sounded a little awkward, but didn't want to change it without running it by you. Do you think this...

• ... that an upcoming Glee soundtrack album will feature a censored version of Cee Lo Green's "Fuck You!" performed by actress Gwyneth Paltrow?
  would be better? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that alt hook; I think you made the right call in picking the one you did. The new version is much better; thanks for taking a look. 28bytes (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Harwich

Northwest Harwich does not exist. Thats why i continue to change it. Even Go To The Town Of Harwich's website and find no village or zipcode under Northwest Harwich. West Harwich is its own CDP, village and zipcode. North Harwich is its own village but it falls under Harwich Center zipcode and CDP along with Pleasant Lake. Im sorry but i think your wrong. --Editermaster12345 (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You may think that West Harwich is a census designated place, but the U.S. Census does not. We have to rely on sources, and the U.S. Census is as reliable as it gets when the topic is the Census. --Orlady (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Look i agreed with you for a while now but since you acuused me of "Sock Puppeting" I am definally going back to the subject. What about the US postal service they arent counted? What about Town documents they arent reliable? Just think to yourself, "How could that be possible"?--Editermaster12345 (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Advice requested

Curious to hear your opinion on a situation. Some days ago, Person A uploaded two images, identical except that one was a scaled-down version of the other. Person B discovered this situation and tagged the larger one for F1 speedy deletion. I discovered this while going through CAT:CSD; since I understand F1 to say that only smaller or identical-size images may be deleted under this criterion, I deleted the smaller one and declined the speedy on the larger one. Today, I found that Fastily had made a substantial objection to my action. Do you think that I was wrong to perform this action? Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Oak Ridge gatehouses

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lindbergh Forest

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

WAL 539

Thanks for spotting my slip there! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Holston Formation

Is this the same thing as "Tennessee marble," or is Tennessee marble part of this formation? I was writing an article for Tennessee marble, but I'm wondering if I just expand the Holston Formation article instead. Bms4880 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Crissal Thrasher

Hi Orlady, thanks for finishing off what I started on Crissal Thrasher and making it a lot more readable into the bargain; it's an interesting bird that deserved its place on the main page I think. I know that it's not ideal to have the reviewers sorting out all the article's problems, but I find that with some nominations I reach the stage where I'm determined to get it through the process. Not sure what happened to Joe Chill, he was very active around DYK for a while. Mikenorton (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Jengki style

How does on use a text in a way that is accurate but not paraphrasing? I'd be interested to see how you'd approach it - perhaps you could copy edit the text to remove a copyright violation without either (a) deleting the information or (b) writing something that's inaccurate or made up. --Merbabu (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

SummerSlam

Concerning this edit, which is now at T:DYK/Q5, I removed the space from "SummerSlam" after a WP:ERRORS complaint, because the space doesn't appear in their logo here or in their webpage here. Art LaPella (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Italics

You gave me the idea of starting Cambridge Modern History when I found it wasn't there, but I have realized I don't know how to put a new article title into italics; if you do, could you please let me know? Thanks, Moonraker2 (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just add {{Italic title}} (include the brackets) to the top of the page. Further instructions are at Template:Italic title, covering how to use partial italics in the titles. - BilCat (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK sourcing/citation question

Hi Orlady. Would you be able to look at the First Battle of Yeonpyeong DYK nomination and comment on the sourcing/citation question? Someone approved the hook but I took a look at the article and noticed that 6 of the 8 paragraphs were uncited, so I un-approved it. A third set of eyes would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		I see this is rather overdue, as you are well past 25, but congratulations are in order on all your DYKs, ranging from Cornish jack to Stroke Belt, where so many labors are undertaken. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Southern College of Optometry

Good Morning-How are you doing? If you have the time would you please look at the Southern College of Optometry, in Memphis, Tennessee. I was working on an article about a Kansas legislator James Morrison (Kansas politician) who just died and Morrison graduated from the school. The article about the school may need to be edited. Also my congratulations on your DYK article about the Oak Ridge gatehouses. Very interesting! Thank you as always-RFD (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Colorado

The return of Gnative; when you have the time perhaps take a look to see if the most recent additions are credible edits and article creations [3]. Given the history I'm dubious, but not an expert. Very best, JNW (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool down!

Just one undo and so much reaction, it was not expected. May be some other has made the same choice as I did. May be there are many like minded. But that does not bring any conclusion, like puppet or else!! If u r on the correct path from the core of your heart, just carry on. And another thing, capacity to threat is necessary but it must be within good control, should not be used under the influence of temperament. That I said not as a personal comment, but as a universal rule.Shoovrow (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You want me to think it's just a coincidence when there are 4 identical unconstructive edits in less than 32 hours -- including one made by you and one made by an IP that you later acknowledged was you, all supported by similar arguments in edit summaries and on the talk page? Sorry, but the most logical explanation for this is that, once again, you (or the operator of Bircham International University) are orchestrating an effort to remove negative information from the article. Wikipedia and I are running out of patience. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that u have due logic in your view. But your interpretation about me just is not correct. I cant comment on others. Best of luck!Shoovrow (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Request from Konaallan

Dear Orlady,

Thanks for your patient edits, I have much yet to learn.

The first being, when I respond to your comments on my Talk page, do I edit your comments on My Talk page or on yours? or does it matter? (I have now done both. I hope not improperly.

I now understand about bare URL's and will attempt to revise those I've added to be proper web citations.

Regarding neutrality: I think I can see from your perspective and have rewritten what I had been quoting about the Univ. of the Nations from a recent State of Hawaii Governors Proclamation. I have reduced the text even more and would ask if you think it is now acceptably neutral:

(can a clause addressing motive or WHY be included? such as:

The University of the Nations was founded in 1978 to train students from all the world to go to every nation by serving every sphere of society with the love of God, and providing practical aid to help a hurting world.

(I was also confused when, apparently you accepted their updated stats on number of campuses and number of countries, but then re-inserted their former number (50) of languages that courses were offered in. I had submitted the clause:

Under the umbrella organization of Youth With A Mission (YWAM), the University of the Nations is a global university with 600 campuses in 142 countries offering courses in more than 100 languages.

I had also submitted the following clause from the above mentioned state document, which was eliminated in the edit. I see student enrollment mentioned in a number of other university articles and am unclear how this is non-neutral.

"Its first branch, the Kailua-Kona campus, has 2,000 students enrolled per year and approximately 500 full-time staff and faculty."

While I had nothing to do with creating the content of the document, I heard it read at a public meeting Nov. 29th by our State Representative and took a readable, but not especially good, photo of the document. While the actual document will be posted on the Hawaii State.gov site at some point, they appear to be currently running about 4 months behind in posting documents online. Is it appropriate in the mean time to add this photographed document as a Wiki-file (with proper citations) and then use it as a source?

Best regards,

Konaallan (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)] Konaallan

Email

Please check your emails. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Prod notification

Please don't forget to notify original editor when you PROD. I just got my head taken off because I sent the notice shortly before deleting.--SPhilbrickT 01:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

US orchestras

If they're all notable enough for their own articles, I'd suggest starting the articles instead of edit warring over the list, nicht wahr? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a "list of American orchestras with entries in the Wikipedia." So please create the articles first. Dlabtot (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did create one of those articles, but it seems that I've gotten you orchestra folks so upset that you felt it necessary to delete the bluelink along with the redlinks and reference citations. I guess it's best for me to stay away from that list. FWIW, below is the comment I posted on SarekOfVulcan's user page. --Orlady (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I regret that I have offended with my edits to List of symphony orchestras in the United States. After addressing some self-interested editing at Music of Colorado, I looked into the related articles, and was alarmed to discover that Music of Tennessee didn't so much as mention the existence of classical music. I looked around to see what articles existed on the subject that could be used as resources (discovering, among other things, that the topic of classical music is absent from Category:Music of Tennessee) and found List of symphony orchestras in the United States, which listed a grand total of two orchestras in the state. Since that seemed to be the most comprehensive article on classical music in Tennessee, it looked to me like adding to that list would be a good quick way to start to document the existence of orchestras in the state (much easier than figuring out how to weave them into an article whose lead sentence says "The story of Tennessee's contribution to American music is essentially the story of three cities: Nashville, Memphis, and Bristol").

When I see a warning that says "When editing this list bear in mind that the same notability criteria apply here as elsewhere in Wikipedia: entries with no independent sources listed either here or in other Wikipedia articles may not be notable, and are likely to be removed", I interpret that to mean "cite independent sources," not DON"T LIST ANYTHING HERE UNTIL THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN CREATED. Accordingly, after having to leave my computer after adding several unsourced orchestras, I wasn't surprised to see that my unsourced additions were removed, so I calmly restored them, with my reference citations. I had no idea that my attempt to expand this topic would be so upsetting to others. I have no particular interest in the subject, but it looks to me like refusal to allow redlinks on lists (coupled with the youthfulness of most Wikipedia contributors) is stunting its growth. --Orlady (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Joseph507357

I find that very stupid. It said in history I only did the one from six weeks ago. I'll be careful. So why did you delete Tree City USA? How would you know when you're from Tennessee? Joseph507357 (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. --Orlady (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Memphis Symphony Orchestra

Materialscientist (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

Hello orlady, I just noticed your presence here at Wikipedia where I joined as an editor in October. Your name is familiar to me from the ODP. My editor name there lacks the first three letters of the name I use here. I am enjoying creating articles and expanding stubs, mostly about species of animals, and am finding it more fulfilling than editing with the ODP.

So, season's greetings and a happy new year! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Oak Ridge Symphony Orchestra

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Office of Science

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Civilian casualty ratio

Hello Orlady. I notice you're the admin who promoted this article for DYK on 13 December. At present there is an open thread at WP:AE#Jalapenos do exist claiming a violation of WP:ARBPIA due to Jalapenos behavior on this article. (He is said to have made POV edits to the article after its DYK was on the main page). I am not asking you to involve yourself in that thread, but I wonder if you see any general problems at DYK due to submission of controversial artices, in particular those related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Do you recall any concerns you may have had yourself about this specific article? I assume that the judgment of what to promote is mostly in the hands of the reviewers. At present I'm not convinced that Jalapenos misbehaved to the point of needing the attention of AE, but I'm still doing a bit of investigating. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

How to deep link into US Census FactFinder2

See my comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Census_Bureau#New_FactFinder_Might_Break_Links_In_Wikipedia.3F • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Mansfield Training Center

Thanks for your developing this article. After my own first edit or two i myself wondered if Mansfield Training School and Hospital was properly described as a psychiatric hospital or not (as was indicated in the pre-existing article), and am glad u pursued development far enough to correct that. As well as simply to greatly improve the article. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying to stop revert wars

Hi! Doncram's put up an idea here [[4]], please weigh in if you have an opinion on the matter. I'd really like to see this handed by talking instead of lots of messy reverts like we've seen in the past. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for potential article deletion?

Orlady, I'm thinking that perhaps the Preston_University,_Pakistan article should be deleted? Here's the reason I have this thought. It seems to primarily be a duplicate of the Preston University article. It seems to be nothing more than an advertisement for the Pakistani branch of Preston University. It is not well sourced. If you agree with the general assessment then perhaps you could give me some suggestions as to the likely best way to go about this? Looking at the wp:Deletion guideline article it seems that there are many different choices for the different processes and I don't know which one should be used? I appreciate any help opinion or suggestions that you might have. Zugman (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another iffy school; you're the go-to gal on these, IMHO

American Heritage University Of Southern California? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"Move Closer to Your World" Music Package in Knoxville

Unfortunately, many of the news jingle companies that produced early news themes are no longer in business, although some of them are (Score Productions, 615 Music, for example). Mayoham Music, the originator of the "Move Closer to Your World" theme, and also the popular "Part of Your Life" theme is one of those no longer in business. Southern Media, in my opinion, is the only source of news theme information in the broadcast industry today, having heard many of the themes it credits to stations myself, on the stations themselves. (most of its content is submitted by ex-employees of the stations themselves that have supplied the older news packages to Southern Media). After checking Wikipedia's Identifying Reliable Sources, it is my opinion that Southern Media fits the criteria to be considered a credible source; however I cannot make that decision for Wikipedia.

But, as you say, since there is no verifiable source for TV stations' former theme music packages, I suggest deleting all of the ones that are listed in TV station articles, except for the music packages that are currently airing.

I can do this, although it will take a while. There are hundreds of TV station entries on Wikipedia that list past theme music. Current theme music would be exempt, as all one has to do is click on stations' websites to hear the current theme.

At the risk of sounding like I am promoting the station or the article I wrote on WATE-TV (which I am not), I worked at WATE-TV from 1976 to 1984 as a news reporter-anchor, and know for a fact that WATE had the "Move Closer to Your World" package and that WBIR-TV did not. I have WATE-TV's 1978 6 PM news open on videotape that mentions the station's news team under the "Move Closer to Your World" 6 o'clock main music theme, but I would never ask anybody to believe what they hear.70.145.65.11 (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. You are saying that SouthernMedia is a reliable source regarding stations' past theme music, but you are saying that there are no reliable sources for information on stations' past theme music... --Orlady (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, too much Christmas egg nog LOL! What I meant to say was (as far as I know), Southern Media is the only reliable source of past TV station newscast theme music around, because of how it is submitted. It is submitted to the website by past or present employees (past or present station promotions personnel, past or present newsroom employees, past or present TV station production people, etc... people who were very close to the newscasts on the air and have access to old videotapes of news opens. In itself, that makes Southern Media extremely reliable for past newscast theme packages.

An example of this is the TV newscast open for WGR-TV, Buffalo, and WMAL-TV, Washington.. their two separate variations of Mayoham's "Part of Your Life" news theme package are listed with Southern Media.. But if you listen to the "Part of Your Life" TV newscast theme for WSM-TV, Nashville; WTVC, Chattanooga; or WBTV, Charlotte, those three are all the same, but still different from WGR and WMAL.

PRESENT TV newscast theme packages are available from the companies themselves, the stations themselves, or simply taping them off the air.

Other than Southern Media, to my knowledge, there are no other sources that collect PAST TV newscast theme music packages because the music companies no longer exist, and many TV stations no longer have those music packages on hand (I have fortunate enough to have all of the ones from the stations that I worked for, and their competitors in the same town), plus a few others from cities I have visited).Csneed (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Milky Way Farm

Hello! Your submission of Milky Way Farm at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 97198 (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Milky Way Farm

Dravecky (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Knoxville

Orlady, we have a problem with the List of tallest buildings in Knoxville. The article creator used Emporis as a source, and while it's a valid source, there are clearly some omissions (I can safely say 517 West Jackson is NOT #10, and probably not in the top 20). As far as I know, there is no accurate source for the tallest buildings in the city (except the top 3), but I would like to somehow save the list. Some possibilities are to move it to "List of high-rises in Knoxville" and eliminate the ascending order, or list them strictly by number of stories (rather than feet/meters), and add a sidenote for the Sunsphere. Any suggestions? Bms4880 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Snarkiness

Your snarkiness[5] is duly noted and not appreciated. See WP:CIVIL. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)